United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Malden, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1107

Issued: October 17, 2017

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 April 27, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 9, 2016 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 this case.2

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted October 24, 2016 employment incident.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 9, 2016 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 

Appellant also submitted new evidence with her appeal to the Board. However, the Board may only review

evidence that was in the record at the time OWCP issued its final decision. Thus, it has no jurisdiction to review this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(1); M.B., Docket No. 09-176 (issued 

September 23, 2009); J.T., 59 ECAB 293 (2008).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 24, 2016 appellant, then a 51-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she sustained head, neck, and back pain in the 

performance of duty when she was rear ended. She stopped work on the date of the alleged 

injury.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a report dated October 24, 2016 from 

Hallmark Health Center Emergency Department, signed by Dr. Alexander O. Walker, a 

specialist in emergency medicine, diagnosing acute cervical neck strain. Dr. Walker noted that 

appellant had been involved in an automobile accident on that day. 

By letter dated November 1, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that it required additional 

factual and medical evidence to determine whether she was eligible for compensation benefits. 

It asked her to complete a questionnaire and to submit a comprehensive medical report from her 

treating physician, which provided a diagnosis and a rationalized medical opinion explaining 

causal relationship. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested information. 

Appellant submitted a partially illegible work status report dated November 1, 2016 from

Dr. Jonathan Holder, a treating osteopath Board-certified in occupational medicine, noting that 

appellant was out of work. She also submitted October 27, 2016 notes from Anna Shapiro, a 

certified physician assistant. Ms. Shapiro, in the October 27, 2016 progress notes, noted the 

injury history, provided examination findings, and diagnosed neck and back strains status post 

the October 24, 2016 motor vehicle accident. She requested appellant be excused from work 

beginning October 28, 2015.

On December 2, 2016 OWCP received appellant’s response to OWCP’s request for 

further factual information. Appellant explained that she had just entered her parked truck when 

it was struck from behind. 

By decision dated December 9, 2016, OWCP found that the October 24, 2016 incident 

occurred as alleged, but also found that she failed to submit sufficient medical evidence that her 

diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has 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 and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

 

3

Supra note 1. 
3

employment injury.4 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.5

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, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally 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 

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

incident.10 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 incident.11 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that the record before the Board is without rationalized medical evidence 

establishing that appellant sustained a traumatic injury causally related to the accepted 

October 24, 2016 work incident. 

OWCP advised appellant that it was her responsibility to provide a comprehensive 

medical report which provided a diagnosis and medical rationale, explaining causal relationship

between the diagnosed condition and the employment incident. 

Appellant was initially seen by Dr. Walker, an emergency room physician, on 

October 24, 2016. Dr. Walker noted appellant’s history of injury and diagnosed acute cervical 

neck strain. He, however, offered no rationalized medical explanation as to how the accepted 

 

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

5

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

6 B.F., Docket No. 09-0060 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 4.

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

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

note 4.

9

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

642 (2006).

10 J.J., Docket No. 09-0027 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006).

11 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
4

employment incident would have caused the diagnosed condition.12 Lacking a medical 

explanation regarding causal relationship, his report is of limited probative value.13

Appellant also submitted a partially illegible November 11, 2016 work restriction form 

from Dr. Holder. However, this report is also insufficient to support appellant’s claim as it 

contained no diagnosis or opinion on causal relationship.14

Appellant submitted a report and disability note from Ms. Shapiro, a certified physician 

assistant dated October 27, 2016. This evidence is of no probative medical value as the Board 

has held that physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA and are, therefore, 

not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA.15 Thus, this evidence is not sufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof.

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference of causal relation.16 An award of compensation may not 

be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of causal 

relation.17

The Board, therefore, finds that appellant failed to establish a traumatic injury causally 

related to the accepted October 24, 2016 employment incident.

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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury causally related to the accepted October 24, 2016 employment incident.

 

12 C.S. Docket No. 17-0399 (issued June 19, 2017). 

13 See P.S., Docket No. 17-0598 (issued June 23, 2017). 

14 A.D., 58 ECAB 159 (2006); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

15 See S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); 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).

16 L.D., Docket No. 09-1503 (issued April 15, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007); Daniel O. Vasquez, 57 ECAB 

559 (2006).

17 S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008); J.M., 58 ECAB 303 (2007); Donald W. Long, 41 ECAB 142 (1989).
5

ORDER

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

Compensation Programs dated December 9, 2016 is affirmed.

Issued: October 17, 2017

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