United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

_________________________________________ 

J.A., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer 

___________________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0307 

Issued: May 20, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Sandra Toney, for the appellant 

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 December 8, 2015 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal of a 

September 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 his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

causally related to an accepted February 10, 2015 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted additional evidence. However, the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing 

the evidence that was before OWCP at the time it rendered its decision. Thus, the Board has no jurisdiction to 

review this evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35, 

36n.2 (1952). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 15, 2015 appellant, then a 62-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 10, 2015 he injured his lower back at work while 

lifting steel trays above his shoulder to reach the top shelf of a caster. He stopped work on 

February 16, 2015. 

OWCP received nurses’ notes, reports from physician assistants, and discharge 

instructions. 

In a letter dated March 10, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that additional factual and 

medical evidence was needed to establish the claim. It explained that there was no diagnosis of 

any condition resulting from an injury and requested that he provide a physician’s opinion 

explaining how the reported work incident caused or contributed to appellant’s condition. 

In a March 17, 2015 statement, appellant explained that he injured his back on February 9 

while working on the flats sequencing systems (FSS) machine. He had lifted a heavy tray 

weighing approximately 30 pounds above his shoulder to the FSS caster (mail cart). Appellant 

noted that afterward, he took medication and used heating pads and patches for the pain, and his 

employing establishment provided a back support belt. He believed that the pain would lessen, 

but it did not, and on February 15, 2015 he went to the hospital. An x-ray was taken, he was 

given pain medication, and he was referred for therapy. Appellant noted that he suffered from 

back pain years ago, for which he took medication and heating pads and did not see a doctor. 

OWCP received February 15, 2015 discharge instructions and emergency room notes 

from Dr. Brittany Seroy, an emergency medicine physician and osteopath, who advised that 

appellant had a back injury and low back pain. Dr. Seroy advised that the low back pain began 

about a week earlier when he was lifting a tray of magazines at work and felt a sharp pain in the 

middle lumbar area. She found no signs of cord compression and advised that x-rays were 

negative. Dr. Seroy diagnosed back injury and low back pain. She recommended back exercises 

and discharged appellant. Dr. Kenneth Spero, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, advised 

that February 15, 2015 lumbar spine x-rays were unremarkable. 

By decision dated April 16, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the medical 

evidence of record did not establish that a diagnosed condition was caused by the claimed event. 

On April 29, 2015 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP 

hearing representative. 

In a February 16, 2015 report, Dr. Carl Lang, a Board-certified internist, noted that 

appellant presented for follow up of low back pain. He noted that appellant related that the pain 

started about a week ago after lifting a 30-pound box of magazines. Dr. Lang examined her and 

found a normal inspection of the back without edema, erythema, or ecchymosis, and it was 

nontender. He diagnosed lumbar strain and lower back pain and recommended light-duty work. 

In a separate report, Dr. Lang provided return to work restrictions. 

In a separate report dated February 16, 2015, Dr. Japhlet Aranas, Board-certified in 

family medicine, diagnosed low back pain and lumbar strain. He noted that appellant reported 
3

pain about one week earlier after lifting a 30-pound box of magazines. In February 20 and 27, 

2015 status reports, Dr. Aranas repeated appellant’s history and diagnoses. He advised that 

appellant’s pain was “a little better” on February 20, 2015 while he advised that appellant was 

ready to return to work on February 27, 2015. OWCP also received notes from physician 

assistants, nurse practitioners, and copies of prior reports. 

By decision dated September 11, 2015, the OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

April 16, 2015 decision, finding that there was no rationalized medical evidence of record to 

support that appellant’s condition was causally related to the February 10, 2015 work incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 timely filed within the 

applicable time limitation period of FECA3, and that an injury was sustained in the performance 

of duty.4 These are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the 

claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether the fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. 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.6 In some traumatic injury cases, this 

component can be established by an employee’s uncontroverted statement on the CA-1 form.7 

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.8 

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.9

 3 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988). 

5 Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

6 Julie B. Hawkins, 38 ECAB 393, 396 (1987); see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of 

Injury, Chapter 2.803.2a (August 2012). 

7 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

8 Id. For a definition of the term “traumatic injury,” see 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

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

ANALYSIS 

There is no dispute that appellant was lifting steel trays above his shoulder to reach the 

top shelf of a caster on February 10, 2015, as alleged. 

However, the Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficiently 

rationalized to establish the second component of fact of injury. The medical evidence contains 

no reasoned no explanation of how the specific employment incident on February 10, 2015 

caused or aggravated a diagnosed medical condition.10 

Appellant submitted reports from several doctors, including February 15, 2015 discharge 

instructions and emergency room notes from Dr. Seroy who advised that the low back pain 

began about a week earlier when he was lifting a tray of magazines at work and felt a sharp pain 

in the middle lumbar area. Dr. Seroy diagnosed back injury and low back pain. OWCP also 

received February 16, 2015 reports from Dr. Lang, who noted that appellant presented for follow 

up of low back pain, which started about a week earlier after lifting a 30-pound box of 

magazines. Dr. Lang diagnosed lumbar strain and lower back pain and recommended light-duty 

work and provided work restrictions. Additionally, in a February 16, 2015 report, Dr. Aranas 

diagnosed low back pain and lumbar strain. In February 20 and 27, 2015 status reports, he 

repeated appellant’s history and diagnoses. However, these reports are of limited probative 

value on the relevant issue of the present case in that they do not contain a physician’s opinion 

on causal relationship.11 To the extent that the history in each of these physician’s reports may 

be considered as support for causal relationship, these physicians did not explain how the lifting 

of magazines at work on February 10, 2015 caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical 

condition. 

Similarly, reports of diagnostic testing are insufficient to establish the claim as these 

reports do not address how the February 10, 2015 employment incident caused or contributed to 

a diagnosed medical condition. 

OWCP also received notes from nurses and physician assistants. Registered nurses, 

licensed practical nurses, and physician assistants are not considered “physicians” as defined 

under FECA. Their opinions are therefore of no probative value.12

Because the medical reports submitted by appellant do not address how the February 10, 

2015 activities at work caused or aggravated a diagnosed low back condition, these reports are of 

 10 See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not 

fortified by medical rationale is of little probative value). 

11 See Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461, 467-68 (1988) (finding that medical evidence which does not 

offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship). 

12 See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005). See also 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 
5

limited probative value13 and are insufficient to establish that the February 10, 2015 employment 

incident caused or aggravated a specific injury. 

On appeal, appellant presents several arguments in support of his claim. They include 

that he submitted the proper medical evidence to establish causal relationship. However, as 

found above, the evidence was insufficient to establish causal relationship. 

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 his burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury causally related to an accepted February 10, 2015 employment incident. 

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 20, 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 

 13 See Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386, 389-90 (1997).