United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.T., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION 

SERVICE, Gooding, ID, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-895 

Issued: November 4, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 11, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the December 30, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying his traumatic 

injury claim and the February 20, 2014 decision denying reconsideration of the merits. 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. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on November 6, 2013, as alleged; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

On appeal, appellant submitted additional medical evidence and contended that this 

evidence was sufficient to establish his claim.2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 8, 2013 appellant, then a 60-year-old district conservationist, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on November 6, 2013 he was in an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) 

accident, which ejected him from the vehicle. He sustained a dislocated sprain in his left wrist. 

By letter dated November 15, 2013, OWCP noted that the documentation submitted was 

insufficient to support appellant’s claim. It asked him to submit further evidence, including a 

detailed statement as to how the incident occurred. OWCP also requested a physician’s opinion 

providing a diagnosis, the clinical course of treatment followed and a medical explanation of 

how the work incident caused or aggravated the diagnosed medical condition. 

In response to OWCP’s request, appellant submitted a statement detailing the 

circumstances of the ATV accident. He also submitted a copy of a November 6, 2013 

emergency room report from North Canyon Medical Center signed by a physician’s assistant. A 

radiology report of the left wrist, dated November 6, 2013, listed the attending medical person as 

a physician’s assistant. The x-ray revealed no fracture or dislocation of the wrist but noted 

severe joint space narrowing with marked osteophytosis of the first carpometacarpal (CMC) 

joint. 

By decision dated December 30, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

medical evidence of record was not sufficient to establish a left wrist injury due to the 

November 6, 2013 incident. 

On January 13, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a copy of an 

x-ray report of his left wrist dated November 6, 2013 that was electronically signed by 

Dr. Jeffrey Pugsley, a Board-certified radiologist, who interpreted the x-ray as showing no 

fracture or dislocation, but did note severe joint space narrowing with marked osteophytosis at 

the first CMC joint. 

By decision dated February 20, 2014, OWCP denied reconsideration. It found that the 

evidence was not sufficient to warrant further review of the decision. OWCP noted that the 

evidence submitted consisted of the same radiology report previously considered. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing 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 FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period of FECA, 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 

 2

 Appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1), the Board may not consider 

new evidence for the first time on appeal. 
3

related to the employment injury. 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.3

 

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been 

established. Generally, fact of injury consists of two components, which must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident or exposure, which is alleged to have occurred.4 

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

generally can be established only by medical evidence.5 The medical evidence required to 

establish causal relationship is usually rationalized medical evidence. Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the 

issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and 

the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 factors identified by the claimant.6 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

Appellant established that he was in an employment-related ATV accident on 

November 6, 2013. OWCP denied his claim, however, as he did not submit sufficient medical 

evidence to establish that he sustained a left wrist injury causally related to the accepted ATV 

accident. 

At the time that appellant’s claim was initially denied on December 30, 2013, he did not 

submit adequate rationalized medical evidence to establish that he sustained a left wrist injury 

causally related to the accident. He submitted a report from a physician’s assistant detailing his 

visit to the emergency room on November 6, 2013 as well as an unsigned radiology report of the 

same date. The Board has held that certain health care providers, such as a physician’s assistant, 

nurse practitioner, physical therapist or social worker are not defined as physicians under 

FECA.7

 Consequently, their reports are of no probative medical value for purposes of 

establishing a claim under FECA.8 The unsigned radiology report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim. A report that is unsigned or bears an illegible signature lacks proper 

 3 Jussara L. Arcanjo, 55 ECAB 281, 283 (2004). 

4 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803(2)(a) (June 1995). 

5 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Horace Langhorne, 29 ECAB 820 (1978). 

6 Judith A. Peot, 46 ECAB 1036 (1995); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276 (1994). 

7

 5 U.S.C. § 10.115(3)(f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 

8 K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006). A report from a 

physician’s assistant or certified nurse practitioner will be considered medical evidence if countersigned by a 

qualified physician. See supra note 4 at Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013). 
4

identification and cannot be considered probative medical evidence.9 Accordingly, appellant 

failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that he sustained a left wrist injury 

causally related to the accepted employment incident. He did not meet his burden of proof. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,10

OWCP’s regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must: 

(1) show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a 

relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and 

pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.11 To be entitled to a merit review 

of an OWCP decision denying or terminating a benefit, a claimant also must file his or her 

application for review within one year of the date of that decision.12 When a claimant fails to 

meet one of the above standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.13 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

On reconsideration, appellant resubmitted the November 6, 2013 x-ray report of his wrist 

that was electronically signed by Dr. Jeffrey Pugsley, a Board-certified radiologist. OWCP 

denied reconsideration as it found that this was the same radiology report previously submitted to 

the record. For this reason, it properly denied reconsideration as the x-ray was duplicative of the 

x-ray previously submitted and considered. OWCP is well established that evidence that repeats 

or duplicates evidence previously of record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a 

basis for reopening a case.14

The Board finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). Appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP or submit 

pertinent new and relevant evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, 

OWCP properly denied merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on November 6, 2013, as alleged. The Board 

 9 Thomas L. Agee, 56 ECAB 465 (2005); Richard F. Williams, 55 ECAB 343 (2004). 

10 See supra note 1. Under section 8128 of FECA, “[t]he Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against 

payment of compensation at any time on [her] own motion or on application.” 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

12 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

13 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

14 See J.P., 58 ECAB 289 (2007); D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 642 (2006). 
5

further finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated February 20, 2014 and December 30, 2013 are affirmed. 

Issued: November 4, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board