United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL

STATION NORFOLK SECURITY 

DEPARTMENT, Norfolk, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1073

Issued: January 23, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 10, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 6, 2023 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a pulmonary

condition causally related to the accepted November 15, 2021 employment exposure.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 On January 11, 2023 the Director of OWCP filed a motion to remand. In light of the Board’s disposition of this 

case, it concludes that the motion to remand filed by the Director of OWCP is moot.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 7, 2021 appellant, then a 57-year-old police officer, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 15, 2021 she was exposed to dust from demolition 

of a popcorn ceiling, while in the performance of duty. She noted that management ordered that 

the ceiling be torn down without notifying any of the employees working in the building. 

Appellant alleged that dust got in her lungs and caused her to have shortness of breath and rapid 

heartbeat. She also alleged that the dust got in her face and her clothes and caused runny eyes and 

nose, hoarseness, and irritation in her voice and throat. Appellant stopped work on 

November 15, 2021. The employing establishment confirmed that she was in the performance of 

duty at the time of the alleged incident.

In a development letter dated December 7, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. 

A November 15, 2021 clinical summary, indicated that appellant was seen by a physician 

assistant who noted that appellant had unspecified asthma with acute exacerbation. 

In November 17 and 18, 2021 notes, Dr. Helen Hsu, an emergency medicine specialist 

related that appellant was seen in the emergency room for shortness of breath. She diagnosed 

cough and shortness of breath. Dr. Hsu excused appellant from work on November 18 and 19, 

2021, and cleared appellant to return to work on November 20, 2021. 

In a November 18, 2021 after-visit summary, Dr. Arlene Palting, a family medicine 

specialist, advised that appellant was seen on November 18, 2021, for mild intermittent asthma. 

She related that appellant could return to work on December 14, 2021.

In a November 22, 2021 narrative statement, appellant explained that on November 15, 

2021 she was exposed to what she initially thought was a cloud of smoke and later determined it 

was white powdery dust from removal of a popcorn ceiling. She noted that her throat and eyes 

became irritated, her nose began to run, and her chest began to tighten. Appellant related that she 

immediately contacted her supervisor, Captain S.P., and informed him that she was exposed to 

dust and was having difficulty breathing, and also informed Major M., a police captain. She noted

that she went to urgent care, was placed on a breathing machine to administer a treatment for her 

lungs, was referred to a pulmonary specialist, and was placed off work for two days. 

OWCP received several reports including industrial hygiene bulk/swipe samples and 

November 17 and 19, 2021 asbestos reports which revealed that no asbestos was detected. 

Captain S.P., a supervisor, confirmed that on November 15, 2021 he was informed by 

appellant that she was exposed to dust from the tear down of a popcorn ceiling at the employing 

establishment.

In a December 9, 2021 report, Dr. Nadeem Inayet, Board-certified in critical care and 

pulmonary disease, noted appellant’s history of injury and that she was diagnosed with asthma. 

He diagnosed severe persistent asthma, and occupational exposure to dust. 
3

In a January 7, 2022 progress note, Dr. Inayet related appellant’s history of injury and 

diagnosed severe persistent asthma and occupational exposure to dust. He noted that a report from 

the employing establishment was positive for lead and advised that appellant was not to return to 

work in the area where she was exposed to dust, until that area was clear of debris and dust, but 

she was cleared to work in an area that did not contain dust. 

In an undated attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Inayet noted that appellant 

walked into a cloud of dust and he related appellant’s diagnosis occupational exposure to dust. He 

marked the box “Yes” in response to whether he believed her condition was caused or aggravated 

by an employment activity.

OWCP received several diagnostic test results which revealed the presence of lead. It also 

received a January 7, 2022 computerized tomography (CT) scan of the chest read by Dr. Andrea 

Misquitta, Board-certified in diagnostic radiology, which revealed no acute abnormality, and a

December 21, 2021 spirometry with bronchodilator test which revealed no obstructive airways 

disease. 

By decision dated January 10, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that she did 

not submit any medical evidence which contained a diagnosis in connection with the work injury 

or events. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA. 

On February 7, 2022 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

By decision dated April 8, 2022,OWCP’s hearing representative vacated the prior decision 

and remanded the case to OWCP, finding that the record contained an uncontroverted inference of 

causal relationship based on the report from Dr. Inayet and that OWCP was obligated to further 

develop the case record. The OWCP hearing representative determined that OWCP should prepare 

a detailed statement of accepted facts (SOAF) and refer appellant, the medical record, and the 

SOAF to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine to provide a specific diagnosis and advise 

whether or not the condition was due to the November 15, 2021 incident, either by direct cause,

precipitation, acceleration, or aggravation. If a preexisting condition was aggravated, the specialist 

should be asked to comment on the extent and duration of any disability and to provide medical 

rationale for all opinions rendered.

OWCP received air sample reports reflecting thatlead and silica were found in the samples 

collected.

Appellant’s August 25, 2022 pulmonary function test revealed spirometry was normal, no 

response to bronchodilators; flow volume loop and lung volume was normal, and diffusion 

capacity was normal. 

