United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.L., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PEARL 

HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD, 

Pearl Harbor, HI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0102

Issued: May 8, 2018

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 October 11, 20171appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 17, 2017 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of this case.

3

 

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from April 17, 2017, the date of OWCP’s last decision was October 14, 

2017, a Saturday; consequently, the period for filing the appeal ran to the next business day, Monday, 

October 16, 2017. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2). Since using October 17, 2017, the date the appeal was received by 

the Clerk of the Appellate Boards would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the 

date of filing. The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is October 11, 2017, rendering the appeal timely filed. 

See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence with his appeal to the Board. However, the Board’s 

jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was in the record at the time of OWCP’s final decision. Thus, the Board is 
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish bilateral knee 

injuries causally related to the accepted February 24, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 3, 2017 appellant, then a 60-year-old police instructor, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on February 24, 2017, he sustained bilateral knee injuries when 

demonstrating M4 rifle practical shooting positions to new recruits. He did not stop working. 

Accompanying appellant’s claim was a February 24, 2017 employing establishment 

medical referral note by Dr. Frederick Landro, an examining physician Board-certified in public 

health and general preventive medicine. He noted that appellant had injured himself on 

February 24, 2017 at work while demonstrating shooting positions. Dr. Landro recommended

restricted activity until April 24, 2017.

By development letter dated March 15, 2017, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish his traumatic injury claim. It advised him of the type of

medical and factual evidence needed and afforded him 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

In response to the March 15, 2017 letter, appellant submitted progress notes dated May 26,

November 21, and December 19, 2016 and January 23 and March 16, 2017 from Frederick J. 

Puleo, a Board-certified acute care nurse practitioner. He provided physical examination findings 

and noted a history of bilateral knee pain. Mr. Puleo diagnosed bilateral knee pain and bilateral 

chondromalacia on November 21 and December 19, 2016 and March 16, 2017. 

By decision dated April 17, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to 

the accepted February 24, 2017 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 is causally related to the 

 

precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); M.B., 

Docket No. 09-0176 (issued September 23, 2009); J.T., 59 ECAB 293 (2008); G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007); Donald R. 

Gervasi, 57 ECAB 281 (2005); Rosemary A. Kayes, 54 ECAB 373 (2003).

4 Supra note 1. 
3

employment injury.5 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.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.7 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.8 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.9

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on 

whether there is causal relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and the 

compensable employment factors.11 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.12 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish bilateral knee 

injuries causally related to the accepted February 24, 2017 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a February 24, 2017 medical referral note from

Dr. Landro which referenced the February 24, 2017 accepted employment incident and 

recommended that appellant be placed on restricted duty until April 24, 2017. However,

Dr. Landro’s note is insufficient to establish the claim as it does not specifically address whether 

appellant’s employment incident was sufficient to have caused or aggravated a diagnosed medical 

condition.13 Lacking a firm diagnosis and medical rationale on the issue of causal relationship,

 

5 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

6 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

7 B.F., Docket No. 09-60 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 5.

8 D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005).

9 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008); D.G., 59 ECAB 734 (2008); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra

note 5.

10 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 

642 (2006).

11 J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006).

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

13 D.G., Docket No. 17-0704 (issued January 24, 2018); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Docket No. 06-1183 (issued 

November 14, 2006) (medical evidence which does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 
4

Dr. Landro’s report is insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an employment-related 

injury.14

Appellant also submitted reports from Mr. Puleo, a Board-certified acute care nurse 

practitioner, dated May 26, November 21, and December 19, 2016 and January 23 and 

March 16, 2017. The Board has held that notes signed by nurse practitioners15 lack probative value 

as these healthcare providers are not considered physicians under FECA.16

In a letter dated March 15, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant submit a comprehensive 

report from his treating physician which included a reasoned explanation as to how the accepted 

work incident had caused his claimed injury. It did not receive the necessary medical evidence.

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the 

employee’s own belief of causal relation.17 Appellant’s honest belief that his employment duties 

caused a medical injury, however sincerely held, does not constitute medical evidence sufficient 

to establish causal relationship.18

Because appellant has not submitted reasoned medical evidence explaining how a 

diagnosed medical condition was caused by his accepted employment incident, he has not met his

burden of proof.19

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 bilateral knee 

injuries causally related to the accepted February 24, 2017 employment incident.

 

condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship).

14 See R.S., Docket No. 17-1139 (issued November 16, 2017). 

15 M.E., Docket No. 17-1857 (issued February 2, 2018); Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208 (2004) (where the Board found 

that a nurse practitioner is not considered a physician pursuant to FECA).

16 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); L.D., 59 ECAB 648 (2008) (a nurse 

practitioner is not considered a physician as defined 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).

17 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).

18 See J.S., Docket No. 17-0967 (issued August 23, 2017).

19 Supra note 10. 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs dated April 17, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: May 8, 2018

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