United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

TRAINING & DOCTRINE COMMAND, 

Fort Knox, KY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1716 

Issued: March 3, 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 August 24, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from the April 28 and June 15, 2016 

merit decisions 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. 

ISSUE 

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

a back injury causally related to a March 1, 2016 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 2, 2016 appellant, then a 53-year old education and training specialist, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 1, 2016 she suffered a lower back 

injury when her chair slipped and she fell to the floor. 

By letter dated March 21, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that specific evidence, 

including medical evidence, was necessary to support her claim, and afforded appellant 30 days 

to submit this information. 

In response, appellant submitted a March 3, 2016 note, wherein Ellen McLaurin, a nurse 

practitioner (NP), indicated that appellant was off work for one more week and may return to 

work on March 11, 2016. 

By decision dated April 28, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It determined that 

she did not submit any medical evidence that contained a diagnosis. OWCP further stated that 

appellant had not submitted medical evidence establishing causal relationship between a 

diagnosis and the accepted incident of her federal employment. 

On May 18, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted new evidence with 

her reconsideration request. 

In a March 1, 2016 report, Dr. Daniel Gordon, a Board-certified internist, interpreted an 

x-ray of appellant’s lumbar spine as evincing transition vertebral elements and mild degenerative 

changes within the lower lumbar spine. He further noted that phleboliths are seen within the 

pelvis. 

In March 1 and 3, 2016 reports, NP McLaurin listed appellant’s diagnoses as unspecified 

fall, strain of the muscle fascia and tendon of the lower back, low back strain, pain in the left and 

right hip, cramp and spasm. She noted appellant’s complaints and her description of the 

employment incident. In a May 9, 2016 report, NP McLaurin indicated that she has been 

providing medical care to appellant for three years. She noted that appellant was initially treated 

for low back pain, and was last treated for this in March. NP McLaurin described appellant’s 

employment incident, and noted that she received extensive treatment including x-rays of her 

lumbar spine, hips and pelvis, a Torodol injection, and home pain medication. She noted that 

appellant was given an orthopedic referral. NP McLaurin stated that due to her injuries, 

appellant was unable to work at that time. 

In a May 12, 2016 statement, appellant indicated that she was injured on the job on 

March 1, 2016 when the back of her legs hit her chair, it rolled backward, and she fell onto the 

floor. She explained that she remained at work until 1:00 p.m., but the pain only increased and 

sitting aggravated it. Appellant noted that she went to her doctor who placed her on pain and 

inflammation medication and bed rest, and that she returned to duty on March 10, 2016. 

In a June 15, 2016 decision, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. It noted 

that the new evidence submitted on reconsideration did not provide a diagnosis of a medical 

condition, therefore fact of injury was not established. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 FECA, that an injury was caused in the performance of duty as alleged, 

and that any disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally 

related to the employment injury.3 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 must first be determined whether a fact of injury has been established. 

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.5

 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.6

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.7

 The weight of the 

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 

OWCP accepted that appellant established that the employment incident occurred as 

alleged on March 1, 2016. However, it denied her claim, finding that she failed to submit 

medical evidence establishing a medical diagnosis from a physician and that the diagnosed 

condition was causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

The Board notes that Dr. Gordon interpreted appellant’s x-rays of her lumbar spine as 

demonstrating transition vertebral element and mild degenerative changes within the lower 

 2 Id. 

3 Joe D. Cameron, 42 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

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

6 Id. 

7 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); supra note 4. 

8 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 
4

lumbar spine. Dr. Gordon also noted that phleboliths were seen within the pelvis. This x-ray is 

sufficient to show a medical diagnosis. 

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

her diagnosed medical condition was causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

Appellant has submitted no medical evidence establishing causal relationship. Dr. Gordon 

interpreted appellant’s x-rays but he failed to address whether his employment incident caused 

the conditions found on the x-ray. Therefore his opinion is of diminished probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship.9

 Furthermore, NP McLaurin’s opinions are of no probative value as 

nurse practitioners are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.10

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation.11 To 

support a claim for compensation, the evidence should offer a medically sound explanation of 

how the claimed work event caused or aggravated the claimed condition.12 No physician 

provided a rationalized medical opinion explaining a causal relationship between appellant’s 

accepted employment incident and a medical diagnosis. Appellant, therefore, did not meet her 

burden of proof to establish an injury in the performance of duty on March 1, 2016. 

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 established that she sustained a back injury 

causally related to the March 1, 2016 employment incident. 

 9 G.M., Docket No. 14-2057 (issued May 12, 2015). 

10 The term physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, 

and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2). See 

also L.D., 59 ECAB 648 (2008) (an NP is not considered a physician under FECA). 

11 D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007); Ruth R. Price, 16 ECAB 688, 691 (1965). 

12 K.H., Docket No. 15-1809 (issued January 7, 2016). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated June 15 and April 28, 2016 are affirmed, as modified. 

Issued: March 3, 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