United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.O., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

96th CIVIL ENGINEER GROUP,

ELGIN AIR FORCE BASE, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1012

Issued: October 29, 2018

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 16, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 24, 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 of this case.

ISSUE

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

related to the accepted September 12, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 13, 2017 appellant, then a 29-year-old forestry technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained a headache, abdominal pain, and ringing in 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

his right ear that arose while in the performance of duty on September 12, 2017. He claimed that 

while working to extinguish a wildfire, he was knocked off his feet due to a large, loud explosion 

to the west of his location. Appellant stopped work on September 12, 2017 and resumed his 

regular duties the following day.

In support of the claim, OWCP received a May 18, 2017 notification of personnel action 

(Form SF-50) and a civilian forestry technician position description.

By a September 19, 2017 claim development letter, OWCP advised appellant that he 

needed to submit medical evidence in support of his claim for FECA benefits. It specifically noted 

that no medical evidence had been received, and therefore, there was no diagnosis of a condition 

resulting from the alleged injury. OWCP afforded appellant at least 30 days to submit the 

requested information.2

OWCP subsequently received September 14, 2017 discharge instructions from Elgin 

Emergency Department. Cherly Athern, a certified physician assistant, treated appellant for a 

headache. Appellant was discharged that same day with instructions to take Tylenol or Motrin for 

pain and to follow-up with his primary care physician in two to three days. 

By decision dated October 24, 2017, OWCP found that, although appellant established the 

factual component of fact of injury, he failed to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with 

the accepted September 12, 2017 employment incident. Consequently, it found that he failed to 

establish the “medical component” of fact of injury.

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

specific condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.4

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic 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 that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The 

first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

allegedly occurred.5 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.6

 

2 Although properly addressed, OWCP’s September 19, 2017 claim development letter was returned as 

undeliverable. 

3

Id.

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996).

5 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

6

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
3

Certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physical 

therapists, and social workers are not considered “physician[s]” as defined under FECA.7 

Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing 

entitlement to FECA benefits.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to the accepted September 12, 2017 employment incident.

Appellant submitted emergency room discharge instructions dated September 14, 2017 

prepared by a physician assistant who diagnosed headache and recommended Tylenol or Motrin 

for pain. He was instructed to follow-up with his primary care physician. Under FECA, a 

physician assistant is not competent to render a medical opinion unless his or her findings have 

been countersigned by a qualified physician.9 In this instance, there is no indication that

Ms. Athern’s September 14, 2017 diagnosis of a headache was countersigned by a qualified 

physician.10 Accordingly, the physician assistant’s discharge instructions are insufficient to satisfy 

appellant’s burden of proof with respect to establishing the medical component of fact of injury.11 

Currently, there is no competent medical evidence of record that establishes a medical diagnosis 

in connection with the accepted employment incident. Consequently, appellant failed to establish 

that he sustained an injury causally related to the accepted September 12, 2017 employment 

incident.

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 

causally related to the accepted September 12, 2017 employment incident.

 

7 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t).

8 K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006). A report from a physician 

assistant or certified nurse practitioner will be considered medical evidence if countersigned by a qualified physician. 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013).

9 Supra note 8.

10 The Elgin Emergency Department discharge instructions made no mention of a particular date of injury or cause 

of injury.

11 Supra note 8; see Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340, 341 (2003).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 24, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 29, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board