United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.A., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0816 

Issued: July 24, 2017 

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 March 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 27, 2016 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 her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an 

injury causally related to the accepted July 25, 2016 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its October 27, 2016 

decision. The Board’s jurisdiction, however, is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time 

of its final decision; therefore, this additional evidence cannot be considered by the Board on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1); Dennis E. Maddy, 47 ECAB 259 (1995); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35, 36 n.2 (1952). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 25, 2016 appellant, then a 36-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she sustained a left leg injury when her leg fell 

through a weak porch while in the performance of duty. She notified her supervisor and stopped 

work on the date of injury. 

In work status reports dated July 25 through August 22, 2016, Dr. Priya P. Asija, Boardcertified in family medicine, reported that appellant was first evaluated on July 25, 2016 for a left 

leg injury when she stepped into broken wooden porch flooring. She diagnosed left leg injury 

and swelling and restricted appellant from returning to work. Dr. Asija released appellant to 

work on August 23, 2016 with restrictions. 

In an August 1, 2016 work status report, Dr. Myron O. Bodnar, Board-certified in 

internal medicine, reported that appellant was injured on July 25, 2016 and could return to work 

on August 4, 2016 with restrictions. He noted that she sustained a left leg injury when she 

stepped through a wood porch floor while delivering mail. 

By letter dated September 15, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to support her claim. It noted that the medical evidence received failed to 

document any diagnosed condition which could be related to the employment incident. 

Appellant was advised of the medical evidence needed and was afforded 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an August 12, 2016 certificate of excuse note 

and a September 7, 2016 disability release form from Dr. Corinne Kennedy, a treating 

chiropractor. Dr. Kennedy noted treatment for leg pain. 

By decision dated October 27, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that she sustained an injury. It found that the 

July 25, 2016 incident occurred as alleged; however, the evidence failed to provide a firm 

medical diagnosis which could be attributed to the accepted employment incident. 

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, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

 3 Supra note 1. 
3

employment injury.4

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

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. The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be 

established only by medical evidence.6

 

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such causal 

relationship.7

 The opinion of the physician must be based on 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. This 

medical opinion must include an accurate history of the employee’s employment injury and must 

explain how the condition is related to the injury. The weight of medical evidence is determined 

by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and 

the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.8

ANALYSIS 

Appellant has established that the July 25, 2016 employment incident of her leg falling 

through a weak porch occurred as alleged. The issue, therefore, is whether the medical evidence 

of record is sufficient to establish that the employment incident caused an injury. The Board 

finds that appellant did not submit sufficient medical evidence to support that she sustained an 

injury causally related to the accepted employment incident.9 The medical evidence is deficient 

on two grounds: first, it fails to provide a firm diagnosis; and second, there is no narrative 

opinion on causal relationship between a diagnosed condition and the employment incident. 

In work status reports dated July 25 through August 22, 2016, Dr. Asija described the 

July 25, 2016 employment incident and diagnosed left leg injury and swelling. The Board notes 

that Dr. Asija failed to provide a firm medical diagnosis as the physician only noted left leg 

injury and swelling. As such her report is of limited probative medical value.10 Left leg swelling 

 4 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989). 

5 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

6 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 4. 

7 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 234 (1983). 

8 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

9 Id.

10 See B.S., Docket No. 11-1504 (issued February 3, 2012). 
4

is a description of a symptom rather than a compensable medical diagnosis.11 Dr. Asija also 

failed to address causal relationship. Similarly, Dr. Bodnar’s August 1, 2016 work status report 

also failed to establish a firm medical diagnosis and did not address causation.12 The opinion of 

a physician must rest on a complete factual and medical background supported by affirmative 

evidence, address the specific factual and medical evidence of record, and provide medical 

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

established incident or factor of employment.13 Therefore, this evidence fails to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof. 

Dr. Kennedy is a chiropractor. Chiropractors are not considered physicians under FECA 

unless it is established that there is a spinal subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist.14 

Dr. Kennedy did not diagnose subluxation based on the results of an x-ray.15 Therefore, her 

report has no probative value.16

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference of causal relation.17 An award of compensation may not 

be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of causal 

relation.18 In the instant case, appellant has established that the July 25, 2016 incident occurred 

as alleged. She has failed, however, to establish a firm medical diagnosis and to provide medical 

rationale supporting an injury causally related to the accepted July 25, 2016 employment 

incident. Thus, appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

 11 C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008). 

12 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. S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); C.B., Docket 

No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010).

13 See Lee R. Haywood, 48 ECAB 145 (1996). 

14 See Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994). 

15 5 U.S.C. § 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. The term ‘physician’ includes chiropractors 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 to exist and subject to regulation by the secretary.” See Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988). 

16 L.S., Docket No. 07-560 (issued June 22, 2007). 

17 Daniel O. Vasquez, 57 ECAB 559 (2006). 

18 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006). 
5

CONCLUSION 

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

sustained an injury causally related to a July 25, 2016 employment incident. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 27, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 24, 2017 

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