United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Capitol Heights, MD, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-116 

Issued: June 2, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 21, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from June 13 and October 2, 2014 

merit decisions 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on April 5, 2014, as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 6, 2014 appellant, then a 54-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on April 5, 2014 at 11:30 p.m., while she was pulling containers off a truck 

she felt a pain in her lower back and that, as she walked the containers to the door, the pain got 

worse. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a verification of treatment form signed by 

Dr. Elizabeth Biru, a Board-certified internist, dated April 6, 2014 at 10:01 a.m., wherein 

Dr. Biru noted that appellant received medical treatment on that date and was unable to work 

from April 6 to 9, 2014. Dr. Eunice F. Shakir, a Board-certified family practitioner, noted in 

reports dated April 8 and 14, 2014 that appellant was evaluated and unable to work through 

April 21, 2014. Appellant also submitted a verification of treatment form indicating that she 

received physical therapy from Roshin Kuriadom on April 8, 2014. 

By letter dated May 14, 2014, OWCP provided appellant 30 days to submit additional 

documentation to support her claim. Appellant did not file a timely response to OWCP’s letter. 

On June 13, 2014 OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she had not submitted medical 

evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment incident. 

On June 26, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of her request, she 

submitted a June 24, 2014 report by Dr. Shakir, who listed the dates of examination by 

appellant’s physicians on April 6, 8, and 14, 2014 and noted that she had physical therapy on 

April 8, 22 and 29, and May 6, 2014. Dr. Shakir noted that when she saw appellant on August 8, 

2014, appellant reported that she had begun to unload heavy material from a post truck and that, 

near the completion of the job, she experienced right-sided lower back pain and spasm. She 

noted that appellant had no prior history of these symptoms. Dr. Shakir indicated that appellant 

was in obvious discomfort during her appointment, and held her right side getting on and off the 

examination table. She opined that the prolonged lifting of heavy boxes caused appellant’s 

lower back strain injury on April 6, 2014. Appellant also submitted physical therapy notes from 

Ms. Kuriadom and Irene Perrakis. 

In an October 2, 2014 decision, OWCP denied modification of its June 13, 2014 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish 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.2

 

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.3

 

In order to meet his or her burden of proof to establish the fact that he or she sustained an injury 

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

3 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803(2)(a) (August 2012). 
3

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.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 

Appellant alleged that she sustained an injury on April 5, 2014 at 11:30 p.m. while 

pulling containers off a truck. OWCP accepted that this incident occurred as alleged. However, 

it denied appellant’s claim as it determined that she had failed to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted incident. The Board finds that OWCP properly denied her claim. 

Appellant received treatment from Dr. Biru, on April 6, 2014, who noted that appellant 

was unable to work from April 6 to 9, 2014. However, Dr. Biru did not provide a medical 

diagnosis nor did she discuss a cause for appellant’s visit. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Shakir on April 6, 8, and 14, 2014. At that time, Dr. Shakir 

noted that appellant appeared to hold her side moving on and off the examination table and she 

diagnosed a back strain injury. She noted in her April 8, 2014 report that appellant stated that 

two days earlier she was unloading heavy material at work and felt a pain and spasm. Dr. Shakir 

advised appellant to follow-up with a physical therapist. In a June 24, 2014 report, she noted that 

when she saw appellant she was in obvious discomfort and held her right side getting on and off 

the examination table. Dr. Shakir opined at that time that the prolonged lifting of heavy boxes 

caused appellant’s lower back strain injury on April 6, 2014. She, however, failed to provide any 

medical rationale or results from her medical examination to support her opinion. 

The Board notes that physical therapists are not considered physicians as defined under 

FECA.7

 As such, the Board finds that the notes by Ms. Kuriadom and Ms. Perrakis are of 

limited probative value.8 

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

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. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). 

8 J.V., Docket No. 14-1025 (issued November 24, 2014). 
4

Causal relationship must be based on rationalized medical opinion evidence.9

 A 

physician must accurately describe appellant’s work duties and medically explain the process by 

which these duties would have caused or aggravated his condition.10 As appellant failed to 

submit a rationalized medical opinion finding her injuries causally related to the accepted 

April 5, 2014 employment incident, she has not met her burden of proof. 

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 meet her burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty on April 5, 2014. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated October 2 and June 13, 2014 are affirmed. 

Issued: June 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             9 M.E., Docket No. 14-1064 (issued September 29, 2014). 

10 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000) (rationalized medical evidence must relate specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant to the claimant’s condition, with stated reasons by a physician). See also G.G., Docket No 

15-234 (issued April 9, 2015).