United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bloomington, IN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1492 

Issued: October 14, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 30, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a June 4, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case. 

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 2, 2014 as a result of the accepted employment 

incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 57-year-old rural mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) for 

benefits on October 4, 2014, alleging that she experienced pain in her back, neck, and left 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

shoulder when the vehicle she was driving was struck from behind by another vehicle on 

October 2, 2014. The record indicates that appellant returned to light-duty work, although the 

exact date she returned to work is unclear from the record. 

Appellant submitted several reports from nurse practitioners, dated October 2, 7, 10, and 

14, 2014 which noted that she had complaints of pain and weakness in her back, neck, chest, left 

shoulder, and left wrist. The reports were not cosigned by a physician. 

By letter dated October 10, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that it required additional 

factual and medical evidence to determine whether she was eligible for compensation benefits. 

It asked her to submit a comprehensive medical report from her treating physician describing her 

symptoms and the medical reasons for her condition, and an opinion as to whether her claimed 

condition was causally related to her federal employment. OWCP requested that appellant 

submit the additional evidence within 30 days. 

Appellant submitted an October 23, 2014 progress report from a nurse practitioner which 

again documented treatment for her neck sprain and strain, contusion of the chest wall, and 

contusion of the forearm. 

By decision dated November 12, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

incident occurred as alleged, but that she failed to submit sufficient medical evidence that she 

sustained back, neck, chest, left shoulder, arm and, wrist injuries in the performance of duty as a 

result of the accepted incident. 

On December 2, 2014 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP 

hearing representative. 

Appellant continued to resubmit the progress notes from her nurse practitioners that were 

previously of record. On December 30, 2014 OWCP received an October 23, 2014 work status 

summary, not previously of record, which noted diagnoses of neck sprain and strain, contusion 

of chest wall, and forearm, and related that appellant was discharged from care on 

October 23, 2014. This work status summary indicated that it was signed by a physician, but the 

signature is illegible. 

By decision dated June 4, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

November 12, 2014 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2

 has the burden of establishing that 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 

 2

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
3

related to the employment injury.3

 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.4

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

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a “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.5 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.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

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference that there is a causal relationship between the two.8

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 her condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by her employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship.9

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant’s rural mail vehicle was struck from behind by another 

vehicle on October 2, 2014. The question of whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury can only be established by probative medical evidence.10 Appellant has not submitted 

rationalized, probative medical evidence to establish that the October 2, 2014 employment 

incident caused the claimed injuries. 

 3 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4

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

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

6 Id. For a definition of the term “injury,” see 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(a)(14). 

7 Id.

8 See Joe T. Williams, 44 ECAB 518, 521 (1993). 

9 Id.

10 Supra note 5. 
4

In support of her claim appellant submitted numerous reports from nurse practitioners. 

These reports, however, do not constitute medical evidence under section 8101(2). Because 

healthcare providers such as nurses, acupuncturists, physician assistants and physical therapists 

are not considered “physicians” under FECA, their reports and opinions do not constitute 

competent, probative medical evidence to establish a medical condition, disability, or causal 

relationship.11 

OWCP advised appellant of the evidence required to establish her claim. However, 

appellant failed to submit such evidence. Appellant did not provide a medical opinion which 

describes or explains the medical process through which the October 2, 2014 employment 

incident would have caused the claimed injury. 

The only report appellant submitted which was purportedly signed by a physician was the 

October 23, 2013 work status summary. The physician’s signature however is illegible on this 

report. It may have been prepared by an attending physician, but it is impossible to verify from 

the report itself.12 The Board has held that reports bearing illegible signatures cannot be 

considered probative medical evidence because they lack proper identification.13 Therefore, the 

report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Appellant has not provided any medical evidence from a physician who explains how the 

motor vehicle accident on October 2, 2014 caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical 

condition. Accordingly, she did not establish that she sustained back, neck, chest, left shoulder, 

arm, or wrist injuries in the performance of duty. 

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 failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on October 2, 2014. 

 11 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see also G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007); Jerré R. Rinehart, 45 ECAB 518 (1994); Barbara J. 

Williams, 40 ECAB 649 (1989); Jan A. White, 34 ECAB 515 (1983). 

12 See L.M., Docket No. 15-1253 (issued August 27, 2015). 

13 Thomas L. Agee, 56 ECAB 465 (2005) (holding that a medical report may not be considered probative medical 

evidence unless it can be established that the person completing the report is a physician as defined in 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(2). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 4, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: October 14, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board