United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, INTERNAL 

REVENUE SERVICE, Richmond, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-104 

Issued: March 24, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 21, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 18, 2013 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established that she sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty on May 22, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 50-year-old contact service representative, filed a Form CA-1 claim for 

benefits on June 3, 2013, alleging that she experienced pain in her right arm when an elevator 

door closed on her right shoulder on May 22, 2013. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

By letter dated June 13, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that she needed to submit 

additional factual and medical evidence in support of her claim. It stated that she had 30 days to 

submit the requested information. 

In a report dated July 11, 2013, Dr. Kenneth W. Gillanders, a chiropractor, stated that he 

had been treating appellant for a work related injury which occurred on May 22, 2013 when she 

was squeezed between the elevator doors in her building on her way to work. He advised that 

she was injured when the doors compressed the right shoulder and pinned the right sided midback to the door post. Dr. Gillanders stated that appellant had complaints of mid-back pain, front 

right-sided chest pain, neck pain and headaches. He stated that on examination her injury was 

consistent with a right rotator cuff sprain/strain, hyperflexion/extension to the cervical spine and 

aggravation to an old intervertebral disc herniation to the lower cervical spine. Dr. Gillanders 

advised that appellant had a history of lower back pain and that he had been treating her for neck 

and lower back pain for several years; he asserted that the lower back and neck became 

substantially more symptomatic since the May 22, 2013 work incident. 

Dr. Gillander asserted that the neck aggravation caused moderate to severe brachial 

neuritis radiating into appellant’s finger tips. He also noted constant pain and numbness to the 

lateral right shoulder, with myospasm to the trapezius, pectoralis major with limited range of 

motion on flexion, extension, abduction and internal rotation. Dr. Gillander related that he had 

placed appellant on weekly updates of temporary total disability since May 22, 2013 and 

prescribed home stretching and exercising; he also attempted having her sit at her home 

computer, mocking up a similar routine to the work environment to see if she could tolerate desk 

work. He stated, however, that the mock up home desk work continued to aggravate her neck, 

right shoulder and lower back. Dr. Gillander advised that although this type of injury usually 

took four to six weeks to resolve, it had been complicated by the flare up of the disc in her neck. 

He recommended that appellant undergo a magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scan if her injury 

was unresolved after 10-12 weeks of active treatment and indicated that he would explore the 

possibility of microdiscectomy surgery. Dr. Gillanders also submitted several disability leave 

slips from May and June 2013. 

By decision dated July 18, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she failed to 

submit medical evidence in support of her claim that she sustained an injury in the performance 

of duty on May 22, 2013. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2

 has the burden of establishing that the 

essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the 

United States” within the meaning of the Act, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of the Act, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as 

alleged, and that any disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 

causally related to the employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every 

 2

 5 U.S.C. §8101 et seq. 

 3 Joe Cameron, 42 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 
3

compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.4

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

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a “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, place and in the manner alleged.5

 Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.6

FECA however defines the term physician to include chiropractors only to the extent that 

their reimbursable services are limited to treatment consisting of manual manipulation of the 

spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist and subject to regulation by the 

Secretary.7 

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference that there is a causal relationship between the two.8

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation. 

Neither, the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that his condition was caused, precipitated or aggravated by his employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship.9 Causal relationship must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence and appellant failed to submit such evidence. 

ANALYSIS 

It is uncontested that appellant experienced pain in her right arm when an elevator closed 

on her right shoulder on May 22, 2013. The question of whether an employment incident caused 

a personal injury can only be established by probative medical evidence.10 Appellant has not 

submitted rationalized, probative medical evidence to establish that the May 22, 2013 employment 

incident caused a personal injury and that the work accident would have been competent to cause 

the claimed injury. 

Appellant submitted the July 11, 2013 report and disability slips from Dr. Gillanders, 

who noted continued complaints of mid-back pain, front right-sided chest pain, neck pain, right 

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

 5 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

6 Id. For a definition of the term “injury,” see 20 C.F.R. §10.5(ee). 

7

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (2). Jay K. Tomokiyo, 51 ECAB 361 (2000); see also Charley V.B. Harley, 2 ECAB 

208 (1949). 

8 See Joe T. Williams, 44 ECAB 518, 521 (1993). 

 9 Id.

+10 Carlone, supra note 5. 
4

shoulder pain, numbness radiating to the fingertips and headaches. He diagnosed right rotator 

cuff sprain/strain, hyperflexion/extension to the cervical spine and aggravation of an old 

intervertebral disc herniation to the lower cervical spine. Dr. Gillanders stated that appellant had 

a history of lower back pain and that her lower back and neck became substantially more 

symptomatic since the May 22, 2013 work incident. 

While Dr. Gillander’s report diagnosed a right rotator cuff strain and noted complaints of 

right shoulder, right arm, neck, mid-back, and low back pain and numbness, it does not constitute 

medical evidence pursuant to Section 8101(2) because he did not provide a diagnosis of 

subluxation based on X-ray results.11 Dr. Gillander is therefore not considered a physician under 

FECA. The Board thus finds that his July 11, 2013 report did not constitute medical evidence 

and therefore did not provide a probative, rationalized medical opinion regarding whether the 

May 22, 2013 work incident caused a personal injury. 

Appellant failed to provide a rationalized, probative medical opinion from a physician 

which addresses or explain how the May 22, 2013 work incident would have been competent to 

cause the claimed right arm, right shoulder, neck and middle back conditions. OWCP advised 

appellant of the evidence required to establish her claim; however, appellant failed to submit 

such evidence. Appellant did not provide a medical opinion which describes or explains the 

medical process through which the May 22, 2013 work accident would have caused the claimed 

injury. Accordingly, she did not establish that she sustained an injury in the performance of 

duty. OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for compensation. 

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 failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on May 22, 2013. 

 

 11 See 5 U.S.C § 8101(2). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 18, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: March 24, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees' Compensation Appeals Board