United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WESTCHESTER 

POSTAL & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

White Plains, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0070 

Issued: March 21, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 1, 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 merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

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

related to the accepted July 9, 2015 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 10, 2015 appellant, then a 25-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 9, 2015 she experienced pain in her back while lifting a 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

tray of magazines out of the postcon, which caused her to drop the tray and bend her wrist. She 

claimed injury to her back, neck, and wrist. Appellant stopped work on July 10, 2015. In 

statements dated July 9 and 10, 2015, she described the July 9, 2015 employment incident. 

Appellant submitted a July 13, 2015 report from Dr. Gus Sofos, a chiropractor. In this 

report Dr. Sofos provided appellant’s history of injury, and noted her current complaints and 

examination findings. He diagnosed cervical and thoracic segmental dysfunction. Dr. Sofos did 

not indicate whether an x-ray was performed. 

In a July 9, 2015 hospital record, Dr. Erica Cavallo-Olivo, a Board-certified emergency 

physician, diagnosed cervical strain, low back strain, lumbosacral strain, thoracic strain, and 

wrist pain. She also provided discharge instructions sheets and a work excuse note from July 9 

to 11, 2015. 

On July 31, 2015 OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was insufficient 

to support her claim. Appellant was advised of the medical evidence necessary to support her 

claim and was asked to submit, within 30 days, a well-rationalized opinion from her physician 

regarding the cause of her condition. 

In response, OWCP received a July 23, 2014 request for a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan from Dr. Zeeshan Solangi, an internist. It also received return to work notes dated 

July 17 and August 5 and 19, 2015 from Dr. Sofos, which noted cervical and thoracic pain due to 

the work injury. 

On August 7, 2015 OWCP also received a Form OWCP-5c, from Dr. Leanne Forman, a 

Board-certified internist, wherein she advised that appellant was capable of returning to work in 

her usual position with no restrictions. No diagnosis was provided. 

By decision dated September 1, 2015, OWCP accepted that the alleged employment 

incident occurred as alleged, but denied the claim as the medical evidence did not establish that 

appellant sustained an injury causally related to the accepted incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden 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 injury2

 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.3

 

 2

 OWCP’s 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). 

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

1143 (1989). 
3

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 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.4

 

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.5

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation or 

upon appellant’s belief that there is a causal relationship between her condition and her 

employment.6

 To establish causal relationship, she must submit a physician’s report, in which 

the physician reviews the factors of employment identified by appellant as causing her condition 

and, taking these factors into consideration as well as findings upon examination and her medical 

history, state whether these employment factors caused or aggravated her diagnosed condition.7 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that the July 9, 2015 incident occurred as alleged. The Board however 

affirms the denial of the claim, as appellant did not submit sufficient medical evidence to support 

that she sustained an injury causally related to the July 9, 2015 employment incident.8

While in the July 9, 2015 hospital record Dr. Cavallo-Olivo provided diagnoses of 

cervical, lumbar, and thoracic sprain. She however did not provide a history of the July 9, 2015 

employment incident, nor did she provide a medical opinion as to how the July 9, 2015 

employment incident caused the diagnosed conditions. As such, her report is of limited 

probative value.9

 Furthermore, the diagnosis of wrist pain is not a firm medical diagnosis. The 

Board has found that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical diagnosis.10 

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

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

6 William S. Wright, 45 ECAB 498, 503 (1993). 

7 Calvin E. King, 51 ECAB 394, 401 (2000). 

8 See Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004). 

9 See Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001). 

10 V.S., Docket No. 14-2028 (issued June 3, 2015). 
4

Accordingly, Dr. Cavallo-Olivo’s July 9, 2015 hospital record is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim. 

Several medical notes were received from Dr. Sofos, a chiropractor. However, Dr. Sofos 

is not a qualified physician under FECA. Section 8101(2) of FECA11 provides that the term 

physician, as used therein, includes chiropractors only to the extent that their reimbursable 

services are limited to treatment consisting of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a 

subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist, and subject to regulation by the Secretary.12 

There is no indication that Dr. Sofos obtained an x-ray to demonstrate the existence of a specific 

subluxation of the spine. He is therefore not considered a physician under FECA and he is not 

competent to render a medical opinion on the issue of causal relationship.13 Thus, Dr. Sofos’ 

reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

The other evidence of record, including the request for an MRI scan and Dr. Forman’s 

Form OWCP-5c report, contain no diagnoses of appellant’s conditions, and no opinion on causal 

relationship. These additional documents are therefore insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Consequently, appellant has offered insufficient medical evidence to establish her claim. 

As noted, causal relationship is a medical question that must be established by probative medical 

opinion from a physician.14 The physician must accurately describe appellant’s work duties and 

medically explain the pathophysiological process by which these duties would have caused or 

aggravated her condition.15 Because appellant has not provided such medical opinion evidence 

in this case, she has failed to meet her burden of proof. 

On appeal, appellant asserts that the medical evidence submitted supports her claim. As 

noted, the evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship. Appellant has the 

burden to establish causal relationship through the submission of rationalized medical opinion 

evidence.16 

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.606 and 10.607. 

 11 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 

12 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.400(e) (defining reimbursable chiropractic services). 

13 See generally Theresa K. McKenna, 30 ECAB 702 (1979). 

14 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008). 

15 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 S.T., Docket No. 

11-237 (issued September 9, 2011). 

16 John J. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003). 
5

CONCLUSION 

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

July 9, 2015 causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 1, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 21, 2016 

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