United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, 

Sioux Falls, SD, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1678 

Issued: November 19, 2014 

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 HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 29, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of a June 30, 2014 Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision denying her traumatic injury claim. Pursuant 

to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the 

Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

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

a traumatic injury on March 19, 2014 in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 19, 2014 appellant, then a 47-year-old victim specialist, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that on that date she fell on black ice walking to work injuring her lower 

back, ribs and right side. Dr. Timothy P. Donelan, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

diagnosed thoracic muscle injury and low back pain on March 19, 2014. He prescribed physical 

therapy on March 19, 2014, which appellant attended. In a note dated March 27, 2014, 

Dr. Donelan indicated that she could return to work on March 31, 2014. Appellant sought 

medical treatment with a medical assistant, Kathleen A. Wayen, on March 19, 2014 due to back 

pain following a fall. On March 20, 2014 Dr. Christopher Fischer, a Board-certified radiologist, 

performed x-rays due to right-sided rib and back pain incurred after a motor vehicle accident.2

 

He found thoracic spondylosis without fracture or listhesis. Appellant attended additional 

physical therapy. Thereafter, she returned to full duty on March 31, 2014. 

OWCP requested from appellant, additional factual and medical evidence in support of 

her claim in a letter dated May 29, 2014. Appellant did not respond within the time allotted. 

By decision dated June 30, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the grounds that she 

had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish that a diagnosed condition resulted 

from her accepted employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, 

including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United States” within the meaning of 

FECA and 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 or 

specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment 

injury.4 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.5

OWCP defines a traumatic injury as, “[a] condition of the body caused by a specific 

event or incident, or series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such 

condition must be caused by external force, including stress or strain which is identifiable as to 

time and place of occurrence and member or function of the body affected.”6

 To determine 

whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, it must 

first be determined whether “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.7

 Second, the employee must submit 

 2

 The radiology report indicates that appellant reports right-sided rib and back pain after motor vehicle accident. 

There is no other evidence she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Appellant was referred to the radiologist 

for x-rays by Dr. Donelan who was treating her for her fall on ice. As such, the radiologist’s reference to a motor 

vehicle accident appears to be a scrivener’s error. 

3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

4 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 41 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

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

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

7 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 
3

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

employment incident caused a personal injury.8

A medical report is of limited probative value on a given medical question if it is 

unsupported by medical rationale.9 Medical rationale includes a physician’s reasoned opinion on 

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

and the implicated employment activity. The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claim, 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 specific employment activity or factors identified by the 

claimant.10

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on March 19, 2014 appellant filed a claim alleging that she slipped 

in the performance of duty and fell injuring her back. In support of her claim, appellant 

submitted medical evidence from Drs. Donelan and Fischer. 

Dr. Donelan completed a report dated March 19, 2014 and diagnosed thoracic muscle 

injury and low back pain. He did not further describe appellant’s thoracic muscle injury and did 

not offer any explanation of how her March 19, 2014 fall resulted in this condition. With regard 

to Dr. Donelan’s diagnosis of low back pain, the Board has held that the mere diagnosis of 

“pain” does not constitute the basis for payment of compensation.11 As Dr. Donelan did not 

provide a clear opinion that appellant’s thoracic muscle injury resulted from her accepted 

employment incident of a fall and did not explain how her fall caused this injury, his report is not 

sufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof and establish a traumatic injury on 

March 19, 2014. 

In a report dated March 20, 2014, Dr. Fischer stated that he performed x-rays due to 

appellant’s right-sided rib and back pain after a motor vehicle accident. He found thoracic 

spondylosis without fracture or listhesis. Dr. Fischer indicated that appellant’s rib and back pain 

occurred after a motor vehicle accident rather than following a fall on March 19, 2014. Such 

history is dubious as previously discussed herein. Dr. Fischer’s report does not suggest that 

appellant sustained a diagnosed condition as a result of her accepted employment incident and is 

not sufficient to establish appellant’s claim for a traumatic injury occurring in the performance of 

duty. 

As neither Dr. Donelan nor Dr. Fischer provide a supportive medical opinion for a 

diagnosis from the work incident of March 19, 2014, the finding of OWCP must be affirmed. 

 8 J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007). 

9 T.F., 58 ECAB 128 (2006). 

10 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

11 Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004). 
4

Appellant also submitted a report from a medical assistant and physical therapy notes. 

As neither a medical assistant12 nor a physical therapist13 is a physician as defined by FECA,14

these records cannot establish a diagnosed condition resulting from appellant’s accepted 

employment-related fall on March 19, 2014.15

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 submitted sufficient medical opinion evidence to 

establish that a diagnosed condition resulted from her accepted March 19, 2014 employment 

incident. Appellant has therefore failed to meet her burden of proof in establishing a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on that date. 

 12 D.F., Docket No. 12-347 (issued June 18, 2012). 

13 G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007). 

14 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 

15 Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572 (1988). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 30, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 19, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board