United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

North Metro, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1829 

Issued: February 6, 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 August 18, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 6, 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 met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an 

injury in the performance of duty on June 14, 2013, as alleged. 

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP considered incorrect documentation in 

denying her claim. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 21, 2013 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained injuries in the performance of duty on 

June 14, 2013. She submitted a position description and pay rate information in support of her 

claim. Appellant’s CA-1 form indicated that she felt a tightening around her shoulders and neck, 

low back, pain in right hip, and in right arm and elbow. 

In a July 2, 2013 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 timely submitted a July 30, 2013 narrative statement indicating that she injured 

herself while pulling defective dock plates and lifting defective trailer doors in the performance 

of duty. 

In a July 19, 2013 report, Ruben Alexander, a physician assistant, diagnosed bilateral leg 

“joint pain” and “low back pain -- lumbago.” He indicated that the pain in appellant’s knees, 

lower legs, and lower back had become progressively worse. 

By decision dated August 9, 2013, OWCP accepted that the June 14, 2013 incident 

occurred as alleged but denied the claim on the basis that appellant failed to submit evidence 

containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the injury or events therefore concluding that 

she had not established fact of injury. 

On July 22, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted a narrative statement 

and policies and procedures regarding employment-related injuries. 

By decision dated August 6, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its August 9, 2013 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2

 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 injury3

 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.4

 

 2 Id. 

3

 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). 

4 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.5

 

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.6

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP has accepted that the employment incident of June 14, 2013 occurred at the time, 

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

The Board finds that she did not meet her burden of proof to establish that she sustained injuries 

related to the June 14, 2013 employment incident. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a July 19, 2013 report from Mr. Alexander, a 

physician assistant, who diagnosed bilateral leg “joint pain” and “low back pain -- lumbago” and 

indicated that the pain in her knees, lower legs, and lower back had become progressively worse. 

The Board finds that this report does not constitute competent medical evidence as it does not 

contain rationale by a physician relating appellant’s disability to her employment.7 Physician 

assistants are not physicians as defined by FECA. Therefore, Mr. Alexander’s report is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.8 

Appellant also submitted policies and procedures regarding employment-related injuries. 

These documents do not constitute competent medical evidence as they do not contain rationale 

by a physician relating her disability to her employment.9

 As such, the Board finds that appellant 

did not meet her burden of proof with these submissions. 

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

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

7 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). Section 8101(2) of FECA provides as follows: “(2) ‘physician’ includes 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, 212 n.12 (2004); Joseph N. 

Fassi, 42 ECAB 677 (1991); Barbara J. Williams, 40 ECAB 649 (1989). 

8 John D. Williams, 37 ECAB 238 (1985). 

9 See supra notes 7; id. 
4

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP considered incorrect documentation in 

denying her claim. Based on the Board’s findings for the reasons stated above, her arguments 

are not substantiated. 

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 that she 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on June 14, 2013, as alleged. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 6, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 6, 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