United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Memphis, TN, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1522

Issued: April 25, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 11, 2017 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 to 

consider the merits of the case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

a traumatic injury on September 4, 2016 in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 28, 2017 appellant, then a 57-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sprained the right sole of her foot/heel in the automation 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

room of the employing establishment at 9:45 a.m. on September 4, 2016. She listed the cause of 

her injury as an “APC” (all-purpose container).

In a development letter dated April 3, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant provide 

additional factual and medical evidence describing how her injury occurred and any diagnosed 

condition that resulted from the alleged employment incident. It explained that medical evidence 

must be submitted by a qualified physician and that nurse practitioners and physician assistants 

were not considered qualified physicians under FECA. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond.

On April 12, 2017 appellant signed OWCP’s development questionnaire without providing 

any responses to the inquiries. She also submitted a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated 

September 4, 2016 completed by a nurse practitioner. The nurse practitioner also signed 

appellant’s emergency department patient discharge summary dated September 4, 2016 for a 

minor foot injury with pain and swelling. Dr. Christopher Somogyi, a radiologist, reviewed x-rays 

on September 4, 2016 and reported no acute findings. Dr. Freddie L. Everson, a family 

practitioner, completed a note reporting that he examined appellant on September 9, 2016 and that 

he released her to return to work on September 9, 2016 with no restrictions.

Appellant’s supervisor responded on April 12, 2017 and indicated that appellant had 

informed the employing establishment of her claimed September 4, 2016 employment injury. He 

described the employment incident noting that, as appellant was moving a defective APC, it rolled 

and struck her foot and toe. The employing establishment sent appellant for medical treatment. 

Appellant’s supervisor noted that the employing establishment failed to formally file the accident 

report in a timely manner.

By decision dated May 11, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that she had not submitted the necessary factual evidence to establish that the incident occurred in 

the performance of duty as alleged. It further noted that she had not provided any evidence 

diagnosing a medical condition.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial 

evidence, 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 injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any disability 

or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment 

injury.3

OWCP defines 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 

 

2 Supra note 1.

3 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994).
3

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.”

4

 In order to determine whether an 

employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis 

of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact of injury consists of two components 

which must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first component to be established 

is that the employee actually experienced the employment incident which is alleged to have 

occurred.5 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury 

and generally can be established only by medical evidence.

With respect to the first component of fact of injury, the employee has the burden of 

establishing the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in the manner alleged, by a 

preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence. An injury does not have to be 

confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact that an employee sustained an injury in 

the performance of duty, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the surrounding

facts and circumstances and her subsequent course of action. An employee has not met his or her

burden of proof in establishing the occurrence of an injury when there are such inconsistencies in 

the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim. Such circumstances as late 

notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, continuing to work without apparent difficulty 

following the alleged injury, and failure to obtain medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, 

cast sufficient doubt on an employee’s statements in determining whether a prima facie case has 

been established. However, an employee’s statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given 

time and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or 

persuasive evidence.6

It is the claimant’s burden of proof to submit sufficient evidence necessary for OWCP to 

make a determination as to whether an employment incident occurred as alleged. The evidence 

must be sufficient to establish whether the claimant was in the course of federal employment at 

the time of the incident, so that a proper determination may be made as to whether an injury 

occurred while in the performance of duty.7

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.8 An 

employee may establish that an injury occurred in the performance of duty as alleged, but fail to 

establish that the disability or specific condition for which compensation is being claimed is 

causally related to the injury.9

 

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee).

5 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

6 D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).

7 O.L., Docket No. 16-0840 (issued August 28, 2017).

8 Supra note 5; M.P., Docket No. 17-1221 (issued August 21, 2017). 

9 Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997); M.P., id.
4

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.10 The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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.11 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment,

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents, is sufficient to establish causal relationship.12

Certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physical 

therapists, and social workers are not considered “physician[s]” as defined under FECA.13 

Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing 

entitlement to FECA benefits.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established that the employment incident occurred on

September 4, 2016 in the performance of duty, as alleged. However, the Board further finds that 

appellant has not submitted the necessary medical evidence to establish a personal injury resulting 

from the September 4, 2016 employment incident.

Appellant completed a traumatic injury claim and alleged that she injured her right foot on 

September 4, 2016 with an APC at the employing establishment. Her supervisor substantiated that 

a defective APC rolled and struck appellant’s foot and toe and that appellant timely reported this 

incident. The Board finds that there is sufficiently detailed factual evidence in the record to 

establish that appellant sustained a traumatic incident on September 4, 2016 in the performance of 

duty. Appellant’s statement on her claim form that her right foot was injured on that date by an 

APC at 9:45 a.m. was corroborated by her supervisor and contains clear detail regarding the time,

place, and in the manner alleged. The employing establishment also aided appellant in seeking 

medical treatment on September 4, 2016. As appellant and her supervisor provided consistent 

statements regarding the time and place, and manner of the employment incident, and as appellant 

sought medical treatment on that date, the record is sufficient to meet her burden of proof to 

establish that the incident occurred on September 4, 2016, as alleged.

15

 

10 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

11 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

12 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

13 See Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988); M.P., supra note 8.

14 K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006). A report from a physician 

assistant or certified nurse practitioner will be considered medical evidence if countersigned by a qualified physician. 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); M.P., 

supra note 8.

15 See D.C., Docket No. 17-0690 (issued July 19, 2017); E.W., Docket No. 17-0069 (issued May 23, 2017).
5

Appellant, however, has failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish a personal 

injury resulting from the September 4, 2016 employment incident. She submitted an x-ray report 

from Dr. Somogyi dated September 4, 2016 which did not provide a diagnosis and only noted no 

acute findings. Appellant submitted a note from Dr. Everson dated September 9, 2016 indicating 

only that appellant could return to work on September 9, 2016 with no restrictions. Neither of 

these reports signed by a physician provide any diagnosis of a personal injury caused by or related 

to her September 4, 2016 employment incident.16

Appellant also provided documents signed by a nurse practitioner on September 4, 2016. 

The Board notes that these reports are of no probative value with respect to appellant’s claim for 

a September 4, 2016 work injury because under FECA, the report of a nurse practitioner17 does 

not constitute probative medical evidence as they are not physicians under FECA.18

Thus, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof.

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 established that the employment incident occurred on 

September 4, 2016 in the performance of duty, as alleged. The Board further finds, however, that 

appellant has not submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish an injury causally related to 

the September 4, 2016 employment incident.

 

16 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009) (medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding 

the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship).

17 K.C., Docket No. 15-0552 (issued November 10, 2015).

18 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t); L.L., Docket No. 13-0829 (issued August 20, 2013); M.P., supra

note 8.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 11, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed, as modified.

Issued: April 25, 2018

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board