United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

SERVICES, NAVAL AIR STATION 

COMMISSARY, Meridian, MS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1126

Issued: December 7, 2018

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 May 14, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 14, 2018 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.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the March 14, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that 

was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board 

for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this evidence for 

the first time on appeal. Id. 
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted December 29, 2017 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 31, 2018 appellant, then a 49-year-old store worker, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on December 29, 2017,she pulled a muscle in her back unloading 

incoming shipments and lifting boxes while in the performance of duty. She did not stop work. 

By development letter dated February 9, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant provide 

additional factual and medical evidence supporting her traumatic injury claim. Specifically, it 

requested that she submit a rationalized medical opinion which explained how a diagnosed medical 

condition was causally related to the alleged incident. OWCP noted that the medical evidence 

submitted must be from a qualified physician and notified appellant of the circumstances under 

which a chiropractor can be considered a physician under FECA. It afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond.

Appellant provided a series of notes from Dr. Arthur J. Hall, a chiropractor, beginning 

January 31, 2018, indicating that he examined appellant due to a back injury from a work-related 

incident. He diagnosed subluxation of L4-5 lumbar vertebra, sprain of ligaments of the lumbar 

spine, radiculopathy lumbar region, and low back pain.

By decision dated March 14, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

finding that she had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis causally 

related to the accepted employment incident. It noted that as the evidence submitted from a 

chiropractor did not include a diagnosis of subluxation of the spine based on review of x-rays, it

is not considered medical evidence.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation 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. These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

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

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

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 A.D., Docket No. 17-1855 (issued February 26, 2018); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).
3

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time and place, and in the manner alleged.5 Second, the employee must submit medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6 

Causal relationship is a medical question, which requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant 

s specific employment factors.9

Chiropractors are considered physicians 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.10 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions which are not 

based on x-rays will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted December 29, 2017 employment incident.

Appellant’s chiropractor, Dr. Hall, diagnosed spinal subluxations at L4-5. The case record, 

however, does not contain x-rays of appellant’s spine and Dr. Hall did not indicate that he relied 

on x-rays to establish his diagnosis of spinal subluxations. As such, the Board finds that Dr. Hall 

is not considered a physician within the meaning of FECA and his reports do not constitute 

probative medical evidence.12 As appellant did not submit probative medical evidence, she has 

 

5 A.L., Docket No. 18-0420 (issued August 21, 2018).

6 A.D., supra note 4; T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

7 See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

9

Id.

10 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see A.L., supra note 5; T.W., Docket No. 17-1819 (issued March 14, 2018); Kathryn 

Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 389 (1994).

11 A.L., supra note 5; R.M., Docket No. 17-1656 (issued January 16, 2018); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 

n.11 (2006). Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) 

(January 2013).

12 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see A.L., supra note 5; R.M., id.; Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 389 (1994). 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(bb); see Bruce Chameroy, 42 ECAB 121, 126 (1990).
4

not met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the 

accepted employment incident.13

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 a diagnosed 

condition causally related to the accepted December 29, 2017 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 14, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 7, 2018

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 Supra note 6.