United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Seaside, OR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-1006 

Issued: August 14, 2017 

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 April 7, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 21, 2016 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 in this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish back injury causally 

related to an October 17, 2016 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 17, 2016 appellant, then a 48-year-old distribution and retail clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that lifting heavy parcels over the window and 

distributing parcels to the carriers aggravated his back pain. He became aware of his condition 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

and realized it was causally related to his employment on October 17, 2016. Appellant did not 

stop work. 

Appellant submitted a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated October 17, 2016 from a 

physician assistant who noted clinical findings of reproducible pain with muscle spasm. The 

physician assistant diagnosed thoracic pain, sprain, and strain and advised that appellant could 

return to work with restrictions. In an October 17, 2016 referral form, he diagnosed acute rightsided thoracic back pain and referred appellant for physical therapy. 

Appellant submitted physical therapy notes dated October 20, 2016 signed by a physical 

therapist and cosigned by a physician assistant who noted that appellant was referred for 

evaluation and treatment of acute right- and left-sided thoracic and lumbar back pain. The 

physical therapist noted appellant’s history was significant for low back pain treated in 

January 2016. He indicated that appellant would benefit from a thoracic and lumbar spine 

strengthening program. 

The employing establishment provided an accident report (PS Form 1769/301) which 

indicated that on October 17, 2016, while working on the window, appellant handled a heavy 

parcel, turned, and experienced pain from the shoulder to lower back. Appellant also indicated 

that distributing parcels to carriers aggravated his pain. The cause/circumstance of the injury 

was repetitive motions. 

By letter dated November 4, 2016, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to establish his claim, particularly requesting that he submit a physician’s reasoned 

opinion addressing the relationship of his claimed condition to his specific employment factors. 

It also advised that a physician assistant did not qualify as a physician under FECA. OWCP 

further indicated that it was unclear from the evidence received whether appellant was claiming 

an occupational disease or a traumatic injury and requested that he clarify the type of injury 

claimed. 

In a statement dated November 16, 2016, appellant indicated that the employment 

activities that contributed to his condition were breaking down parcels, sorting parcels into 

routes, taking parcels over the counter at the front window, and sending them to their 

destinations. He performed these duties six days a week for six hours a day. Appellant indicated 

that he did not have activities outside of work. He noted that he was claiming a traumatic injury 

and indicated that this was a preexisting injury from 2000 which was aggravated. Appellant 

submitted a copy of an OWCP notice from the year 2000 which provided a File No. xxxxxx518 

and a date of injury of May 6, 2000.2

Appellant submitted employing establishment medical records from February 15, 1995 to 

September 23, 2002. On June 13, 2002 Dr. Timothy J. Craven, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, performed a medical examination and noted appellant’s history was significant for 

an old back injury from two years ago. Appellant also submitted physical therapy reports dated 

October 20, 2016. 

 2

 File No. xxxxxx518 is not before the Board on the present appeal. 
3

In a December 21, 2016 decision, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant failed 

to submit medical evidence establishing that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection 

with the accepted work incident. Therefore, fact of injury was not established. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 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 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 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.4

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, an 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. Second, an employee must submit medical 

evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.5

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.6

ANALYSIS 

It is undisputed that on October 17, 2016, while working as a clerk, appellant broke down 

parcels, sorted parcels into routes, and lifted and handled parcels over the counter and sent them 

to their destinations. Although he initially filed an occupational disease claim, he clarified on 

November 16, 2016 that he was claiming a traumatic injury. While the work events of 

October 17, 2016 are established, the Board finds that appellant failed to submit sufficient 

medical evidence to establish that these work activities caused or aggravated a diagnosed back 

condition. In a letter dated November 4, 2016, OWCP requested that appellant submit a 

comprehensive medical report from his treating physician addressing causal relationship. 

Appellant submitted employing establishment medical records from February 15, 1995 to 

September 23, 2002. However, these records are of no probative value in establishing the 

 3 Supra note 1. 

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

5

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

6 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
4

claimed low back condition since they predate the time of the claimed condition of 

October 17, 2016 and is irrelevant to the claim.7

Appellant was treated by a physician assistant on October 17, 2016. On October 20, 

2016 he was treated by a physical therapist. The Board has held that notes signed by physician 

assistants8

 or physical therapists9 are not considered medical evidence as they are not considered 

physicians under FECA.10 Thus, these treatment records are also of no probative medical value 

in establishing appellant’s claim. 

As noted, part of appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of rationalized 

medical opinion evidence, based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such 

causal relationship between the employment and the diagnosed condition. Therefore, these notes 

are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

The record contains no other medical evidence. Because appellant has not submitted 

reasoned medical evidence explaining how or why a diagnosed back condition is causally related 

to the work incident of October 17, 2016, he has not met his burden of proof. 

On appeal appellant contends that he had injured his back in 2000 and was in physical 

therapy for several months. In October 2016, he was lifting a parcel from the front window line 

and twisted wrong and reinjured his back in the same place. As found above, the medical 

evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant has a diagnosed medical condition 

causally related to his accepted work incident. Appellant has not submitted a physician’s report 

which describes how or why the work incident on October 17, 2016 caused or aggravated a low 

back condition.11

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. 

 7 See E.P., Docket No. 15-1746 (issued December 3, 2015) (the Board found that medical evidence which 

predated the date of injury was of no value and was irrelevant to the claim). 

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

medical evidence). 

9 See L.W., Docket No. 16-1317 (issued June 21, 2017) (reports of a physical therapist have no probative value as 

medical evidence). 

10 See David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician assistants, nurses and 

physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (this subsection 

defines a “physician” as surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and 

osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law). See also Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 

208 (2004) where the Board found a nurse practitioner was considered a physician under FECA. 

11 To the extent that appellant attributes his current back condition to a prior injury adjudicated under a separate 

claim file, he my contact OWCP regarding pursuing the matter under the separate claim file. 
5

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a back injury 

causally related to the accepted October 17, 2016 employment incident. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 21, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 14, 2017 

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