United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Metamora, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0795

Issued: August 21, 2019

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 1, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal of the February 8, 2019 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 her burden of proof to establish a right knee 

condition causally related to the accepted December 4, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 4, 2018 appellant, then a 31-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 4, 2018 she sustained a dislocated right 

patella when she went to step into a long-life vehicle (LLV) while in the performance of duty. In 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

a supplemental statement received on December 10, 2018, she explained that her “knee went out”

when she stepped into the LLV and she was told at the hospital that she dislocated her kneecap. 

Appellant stopped work on the date of injury.

In discharge instructions dated December 4, 2018, Dr. Kenneth Franckowiak, an osteopath 

Board-certified in emergency medicine, noted that appellant presented to the emergency 

department with right knee pain and he diagnosed her with a dislocated patella (kneecap).

OWCP also received the first page of an authorization for examination and/or treatment 

(Form CA-16), which indicated that appellant was authorized to seek medical treatment for her 

December 4, 2018 employment incident.

In a December 31, 2018 development letter, OWCP indicated that when the claim was 

received, it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work. As 

such, it had administratively approved payment of a limited amount of medical expenses without 

formally considering the merits of her claim. OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of her 

claim. It requested additional factual and medical evidence from her, including a narrative medical 

report from her attending physician. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond

In a medical report dated December 17, 2018, Megan Lumsden, a physician assistant, 

referred appellant to physical therapy and prescribed a sport knee brace with open patella. OWCP 

also received an illegible prescription of even date from Ms. Lumsden. 

By decision dated February 8, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that her medical condition was 

causally related to the accepted work event.

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,3that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, as 

alleged, and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally 

related to the employment injury.4 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.5

 

2

Id.

3 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 S.C., id.; J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, 

Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

5 S.C.,id.;K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 

2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

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.6 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.7 Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient 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 opinion evidence.9 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is 

medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there 

is causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors. 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 claimant.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a right knee 

condition causally related to the accepted December 4, 2018 employment incident.

In his discharge instructions, Dr. Franckowiak diagnosed a dislocated patella. However, 

he did not opine as to the cause of appellant’s condition. The Board has held that medical evidence 

that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative 

value on the issue of causal relationship.11 Therefore, Dr. Franckowiak’s report is insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted a report from a physician assistant. This report does not constitute 

competent medical evidence because physician assistants are not considered physicians as defined 

under FECA.12 As this report is not countersigned by a qualified physician, the Board finds that 

this report has no probative value.13

 

6 R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019).

7

Id.

8

Id.

9 M.B., Docket No. 17-1999 (issued November 13, 2018).

10 M.L., Docket No. 18-1605 (issued February 26, 2019).

11 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). This subsection defines a physician as surgeons, podiatrist, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law.

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

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); see S.Y., Docket No. 18-1814 

(issued April 18, 2019); M.F., Docket No. 17-1973 (issued December 31, 2018).
4

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that her right 

knee condition is causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment, the Board 

finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

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 her burden of proof to establish a right knee 

condition causally related to the accepted December 4, 2018 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 8, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 21, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board