United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION 

SERVICES, Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0873

Issued: December 18, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 19, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 9, 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.

ISSUE

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

related to the accepted June 22, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 27, 2017 appellant, then a 33-year-old immigration services assistant, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on June 22, 2017 while in the performance of 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

duty, she sustained neck, back, right knee, and head injuries when her government vehicle was 

rear-ended while she was traveling to a field office to attend a citizenship ceremony. An 

employing establishment supervisor confirmed that she was injured in the performance of duty. 

In a development letter dated August 7, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated September 15, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she 

had established that the June 22, 2017 incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged, 

but she had not submitted medical evidence diagnosing a medical condition in connection with the 

accepted incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.

OWCP thereafter received medical evidence. On June 22, 2017 appellant was seen by

Dr. Eric C. Ohlson, a specialist in emergency medicine, for motor vehicle accident (MVA) related 

pain. Dr. Ohlson indicated that she had neck pain, headache, lower back pain, right hand pain, and 

right knee pain. He advised that appellant had been restrained as the driver of the vehicle, that her 

vehicle was rear-ended indirectly, and that no air-bag deployed. Dr. Ohlson explained that she

was able to drive to work to fill out paperwork for the injury and then drove herself to the 

emergency room. He examined appellant and diagnosed: MVA, initial encounter; cervical 

paraspinal muscle spasm; wrist pain, acute, on the left; and acute bilateral low back pain without 

sciatica.

Appellant was also seen by Dr. Laura Owczarek, a Board-certified emergency room 

physician, on June 22, 2017. Dr. Owczarek related that appellant could return to work on June 26, 

2017 with no restrictions. On June 25, 2017 she reviewed appellant’s diagnostic evaluations 

including computerized tomography scans of the head, neck, and lumbar spine, as well as x-rays 

of the right knee and wrist, which were all negative. Dr. Owczarek discharged appellant from 

further care. 

On September 30, 2017 appellant responded to the factual development questionnaire. She 

confirmed that she was on duty at the time of the accident. Appellant also indicated that she was 

not experiencing further pain.

On November 17, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated January 9, 2018, OWCP denied modification of the September 15, 2017 

decision.

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 

 

2

Id.
3

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

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

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. 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.6 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.

8

 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 employee.9 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS

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

causally related to the accepted June 22, 2017 employment incident. 

On June 22, 2017 appellant was seen by Dr. Ohlson, who described her history of a 

June 22, 2017 MVA and his examination findings. Dr. Ohlson assessed cervical paraspinal muscle 

spasm, left wrist pain, and acute bilateral low back pain without sciatica, but did not provide a 

medical diagnosis. The Board has found that pain and spasm are symptoms and not a specific 

 

3 See C.W., Docket No. 19-0231 (issued July 15, 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

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 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).

6 O.C., Docket No. 19-0551 (issued September 17, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 L.D., Docket No. 17-1581 (issued January 23, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

9 L.D., id.; see also Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

10 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).
4

medical diagnosis.11 Lacking a firm diagnosis and rationalized medical opinion regarding causal 

relationship, this report is of no probative value.12

Dr. Owczarek indicated that appellant was seen on June 22, 2017 after she was involved in 

a MVA. She indicated that appellant could return to work on June 26, 2017 with no restrictions. 

On June 25 2017 Dr. Owczarek reported that the diagnostic studies were all negative and appellant

did not require further medical treatment; however, she did not provide an opinion on the issue of 

causal relationship. Therefore, these reports are of no probative value.13 

OWCP also received nurses’ notes and discharge instructions dated June 22 and 23, 2017. 

The Board has held that nurses are not considered physicians under FECA and therefore are not 

competent to render a medical opinion.14 Thus, these notes and discharge instructions are of no 

probative value and are insufficient to establish the claim.

As the record before the Board is without rationalized medical evidence establishing that 

appellant sustained a medical condition causally related to the accepted June 22, 2017 work 

incident, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof. 

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 an injury 

causally related to the accepted June 22, 2017 employment incident.

 

11 J.S., Docket No. 19-0863 (issued November 4, 2019); V.B., Docket No. 19-0643 (issued September 6, 2019).

12 P.C., Docket No. 18-0167 (issued May 7, 2019).

13 Id. 

14 T.A., Docket No. 19-1030 (issued November 22, 2019); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(t); 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).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 9, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 18, 2019

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