United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR 

EDUCATION & TRAINING COMMAND, 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0076 

Issued: March 25, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 20, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 30, 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 an injury causally 

related to a February 1, 2015 employment incident. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the June 30, 2015 OWCP decision, appellant submitted new 

evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its 

final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2 

On appeal appellant contends that he is still injured from landing on his right knee at 

work and cannot go to the physician specialist because his insurance will not cover it. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 3, 2015 appellant, a 27-year-old aircraft attendant, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he injured his right knee on February 1, 2015. He stated that he 

was helping to push back a T-6 aircraft for tire roll over inspection when his right foot slipped 

and his right knee hit the ground. 

Appellant submitted hospital records dated February 4, 2015 and reports dated 

February 9 through April 1, 2015 from a physician assistant who reported that appellant injured 

his right knee while lifting at work and diagnosed right knee pain. The submissions included a 

February 9, 2015 return to work form from a Dr. T. Sanchez who noted that appellant was unable 

to work that day and could work thereafter with restrictions of no prolonged walking or standing 

and no bending of the right knee. Also submitted were physical therapy records. 

OWCP authorized an April 9, 2015 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right 

knee, which revealed mild lateral patellar subluxation and tilting with mild chondromalacia 

patellae. 

In a May 12, 2015 letter, OWCP advised appellant that his claim had been received, it 

appeared to be a minor injury, and there was minimal or no lost time from work. Based on these 

criteria, and because the employing establishment did not controvert continuation of pay (COP) 

or challenge the case, payment of a limited amount of medical expenses was administratively 

approved. As the medical bills had exceeded $1,500.00, the case was reopened. OWCP 

requested additional evidence and afforded appellant 30 days to respond to its inquiries. 

Appellant submitted reports dated March 24 through May 21, 2015 from the physician 

assistant who had diagnosed patellar dislocation and dislocated patella. This included a May 14, 

2015 physician assistant report, noting that appellant’s injury occurred while pushing a T-6 

aircraft on February 1, 2015. 

In a June 10, 2015 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Ira Floyd, an orthopedic surgeon, 

diagnosed right patellar subluxation. He checked a box marked “yes” to indicate that the history 

provided by appellant was consistent with the history provided on the employing establishment’s 

side of the form report. In a separate report of the same date, Dr. Floyd released appellant to 

regular duty effective June 10, 2015. The employing establishment advised that appellant had 

returned to full-time, full-duty work on June 10, 2015. 

By decision dated June 30, 2015, OWCP accepted that the February 1, 2015 incident 

occurred as alleged but denied appellant’s claim finding that he failed to submit evidence 

containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the injury or events. 

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 
3 

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

 

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 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 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 February 1, 2015 occurred at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged. The Board finds, however, that appellant did not meet his 

burden of proof to establish that he sustained an injury related to the February 1, 2015 

employment incident. Appellant has not submitted medical evidence supporting that the 

February 1, 2015 work incident caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. 

In a June 10, 2015 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Floyd diagnosed right patellar 

subluxation and checked a box “yes” to indicate that the history provided by appellant was 

consistent with the history provided on the employing establishment’s side of the form report. 

The Board has held that a physician’s opinion that consists of checking a box on a form report 

without more in the way of rationale, is of diminished probative value in establishing causal 

relationship.7

 Dr. Floyd failed to provide a rationalized opinion explaining how the 

                                                             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). 

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 Calvin E. King, 51 ECAB 394 (2000). 
4 

February 1, 2015 work incident caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. Thus, 

the Board finds that the reports from Dr. Floyd are insufficient to establish that appellant 

sustained an injury causally related to the February 1, 2015 employment incident. 

Dr. Sanchez reported on a February 9, 2015 return to work form that appellant was 

unable to return to work that day and could work in the future with restrictions. However, he 

neither provided a history of injury, a diagnosis, findings on examination, nor addressed the issue 

of causal relationship. As such, his report is of diminished probative value and is insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim.8

The April 9, 2015 MRI scan of the right knee is of limited probative value as it does not 

specifically address whether the February 1, 2015 employment incident caused or contributed to 

the diagnosed conditions.9

 

Appellant also submitted evidence from a physician assistant and physical therapists. 

These documents do not constitute competent medical evidence because neither a physician 

assistant nor a physical therapist is a “physician” as defined under FECA.10 As such, this 

evidence is also insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Consequently, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof as he has 

not submitted competent medical evidence addressing how the February 1, 2015 work incident 

caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. 

On appeal appellant contends that he is still injured from landing on his right knee at 

work and cannot go to the physician specialist because his insurance does not cover it. Based on 

the findings and reasons stated above, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of 

proof to establish a work injury and therefore his current arguments on appeal fail to address the 

relevant issue of the case. 

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 his burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty on February 1, 2015. 

                                                             8 See T.G., Docket No. 13-76 (issued March 22, 2013); Lee R. Haywood, 48 ECAB 145 (1996). 

9 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386 (1997) (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). 

10 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); Sean O’Connell, 56 ECAB 195 (2004) (physician assistants); Jennifer L. Sharp, 48 ECAB 

209 (1996) (physical therapists). See also Gloria J. McPherson, 51 ECAB 441 (2000); Charley V.B. Harley, 2 

ECAB 208, 211 (1949) (a medical issue such as causal relationship can only be resolved through the submission of 

probative medical evidence from a physician). 
5 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 30, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed 

Issued: March 25, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board