On September 1, 2022 OWCP referred appellant, along with the case record, the SOAF, 

and a series of questions to Dr. Naga S. Chigurupati, Board-certified in critical care and sleep 

medicine, for a second opinion examination.
4

In an August 25, 2022 report, Dr. Chigurupati noted appellant’s history of injury and 

treatment and opined that appellant could have developed reactive airway disease from the dust 

exposure. He related that he did not recommend continued use of inhalers after lack of 

improvement in the symptoms after three months. Dr. Chigurupati advised that her weight could 

be contributing to the shortness of breath and recommended cardiopulmonary testing. 

In an August 29, 2022 addendum, Dr. Chigurupati explained that he could not find any 

abnormality to explain appellant’s symptoms and opined that “objectively there is no evidence of 

any pulmonary abnormality.” He further opined that appellant was not capable of returning to her 

job as a police officer as she complained of shortness of breath on exertion and that work 

restrictions/limitations were medically warranted. Dr. Chigurupati explained that after the 

exposure to dust, it was likely that she developed reactive airway disease, but she should have felt 

symptomatic relief by the time of his examination. He recommended evaluation by a cardiologist 

to determine the cause of appellant’s continued shortness of breath. 

On November 21, 2022 OWCP referred appellant, along with the case record, the SOAF, 

and a series of questions to Dr. Jasdeep Dalawari, a Board-certified interventional cardiologist, for 

a second opinion examination.

In a December 5, 2022 Form CA-20, Dr. Inayet diagnosed asthma and chronic cough. He 

indicated by checking a box marked “Yes” that the conditions were caused or aggravated by 

employment activity.

In a December 5, 2022 report, Dr. Dalawari noted appellant’s history of injury and 

treatment and physical examination findings. He related diagnoses of dyspnea s/p occupational 

exposure to dust, reactive airways disease/asthma, and multiple allergies. Dr. Dalawari concluded 

that appellant’s occupational exposure to dust aggravated her underlying reactive airways disease 

and multiple allergies. He opined that appellant’s current disability was not a result of her dust 

exposure as this had resolved.

By decision dated June 6, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish causal relationship between a diagnosed 

condition and the accepted June 15, 2021 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that the individual is an employee of the United 

States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

3

Supra note 1.

4

See Y.S., Docket No. 22-1142 (issued May 11, 2023); F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., 

Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
5

employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. First, 

the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the 

employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused an injury.7

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the employee, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported 

by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the specific employment incident identified by the employee. 9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

The Board notes that appellant was referred to two second opinion physicians,

Dr. Chigurupati and Dr. Dalawari. In an August 25, 2022 report, Dr. Chigurupati opined that 

appellant could have developed reactive airway disease from the dust exposure at work. In an 

August 29, 2022 addendum, Dr. Chigurupati opined that after the exposure to dust, it was likely 

that appellant developed reactive airway disease. However, he explained that she should have felt 

symptomatic relief by the time of his examination and again recommended evaluation by a 

cardiologist to determine the cause of her continued shortness of breath. Dr. Chigurupati also 

noted that he could not find any abnormality to explain appellant’s symptoms.

The initial report from Dr. Chigurupati indicated that appellant could have developed 

reactive airway disease and his addendum indicated that it was likely that appellant developed 

reactive airway disease. As such, his reports were speculative and equivocal.10 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020);

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August 11, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020);A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020);

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

10 B.B., Docket No. 21-0284 (issued October 5, 2022); E.W., Docket No. 19-1393 (issued January 29, 2020);

Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).
6

The Board notes that OWCP followed the recommendation of Dr. Chigurupati that 

appellant be referred for another second opinion evaluation with a cardiologist. In a December 5, 

2022 report, Dr. Dalawari related diagnoses of dyspnea s/p occupational exposure to dust, reactive 

airways disease/asthma, and multiple allergies. He concluded that appellant’s continued shortness 

of breath was not the result of the accepted dust exposure. However, Dr. Dalawari did not provide 

medical rationale explaining his conclusion.

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is 

OWCP a disinterested arbiter. While the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement 

to compensation, OWCP shares the responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that 

justice is done.11 Once it undertakes development of the record, it must do a complete job in 

procuring medical evidence that will resolve the relevant issues in the case. 12

Because both Dr. Chigurupati and Dr. Dalawari were serving as OWCP second opinion

physicians and they both supported that her medical conditions were causally related to her 

accepted employment exposure to ceiling dust on November 15, 2021, the Board finds that the 

case must be remanded to OWCP.13 OWCP shall request supplemental reports from 

Drs. Chigurupati and Dalawari, which address, with medical rationale, whether appellant 

developed diagnosed conditions due to the accepted November 15, 2021 employment incident, 

and if so the duration of any disability. If Drs. Chigurupati and Dalawari are unavailable or 

unwilling to provide a supplemental opinion, OWCP shall refer appellant, together with a SOAF 

and a series of questions, to another second opinion physician in the appropriate field of medicine 

for a rationalized opinion as to whether the accepted employment exposure caused or aggravated 

a diagnosed medical condition. Following this and other such further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

11 See S.H., Docket No. 21-1380 (issued September 22, 2023); J.R., Docket No. 19-1321 (issued February 7, 2020);

S.S., Docket No. 18-0397 (issued January 15, 2019).

12 Id.; see also R.M., Docket No. 16-0147 (issued June 17, 2016).

13 See L.F., Docket No. 20-0459 (issued January 27, 2021); J.T., Docket No. 18-1300 (issued March 22, 2019).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 6, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 23, 2024

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board