United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bradenton, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-643 

Issued: June 12, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 29, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from the December 15, 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 to review the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

an injury in the performance of duty on October 29, 2014. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its 

final decision. The Board has no jurisdiction to review any medical evidence submitted to the case record for the first 

time after OWCP’s December 15, 2014 decision or on appeal to the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On November 4, 2014 appellant, a 38-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

alleging that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty on October 29, 2014 when a car 

rear-ended her mail truck. An emergency room discharge record indicated that appellant had a 

neck injury. It offered information on cervical sprain. Dr. Joseph J. Koshes, Jr., a chiropractor, 

saw her on October 30, 2014 and recommended that she be excused from all work duties to 

avoid aggravating her condition. 

In a decision dated December 15, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s injury claim. It 

accepted that the October 29, 2014 motor vehicle accident occurred as alleged and that a medical 

condition was diagnosed. However, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the evidence was not 

sufficient to establish that the medical condition was causally related to the accepted work 

incident. In particular, the medical documentation did not contain a history of the work injury, 

and without this, causal relationship could not be established. 

Appellant explains on appeal that her supervisor told her that all the information was sent 

in to OWCP, but now she finds that it was not. She is trying to get it fixed. Appellant submits a 

number of medical documents on appeal. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of duty.3 An employee seeking benefits under FECA 

has the burden of proof to establish the essential elements of his or her claim. When an 

employee claims that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, he or she must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she experienced a specific event, incident, or 

exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. He or she must also establish 

that such event, incident, or exposure caused an injury.4

Causal relationship is a medical issue,5 and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant,6

 must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty,7 and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor 

of employment.8

 3 Id. at § 8102(a). 

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

5 Mary J. Briggs, 37 ECAB 578 (1986). 

6 William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979). 

7 See Morris Scanlon, 11 ECAB 384, 385 (1960). 

8 See William E. Enright, 31 ECAB 426, 430 (1980). 
3

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that the October 29, 2014 motor vehicle accident occurred as alleged. 

Appellant has therefore met her burden to establish that she experienced a specific event, 

incident, or exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. The question that 

remains is whether the October 29, 2014 motor vehicle accident caused an injury. Causal 

relationship must be established by a physician’s well-reasoned opinion.9

When OWCP issued its December 15, 2014 decision, there were two medical records in 

the case file. One was an emergency room discharge record indicating that appellant had a neck 

injury. It provided information on cervical strain. The other record was a disability note from 

Dr. Koshes, a chiropractor. Neither report acknowledged what happened on October 29, 2014, 

and neither offered a physician’s well-reasoned opinion on how the incident caused the 

diagnosed condition.10 Furthermore, Dr. Koshes’ report lacks probative value as he did not 

diagnose a subluxation from x-ray. Chiropractors are not considered “physicians” under FECA. 

Therefore, Dr. Koshes’ opinion on causal relationship does not constitute competent medical 

evidence. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden to establish the 

critical element of causal relationship. The Board will affirm OWCP’s December 15, 2014 

decision denying her injury claim. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument, however, 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 that she 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on October 29, 2014. 

 9

 The Board has held that a physician’s assistant is not a “physician” within the meaning of FECA and is therefore 

not competent to give a medical opinion. Guadalupe Julia Sandoval, 30 ECAB 1491 (1979); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) 

(defining “physician”). 

10 See generally Theresa K. McKenna, 30 ECAB 702 (1979). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 15, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 12, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board