United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1870 

Issued: January 11, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 14, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 11, 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 this case.2

 

ISSUE 

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

related to a June 29, 2015 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the August 11, 2015 OWCP decision, appellant submitted new 

evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its 

final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Appellant may resubmit this evidence, together with a formal request 

for reconsideration to OWCP pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 10.606. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 6, 2015 appellant, then a 59-year-old housekeeping aid, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained an injury to both knees, lower back, and left arm 

on June 29, 2015 while in the performance of duty. She stated that she was injured by elevator 

doors repeatedly shutting on her while she was attempting to clean the elevator. 

Appellant submitted a June 29, 2015 partially legible emergency room report which 

reflects a diagnosis of back pain. A June 30, 2015 occupational health report from a nurse 

practitioner restricted appellant from lifting more than 15 pounds. On July 6, 2015 a nurse 

practitioner of the employing establishment medical center advised that appellant’s condition 

was severe enough to warrant her to remain off duty from July 6 to 21, 2015 and advised that she 

would be able to return to full-time, light-duty work on July 21, 2015. 

In a July 9, 2015 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim and 

afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. Appellant did 

not respond within the time allotted. 

By decision dated August 11, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the medical 

evidence submitted failed to establish a diagnosis causally related to the employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period of FECA, that an injury4

 was sustained in the performance of duty, as alleged, 

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally 

related to the employment injury.5

 

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. 

A fact of injury determination is based on two elements. 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. Second, the employee must submit sufficient 

evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment 

 3 Supra note 1. 

4

 OWCP regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or 

series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such condition must be caused by external force, 

including stress or strain, which is identifiable as to time and place of occurrence and member or function of the 

body affected. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

5 See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). See also Steven S. Saleh, 55 ECAB 169 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 

1143 (1989). 
3

incident caused a personal injury. An employee may establish that the employment incident 

occurred as alleged but fail to show that his or her condition relates to the employment incident.6 

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.7 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP has accepted that the employment incident of June 29, 2015 occurred at the time, 

place, and in the manner alleged. The issue is whether appellant sustained an injury as a result. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an injury related to 

the June 29, 2015 employment incident. Appellant has submitted no medical evidence 

supporting that the June 29, 2015 work incident caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical 

condition. 

Appellant submitted a June 29, 2015 emergency room report diagnosing back pain. 

However, the emergency room records are only partially legible and are from a healthcare 

provider whose identity cannot be discerned from the record. Because it cannot be determined 

whether these records are from a physician as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2), they do not 

constitute competent medical evidence.8

Appellant also submitted a June 30, 2015 occupational health report from a nurse 

practitioner restricting her from lifting more than 15 pounds and a July 6, 2015 letter from the 

employing establishment. This also does not constitute competent medical evidence as a nurse 

practitioner is not a physician as defined under FECA.9

 As noted, causal relationship is a 

medical issue that must be addressed by medical evidence.10

Consequently, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof as she has 

not submitted competent medical evidence addressing how the June 29, 2015 work incident 

caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. 

 6 Id. See Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404 (1997); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

7 Id. See Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

8 R.M., 59 ECAB 690, 693 (2008). See C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010) (a medical report may 

not be considered as probative medical evidence if there is no indication that the person completing the report 

qualifies as a physician as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) and reports lacking proper identification do not constitute 

probative medical evidence). 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). See Sean O’Connell, 56 ECAB 195 (2004) (reports by nurse practitioners and physician 

assistants are not considered medical evidence as these persons are not considered physicians under FECA).

10 See supra note 7. 
4

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 not met her burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to a June 29, 2015 employment incident. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 11, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 11, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board