United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.J., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. MARSHALS 

SERVICE, West Palm Beach, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0991 

Issued: August 15, 2017 

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 April 5, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 10, 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 over 

the merits in this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury due to his 

accepted January 24, 2017 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 With his request for an appeal, appellant submitted additional evidence. The Board’s jurisdiction, however, is 

limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Therefore, the Board may 

not consider this additional evidence on appeal; 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 31, 2017 appellant, then a 51-year-old criminal investigator, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that on January 24, 2017 the automobile in which he was 

riding as a passenger was rear ended by another car. He reported experiencing whiplash pain in 

his neck and back pain. The employing establishment did not dispute that appellant was in the 

performance of duty at the time of the accident. Appellant stopped work on January 27, 2017. 

By letter dated February 6, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to establish his claim, particularly requesting that he submit a physician’s reasoned 

opinion addressing the relationship of his injury and any diagnosed condition. It noted that 

medical evidence must be submitted by a qualified physician under FECA. 

Appellant submitted a January 24, 2017 report from a nurse practitioner who treated him 

for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred when he was driving to a class for 

work. He reported being a passenger in a car that was rear ended and the impact of the accident 

caused his body to jerk forward and backward causing multiple injuries. Appellant complained 

of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain due to the accident. The nurse practitioner noted 

findings of neck swelling, tenderness, and decreased range of motion of the cervical spine. She 

diagnosed cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain status post motor vehicle accident and 

referred appellant for physical therapy. On January 26, 2017 the nurse practitioner treated 

appellant in follow up and noted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the cervical and 

lumbar spine revealed multiple disc bulges and herniations. She diagnosed work-related injury 

status post motor vehicle accident, cervical and lumbar spine disc herniations and bulges, and 

muscle spasms. On February 10, 2017 the nurse practitioner noted appellant’s neck and back 

pain improved. She diagnosed status post work-related motor vehicle accident, cervical and 

lumbar spine pain resolved, disc bulges, and disc herniations. 

A January 24, 2017 MRI scan of the lumbar spine revealed slight interval progression of 

the L4-5 disc bulge, L3-4 stable in appearance annular disc bulge, and L5-S1 diffuse annular disc 

bulge with foraminal narrowing. A January 24, 2017 MRI scan of the cervical spine revealed 

chronic degenerative changes, C3-4 and C4-5 small central annular disc bulges, foraminal 

narrowing at C3-4, C5-6 and C6-7, small central subligamentous disc herniations, and 

osteophytes. An x-ray of the lumbar spine dated January 24, 2017 revealed mild degenerative 

vertebral spondylosis. An x-ray of the cervical spine of the same date showed degenerative 

vertebral spondylosis with chronic disease at C5-6 and C6-7 while a thoracic spine x-ray was 

normal. 

In a March 10, 2017 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation because 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical condition due to the 

accepted work incident. 
3

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 and/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 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 medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.5

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, 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 claimant.6

ANALYSIS 

It is undisputed that on January 24, 2017 appellant was a passenger in a motor vehicle 

that was rear ended while he was in the performance of duty. However, he has not submitted 

sufficient medical evidence to support that a condition has been diagnosed in connection with the 

employment incident or that any alleged lumbar, cervical, thoracic spine pain, lumbar or cervical 

disc herniations, and bulges were causally related to the January 24, 2017 employment incident. 

 3 Supra note 1. 

4 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

5

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

6 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
4

Appellant was treated by a nurse practitioner from January 24 to February 10, 2017. The 

Board has held that nurses7 and nurse practitioners8 are not considered physicians under FECA. 

Thus, their treatment notes are of no probative medical value in establishing appellant’s claim. 

 The remainder of the medical evidence, including January 24, 2017 MRI scans of the 

lumbar and cervical spine and x-rays of the lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spines dated 

January 24, 2017, are of limited probative value as they fail to provide a physician’s opinion on 

the causal relationship between appellant’s work incident and his lumbar, cervical, and thoracic 

conditions.9 For this reason, this evidence is insufficient to meet his burden of proof. 

Because appellant has not submitted medical evidence establishing an injury in 

connection with the January 24, 2017 employment incident, he has not met his burden of proof. 

On appeal appellant contends that he was injured in the performance of duty and that he 

has submitted sufficient evidence from his doctor supporting his claim. As found above, the 

medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant has a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to his accepted work incident. Appellant has not submitted a 

physician’s report which describes how the incident on January 24, 2017 caused or aggravated a 

neck and back condition.10

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 due 

to his accepted January 24, 2017 employment incident. 

 7 Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208 (2004) (where the Board found that a nurse practitioner is not a “physician” pursuant 

to FECA). 

8 See David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician assistants, nurses, and 

physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (this subsection 

defines a “physician” as surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and 

osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law). 

9 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). 

10 Appellant also asserts that he was given a Form CA-16 (authorization for examination and/or treatment) that he 

provided to his treating physician and that he wants his physician paid for services rendered. The Board notes that 

no Form CA-16 was of record at the time the appeal was filed on April 5, 2017, and it may not consider evidence for 

the first time on appeal which was not before OWCP at the time of its final decision. See supra note 2. This 

decision does not preclude appellant from further pursuing, with OWCP, the matter of payment for initial medical 

expenses pursuant to any Form CA-16 that may have been issued to him. See, e.g., R.H., Docket No. 16-1055 

(issued May 22, 2017) (ordinarily where the employing establishment authorizes treatment of a job-related injury by 

providing the employee a properly executed Form CA-16, OWCP is under a contractual obligation to pay for the 

medical expenses). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 10, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 15, 2017 

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