United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bethesda, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0070

Issued: May 10, 2019

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 October 11, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 25, 2018 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted August 14, 2018 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure

provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the 

time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on 

appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2018 appellant, then a 43-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on August 14, 2018, something bit his left foot while in the 

performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment indicated 

that his injury occurred in the performance of duty and that he stopped work on the date of injury 

and returned to work on August 17, 2018.

In a work release form dated August 14, 2018, Badruz Zaman, a physician assistant, 

indicated that appellant was seen on August 14, 2018 and was able to return to work without 

restrictions on August 17, 2018. 

Appellant provided a supplemental statement dated August 15, 2018, wherein he noted that 

after delivering a package along his route, he felt a bite on his left leg. He related that he did not 

see what bit him. Appellant indicated that he developed symptoms of left leg and chest pain, neck 

swelling and itching, and he lost his voice.

In a return to work form (Form CA-3) dated August 23, 2018, the employing establishment 

indicated that appellant returned to work without restrictions on August 17, 2018. 

In a development letter dated August 24, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish his claim. It requested additional medical evidence to 

substantiate his claim. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested evidence. No 

response was received.

By decision dated September 25, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosis in connection with the accepted 

employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,4and that 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.5 These are the essential elements of each and every 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 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).

5 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 

ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).
3

compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.6

To determine if an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established.7 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.8 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.9

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.10 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment incident must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.11 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

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

appellant’s specific employment incident.12

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted August 14, 2018 employment incident.

Appellant submitted a work-release form dated August 14, 2018 from Mr. Zaman, a 

physician assistant. The Board has held that medical reports signed solely by a physician assistant 

are of no probative value as physician assistants are not considered physicians as defined under 

FECA and are therefore not competent to render a medical opinion.13

Appellant also submitted a statement dated August 15, 2018 in which he described that, 

while in the performance of duty, something bit him and caused his alleged conditions. His own 

 

6 T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019); 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).

7 S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 E.M., id.; John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 S.S., supra note 7; Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

11 C.F., Docket No. 18-0791 (issued February 26, 2019); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

12 Id.

13 E.T., Docket No. 17-0265 (issued May 25, 2018) (physician assistants are not considered physicians under 

FECA); see David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (health care providers 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).
4

lay opinion is not relevant to the medical issue in this case, which can only be resolved through 

the submission of probative medical evidence from a physician.

14

 Temporal relationship alone 

will not suffice. Entitlement to FECA benefits may not be based on surmise, conjecture, 

speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of a causal relationship.15

Appellant has the burden of proof to submit rationalized medical evidence establishing that 

a diagnosed medical condition was causally related to the accepted August 14, 2018 employment 

incident.16 He has not submitted such evidence and thus the Board finds that he has not met his 

burden of proof.17

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.18

CONCLUSION

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted August 14, 2018 employment incident.

 

14 See G.C., Docket No. 18-0506 (issued August 15, 2018). 

15 T.H., supra note 5; D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).

16 R.B., Docket No. 18-1327 (issued December 31, 2018); see D.T., Docket No. 17-1734 (issued January 18, 2018).

17 R.B., id.; see D.S., Docket No. 18-0061 (issued May 29, 2018).

18 The Board notes that the record includes an Authorization for Examination and/or Treatment (Form CA-16). A 

properly completed Form CA-16 authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical 

facility or physician, the August 14, 2018 Form CA-16 was incomplete as it did authorize medical treatment at any 

specific medical facility. The Form CA-16 of record therefore did not create a contractual obligation to pay for the 

cost of the examination or treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); P.R., Docket No. 18-0737 (issued November 2, 

2018); N.M., Docket No. 17-1655 (issued January 24, 2018), Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 25, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 10, 2019

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