United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Pittsburgh, PA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0913 

Issued: June 23, 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 March 20, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 3, 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 to consider the merits of the case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

causally related to his December 16, 2016 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its February 3, 2017 

decision. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final 

decision. Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review this additional evidence on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 16, 2016 appellant, then a 54-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he slipped while exiting his vehicle on that date 

injuring his right shoulder. He alleged a right shoulder strain. Appellant’s supervisor indicated 

that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. 

In a letter dated January 3, 2017, OWCP noted that appellant did not submit any 

supportive evidence with his traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) and requested that he provide 

additional factual and medical evidence establishing that the alleged employment incident 

occurred, that he sustained a diagnosed medical condition, and that the diagnosed condition was 

causally related to the employment incident. It afforded him 30 days to reply. 

In a January 31, 2017 response, appellant asserted that on December 16, 2016 at 9:55 

a.m. he was exiting his work van when his left foot slid from under him. He reached and 

grabbed the seat arm rest, pulling his shoulder. Appellant felt his arm pop as well as pain in his 

left leg and back. He first sought medical treatment on December 20, 2016. Appellant 

submitted a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan dated January 9, 2017, which demonstrated 

a full thickness rotator cuff tear involving the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons. This 

report indicated that he experienced persistent right shoulder pain after a fall in December 2016. 

Dr. John D. Lehman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, examined appellant on January 23, 

2017 and recommended surgery for the full thickness supraspinatus tear and ruptured biceps. 

Appellant submitted a note from a physician assistant, whose signature is illegible, 

indicating that he was seen in the emergency department on December 20, 2016. 

By decision dated February 3, 2017, OWCP found that appellant had established that he 

was a federal employee who had filed a timely claim, that the employment incident had occurred 

as alleged, that a medical condition had been diagnosed, and that he had been within the 

performance of duty. However, it denied his claim as the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed shoulder conditions and his 

December 16, 2016 employment incident of slipping while exiting his work vehicle. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence, including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United States” within the 

meaning of FECA and that he or she filed the claim within the applicable time limitation.4 The 

employee must also establish that he sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged, 

and that his disability from work, if any, was causally related to the employment injury.5

 3 Supra note 1. 

4 R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008). 

5 Id., Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1142, 1145 (1989). 
3

OWCP defines 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.”6

 To determine 

whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, it must 

first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. 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.7

 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.8

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.9

 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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.10 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents, is sufficient to establish causal relationship.11

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury causally related to his accepted December 16, 2016 employment incident. 

Appellant alleged that he sprained his right shoulder on December 16, 2016 when he 

slipped as he exited his work vehicle and grabbed the arm rest on the seat pulling his shoulder. 

The medical evidence submitted in support of his claim consists of a right shoulder MRI scan 

report and a note from Dr. Lehman. The MRI scan report described appellant’s history as falling 

in December 2016. This does not correspond to appellant’s description of the employment 

incident, which was a slip from a vehicle and sliding his left foot to grab to the vehicle’s arm 

rest. Furthermore, the MRI scan report did not provide any opinion on the causal relationship 

between his diagnosed rotator cuff tear and the accepted employment incident. Due to the lack 

of both a correct and detailed history of injury12 and the lack of an opinion on the causal 

 6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

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

8 J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007). 

9 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

10 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

11 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 

12 D.E., Docket No. 16-1604 (issued February 1, 2017); Daniel J. Overfield, 42 ECAB 718 (1991) (medical 

opinions which are based on an incomplete or inaccurate factual background are entitled to little probative value in 

establishing a claim). 
4

relationship between appellant’s employment incident and diagnosed condition,13 this report is 

insufficient to meet his burden of proof. 

Appellant also submitted a note from a physician assistant. Certain healthcare providers 

such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and social workers are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA.14 Consequently, their medical findings and/or 

opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.15

Appellant may submit new evidence16 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 a traumatic 

injury causally related to his December 16, 2016 employment incident. 

 13 D.R., Docket No. 16-0528 (issued August 24, 2016) (if medical reports do not provide an opinion on the cause 

of the claimant’s condition, the opinions are insufficient to establish causal relationship). 

14 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). 

15 K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006). 

16 Appellant may submit this or any evidence to OWCP, together with a formal request for reconsideration, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 3, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 23, 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