United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.D., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Wappingers Falls, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0868 

Issued: August 10, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 9, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 24, 2014 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 established an injury in the performance of duty on 

November 4, 2014, as alleged. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant submitted new evidence after the issuance of OWCP’s November 4, 2014 decision. However, the 

Board may not consider this evidence as it may only review the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its 

final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 4, 2014 appellant, then a 23-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that on that date he suffered a strain to his back while bending into a 

hamper to place a mail tray. He stated that, while pulling down flats and loading them into the 

hamper, he felt a mild sensation in his lower back. Appellant explained that as the day 

continued, the pain began to spread and increase. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a November 12, 2014 attending physician’s 

report wherein Dr. Warren H. Landesberg, a chiropractor, diagnosed appellant with lumbar 

dysfunction/lumbar strain and combined subluxation L3-4 and L4-5. Dr. Landesberg checked a 

box that the condition was caused by appellant’s employment activity. 

By letter dated November 14, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that the documentation 

was insufficient to support his claim, and noted that he must submit further evidence, including a 

physician’s opinion as to how his injury resulted in the diagnosed condition. It informed 

appellant that his chiropractor was not considered a physician under FECA as there was no 

diagnosis of a subluxation as demonstrated by x-rays to exist. 

In response, appellant submitted unsigned notes with no attribution as to the author. 

Appellant also submitted a second report from Dr. Landesberg dated November 12, 2014, 

diagnosing a vertical subluxation and finding that appellant’s employment activity of repetitive 

lifting was the obvious cause of the low back condition. In a November 15, 2014 letter, he again 

found that it was his best opinion that appellant was injured on November 4, 2014 while lifting 

trays at work, but was able to return to work with no limitations on November 13, 2014. 

Appellant returned to full-time regular-duty work on November 13, 2014. 

By decision dated December 24, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that fact 

of injury had not been established. It explained that the medical evidence was insufficient to 

establish an employment-related medical condition as his chiropractor was not considered a 

physician under FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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 

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 

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

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

 In order to meet his or her 

burden of proof to establish the fact that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, 

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

employment injury or exposure at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.5

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

generally can be established only by medical evidence.6 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.7

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that the November 4, 2014 employment incident occurred as alleged. It 

denied appellant’s claim as it found that he had failed to establish that any medical condition 

resulted from the accepted employment incident. The Board finds that appellant has not met his 

burden of proof. 

Appellant submitted reports from his attending chiropractor, Dr. Landesberg, discussing 

his treatment of appellant for an employment-related back injury. The Board finds that 

Dr. Landesberg does not qualify as a physician under FECA. Section 8101(2) of FECA8

provides that the term physician includes 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 regulations by the Secretary.9

 

Although Dr. Landesberg provided a diagnosis of subluxation, there is no x-ray evidence of 

subluxation. Without a diagnosis of spinal subluxation from an x-ray, a chiropractor is not a 

physician under FECA and his opinion does not constitute competent medical evidence.10 As 

such, Dr. Landesberg’s reports are insufficient to establish a work-related diagnosis from a 

qualified physician under FECA. 

 4 See Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 Linda S. Jackson, 49 ECAB 486 (1998). 

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

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

8

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2). 

9 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.311. 

10 See Jay K. Tomokiyo, 51 ECAB 361, 367-68 (2000). 
4

The unsigned typed progress notes are also of no probative value as there is no indication 

of who prepared these notes. The Board has held that incomplete medical reports not containing 

a signature do not constitute probative medical evidence.11

As appellant failed to submit a rationalized medical opinion supporting that his injuries 

were causally related to the accepted November 4, 2014 employment incident, he did not meet 

his burden of proof to establish an employment-related traumatic injury. 

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 did not establish an injury in the performance of duty on 

November 4, 2014, as alleged. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated December 24, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: August 10, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 11 See R.M., 59 ECAB 690, 693 (2008); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 571, 575 (1988).