United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.L., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0125

Issued: May 17, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 23, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 11, 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.

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted March 18, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 27, 2017 appellant, then a 51-year-old aircraft mechanic, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 18, 2017 he sustained a back sprain or strain resulting 

from lifting a manifold from a crate with a coworker. He explained that, after the manifold cleared 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

the crate, his coworker lowered it to the ground without notifying him and that the weight forced 

his back to bend. Appellant stopped work on March 18, 2017 and returned on March 27, 2017.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted spine x-rays from Dr. Ambarish Bhat, a 

radiologist, which provided “no evidence of acute injury in lumbosacral spine.” He also provided 

a form report from Lamin Seisay, a physician assistant, dated March 18, 2017.

In an April 5, 2017 development letter, OWCP requested additional factual and medical 

evidence in support of appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It notified him that nurse practitioners 

and physician assistants were not considered qualified physicians under FECA. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days for a response.

Appellant subsequently provided an undated work release form signed by Debra Ford, a 

registered nurse.

By decision dated May 11, 2017, OWCP accepted that the March 18, 2017 employment 

incident occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim as he had not submitted any medical 

evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment incident. 

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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability 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.3

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 or she 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.4

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 

 

2

Id.

3 A.D., Docket No. 17-1855 (issued February 26, 2018); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

4 A.D., id.; T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).
3

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific 

employment factors identified by the claimant.5

ANALYSIS

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

injury causally related to the accepted March 18, 2017 employment incident.

It is undisputed that on March 18, 2017 appellant, with a coworker, was lifting a manifold

which his coworker unexpectedly lowered to the ground. However, the Board finds that he failed 

to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that this work incident caused or aggravated his 

back condition.6 

Appellant submitted a report from a physician assistant dated March 18, 2017 and an 

undated report from a registered nurse. However, the Board has held that reports by a physician 

assistant and a registered nurse are not considered medical evidence as those health care providers 

are not considered physicians under FECA.7 

Appellant has provided no medical evidence, from a physician, diagnosing a condition as 

the result of his March 18, 2017 employment incident and has, therefore, failed to meet his burden 

of proof to establish a traumatic injury claim.8

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

employee’s own belief of causal relation.9 Appellant’s honest belief that the April 4, 2014 

employment incident caused his medical conditions is not in question, but that belief, however 

sincerely held, does not constitute the medical evidence to establish causal relationship.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.

 

5 A.D., supra note 3; I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

6 M.E., Docket No. 17-1857 (issued February 2, 2018).

7 See K.E., Docket No. 17-1216 (issued February 22, 2018); M.M., Docket No. 17-1641 (issued February 15, 2018); 

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).

8 O.R., Docket No. 17-1735 (issued January 2, 2018).

9 G.E., Docket No. 17-1719 (issued February 6, 2018); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).

10 G.E, id.; H.H., Docket No. 16-0897 (issued September 21, 2016).
4

CONCLUSION

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

injury causally related to the accepted March 18, 2017 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 11, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 17, 2018

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