United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Crownsville, MD, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-174 

Issued: March 3, 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 HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 3, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 16, 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 over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established that she sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty on August 19, 2014. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 26, 2014 appellant, then a 50-year-old distribution clerk, completed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained an injury in the performance of 

duty on August 19, 2014. She stated that she was lifting several parcels at the counter and had a 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

severe sprain or pinched nerve in her low back region. The reverse side of the claim form was 

completed by a supervisor who indicated that appellant stopped working on August 25, 2014. 

Appellant submitted a note from a nurse stating that she was unable to work as of 

August 25, 2014. 

In a September 10, 2014 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

evidence. Appellant was advised that she should have her attending physician submit a narrative 

medical report which included the physician’s opinion, supported by medical explanation, as to 

how the reported work incident caused or aggravated a medical condition. 

In an undated statement received by OWCP on September 23, 2014, appellant described 

the August 19, 2014 work incident. She stated that she lifted heavy plastic tote packages that a 

customer had brought, putting them on a scale to be weighed. 

On September 16, 2014 Dr. Lisa Keithley, a Board-certified family practitioner, stated 

that appellant was seen on August 25, 2014 for back pain. She indicated that appellant reported 

she had lifted heavy totes at work on August 19, 2014. Dr. Keithley stated that appellant was 

treated with muscle relaxers and was kept off work due to the nature of her job. She noted that 

appellant was seen on August 27 and September 3, 2014. Dr. Keithley reported that a lumbar 

x-ray was performed, showing some degenerative changes. According to her, appellant was last 

seen on September 15, 2014 and had returned to work. 

By decision dated October 16, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides for the payment of compensation for “the disability or death of an 

employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.”2 The 

phrase “sustained while in the performance of duty” in FECA is regarded as the equivalent of the 

commonly found requisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising out of and in the course of 

employment.”3

 An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing that 

he or she sustained an injury while in the performance of duty.4

 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 

which is alleged to have occurred. The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and generally this can be established only by medical evidence.5

 

 

 2 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

 3 Valerie C. Boward, 50 ECAB 126 (1998). 

4 Melinda C. Epperly, 45 ECAB 196, 198 (1993); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.115. 

5 See John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 357 (1989). 
3

OWCP procedures recognize that a claim may be accepted without a medical report when 

the condition is a minor one which can be identified on visual inspection.6

 In clear-cut traumatic 

injury claims, such as a fall resulting in a broken arm, a physician’s affirmative statement is 

sufficient and no rationalized opinion on causal relationship is needed. In all other traumatic 

injury claims, a rationalized medical opinion supporting causal relationship is required.7

 

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence that is based on a complete 

factual and medical background, of reasonable medical certainty and supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant. The weight of medical evidence is 

determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of the analysis 

manifested and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.8

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has alleged an injury in the performance of duty on 

August 19, 2014 when she lifted and carried some plastic tote parcels. OWCP has accepted that 

an employment incident occurred as alleged. The question is whether appellant has submitted 

sufficient medical evidence to establish a diagnosed condition casually related to the 

employment incident. 

The Board finds that the medical evidence is insufficient to establish the claim for 

compensation. It is well established that medical evidence must be from a physician under 

FECA,9

 and a nurse is not considered a physician.10 The only medical report from a physician in 

the record is the September 16, 2014 report from Dr. Keithley who stated that appellant was seen 

on August 25, 2014, and briefly noted appellant reported lifting heavy totes at work, without 

providing a medical history or results on examination. The only diagnosis was a general 

reference to degenerative back changes noted on an undated x-ray. Dr. Keithley did not offer an 

opinion relating any diagnosed condition to the employment incident. As such this report is of 

limited probative value to the issue presented. 

On appeal, appellant states that she reported her injury, received medical attention, and 

provided witness statements. As noted above, OWCP accepted an employment incident 

occurred as alleged. The issue is whether the medical evidence is sufficient to establish the 

claim. Appellant states that the medical evidence confirmed an injury. But to establish a claim 

for compensation requires more than receiving medical treatment and reporting a work incident 

to a physician. A probative medical report should include a proper background, findings on 

examination, a diagnosis and a reasoned opinion on causal relationship between the diagnosed 

 

 6 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(c) (January 2013). 

 7 Id. at Chapter 2.805.3(d) (January 2013). 

 8 Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004). 

9 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 

10 See Vincent Holmes, 53 ECAB 468 (2002). 
4

condition and the employment incident.11 For the reasons noted, appellant did not meet her 

burden of proof in this case. 

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 August 19, 2014. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated October 16, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: March 3, 2015 

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 

 11 See, e.g., J.K., Docket No. 14-1146 (issued November 25, 2014).