United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH & 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, Bald Knob, AZ, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0498 

Issued: July 5, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 21, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 13, 2015 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 the case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a right shoulder 

injury in the performance of duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence with his request for appeal. The Board’s 

jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Therefore, 

the Board is precluded from considering the new evidence pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 8, 2015 appellant, then a 64-year-old engineering equipment operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that he injured his right shoulder when he stepped 

down and grabbed a handle with his right hand while exiting his work vehicle. He did not stop 

work. 

By letter dated July 10, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence needed to 

establish his claim, specifically requesting that appellant submit a physician’s reasoned opinion 

addressing the relationship of his claimed condition and specific employment factors. It noted 

that medical evidence must be submitted by a qualified physician and a physician assistant is not 

considered a qualified physician under FECA. OWCP also requested that the employing 

establishment submit any medical notes from an agency medical facility who treated appellant. 

The employing establishment submitted a Form CA-16 dated July 7, 2015 authorizing 

treatment for a right shoulder injury. 

Appellant submitted a report from Lance Kemper, physician assistant, dated July 17, 

2015, who treated appellant for right shoulder pain after he reported straining it at work. He 

reported the pain was improving, but he still had pain while running a track hoe for several 

hours. The physician assistant noted an x-ray of the right shoulder revealed no acute fracture or 

dislocation, but mild acromion clavicular degenerative joint disease. He diagnosed localized 

primary osteoarthritis of the right shoulder acromioclavicular joint, strain of muscle and tendon 

of rotator cuff and subacromial bursitis. 

In a subsequent attending physician’s report dated July 21, 2015, the physician assistant 

noted that appellant was treated for right shoulder pain which began on July 7, 2015. He noted 

that x-rays revealed no abnormalities and diagnosed right subacromial bursitis and right shoulder 

cuff strain. The physician assistant noted with a checkmark in a box marked “yes” that 

appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by an employment activity and began at work 

after strenuous labor. Appellant was not disabled from work. 

In a decision dated August 13, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a traumatic 

injury, finding that he failed to submit medical evidence containing a diagnosis in connection 

with the injury or events. 

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 filed within the applicable time limitation 

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 is 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

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 
3

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

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.4

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, 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.5

ANALYSIS 

It is not disputed that on July 7, 2015, when exiting his work vehicle, appellant grabbed 

the handle with his right hand and stepped down. However, appellant has not submitted medical 

evidence establishing that grabbing the handle while exiting the vehicle caused his right shoulder 

injury. 

Appellant submitted a report from the physician assistant dated July 17, 2015, who 

treated appellant for right shoulder pain after straining it at work. The physician assistant 

diagnosed localized primary osteoarthritis of the right shoulder acromioclavicular joint, strain of 

muscle and tendon of rotator cuff and subacromial bursitis, and in a July 21, 2015 report noted 

with a checkmark in a box marked “yes” that appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by 

work activity. This evidence is of no probative medical value as the Board has held that 

physician assistants are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA.6

 Thus, this 

evidence is not sufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

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. Causal relationships must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.7

 Appellant failed to submit such evidence, and OWCP 

therefore 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. 

 4

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

6 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009) (reports of a physician assistant have no probative value as 

medical evidence); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (defines the term “physician”). 

7

 See Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
4

The Board notes that the record contains a Form CA-16 dated July 7, 2015. If an 

employing establishment properly executes a Form CA-16, which authorizes medical treatment 

as a result of an employee’s claim for an employment-related injury, the CA-16 form creates a 

contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the 

examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim.8

 The record is silent as to 

whether OWCP paid for the cost of appellant’s examination or treatment for the period noted on 

the form. Upon return of the case record to OWCP, it should further evaluate this aspect of the 

case. 

CONCLUSION 

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

claimed conditions were causally related to his employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 13, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 5, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

8 See Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).