United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Columbia, SC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0891

Issued: September 30, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Wayne Johnson, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 30, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 1, 2021 merit decision

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

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over

the merits of this case.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a neck or lower 

back condition causally related to the accepted October 3, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 7, 2019 appellant, then a 44-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 3, 2019 she injured her head, neck, collarbones, left 

shoulder, back, and right toe when she fell while in the performance of duty. She explained that 

she tripped over a bumper guard attached to the loading dock while unloading her mail truck at 

the loading dock, striking her head on a pole and landing on the concrete with her left knee and 

back, causing right collar ligament damage, lower extremity pain, and blurred vision. Appellant

stopped work on that date.

A visit summary from October 3, 2019 noted that Dr. Glen Beckner, a Board-certified 

emergency medicine physician, treated appellant in the emergency room. Appellant reported that 

she had tripped over a parking block, fell, and hit her head, resulting in head pain, blurred vision, 

and pain in her neck, back, ankle, and left knee. Dr. Beckner diagnosed multiple contusions. 

On October 5, 2019 Dr. Christopher Olson, a Board-certified emergency medicine 

physician, examined appellant during a follow up in the emergency room. He noted that she 

reported falling several days prior and presented with complaints of neck pain, headache, back 

pain, and leftleg pain. Dr. Olson diagnosed a head injury and musculoskeletal pain and prescribed 

medication. In a note of even date, he held appellant off work until October 10, 2019 and noted 

that she would need to be evaluated by workers’ compensation. 

In an October 10, 2019 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. David Garrell, a 

Board-certified internist, provided work restrictions until appellant was seen by neurology. In a 

letter and neurology referral of even date, he provided an assessment of postconcussional 

syndrome and held her off of work until October 12, 2019.

On October 19, 2019 appellant accepted a modified-duty work assignment as a modified 

rural carrier. 

In an October 31, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

claim and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received an October 29, 2019 challenge statement from T.A., an employing 

establishment postmaster, controverting appellant’s claim. T.A. asserted that following a report 

of the employment incident she personally checked on appellant, who advised that appellant was 

doing “ok, just a little bruised” with some pain. She noted that she observed no scratches or 

knitting on appellant’s pant legs or scrapes or scratches on her elbows or shoulder. T.A. concluded 

that she did not believe that appellant fell and hit her head in the way she described. In an email 

statement of even date, M.C., an employing establishment employee, noted that he observed 

appellant sitting on the tire rise of a truck as he was exiting T.A.’s office. He asked if she was ok 
3

and she advised that she had fallen when she walked out of the back of the truck and tripped on 

the rubber backing. M.C. noted that appellant repeatedly declined medical treatment, presented 

with no visible injury, and that there were no witnesses to the alleged fall. He concluded that the

alleged fall was not plausible given the layout of the dock. 

By decision dated December 3, 2019, OWCP accepted that the October 3, 2019

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis from a 

qualified physician in connection with the accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP 

found that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. December 6, 2019 consultation notes from

Dr. John A. Nicholson, a Board-certified physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, indicated 

that appellant presented with complaints of ongoing headaches, neck pain, and low back pain as a 

result of tripping over a bumper and falling on her left side while unloading her work truck. 

Appellant explained that she previously experienced back pain, but following the employment 

incident her pain worsened. On physical examination, she was found to have tenderness and 

guarding in the cervical and lumbar spine and decreased sensation in the extremities. 

Dr. Nicholson diagnosed cervical and lumbar radiculopathy and further noted a medical history 

significant for Chiari malformation type I.

On December 31, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held telephonically on 

April 17, 2020.

By decision dated July 27, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative modified the 

December 3, 2019 decision to find that appellant had established a diagnosed medical condition;

however, the claim remained denied as the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the accepted October 3, 2019 

employment incident. 

On July 27, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

additional evidence, including a progress note dated December 6, 2019 from Dr. Nicholson, 

wherein he related appellant’s ongoing complaints of headaches and neck and back pain, as well 

as his diagnoses of cervical and lumbar radiculopathy and Chiari malformation type I. 

OWCP also received an October 11, 2019 witness statement from appellant’s coworker, 

Q.B., indicating that, on the day of the employment incident, he heard the sound of a fall, went

back to investigate, and observed appellant laying in the back of her postal vehicle. When Q.B. 

asked her what had happened,she related that she tripped and fell. 

By decision dated December 1, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the July 27, 2020 

decision. 
4

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 

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. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether he or 

she actually experienced the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. 

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be 

established only by medical evidence.7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident 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 claimant.9

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship therefore involves aggravation, acceleration or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.10

3

Id.

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

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); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 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 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April9, 2020);LeslieC. Moore, 52 ECAB 132(2000).

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013);

K.G., Docket No. 18-1598 (issued January 7, 2020); M.S.,Docket No. 19-0913 (issued November 25, 2019).
5

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a neck or lower 

back condition causally related to the accepted October 3, 2019 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted consultation and progress notes from

Dr. Nicholson dated December 6, 2019. Dr. Nicholson noted that she presented with complaints 

of neck and back pain radiating into her upper and lower left extremities as a result of falling on 

her left side after tripping over a loading dock bumper while unloading her truck. He diagnosed 

cervical and lumbar radiculopathy and noted a prior medical history of Chiari malformation type I 

and preexisting back pain. However, Dr. Nicholson did not provide an opinion on causal 

relationship. The Board has held that a medical report that does not offer an opinion on causal 

relationship is of no probative value and, thus, is insufficient to establish the claim.11 Thus,

Dr. Nicholson’s December 6, 2019 notes are insufficient to establish her claim. 

Appellant also submitted Dr. Beckner’s October 3, 2019 visit summary diagnosing a fall 

and multiple contusions and Dr. Olson’s October 5, 2019 visit summary diagnosing a head injury 

and musculoskeletal pain. Additionally, she submitted an October 10, 2019 Form OWCP-5c, 

neurology referral, and letter in which Dr. Garrell assessed postconcussional syndrome and 

recommended work restrictions. However, none of this evidence provides an opinion on causal 

relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence which does not offer an opinion regarding 

the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 

As such, these reports are also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.12

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that her neck 

and lower back conditions are causally related to the accepted October 3, 2019 employment 

incident, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a neck or lower 

back condition causally related to the accepted October 3, 2019 employment incident.

11 See D.Y., Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 Id.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 1, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 30, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board