United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG 

ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, 

Omaha, NE, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0309

Issued: June 19, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 27, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 2, 2018 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act1and 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 medical condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 27, 2018 appellant, then a 54-year-old secretary, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral shoulder and neck conditions as a result 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

of her repetitive federal employment duties. She explained that on or about July 19, 2018 she 

spent an entire eight-hour workday at her computer constantly reaching for the scanner. Appellant

also reported spending long periods of time on the telephone which would be cradled between her 

head and shoulders so that she could type at the same time, causing extreme soreness to her neck 

and shoulders. She further explained that her pain returned whenever she was sitting at her desk 

in the same position. Appellant first became aware of her claimed conditions and their relationship 

to her federal employment on July 19, 2018. 

In an accompanying narrative statement, appellant reported that she was assigned to a new 

division causing her workload to more than triple and resulting in stress which contributed to her 

neck and shoulder conditions. She reported that she typically spent one to two hours daily printing 

and scanning documents, however, after July 19, 2018, she spent six to seven hours daily 

completing these same tasks. Appellant explained that she was assigned a number of new duties 

until new employees could be hired. She reported that her repetitive employment duties caused 

injury to her neck, bilateral shoulders, and upper back. 

In medical notes and reports dated August 30, 2018, Dr. Jeffrey J. Jenkins, Board-certified 

in family medicine, reported that appellant had complained of pain in the neck and upper back for 

approximately one month. He reported that, at that time, her employment duties had changed and 

she was spending several hours per day using a scanner. Appellant’s pain worsened throughout 

the workweek and improved over the weekend. Dr. Jenkins diagnosed myofascial pain and 

reviewed “images” of her workstation. He noted that the scanner was some distance from her 

computer terminal, causing her to stretch her left arm excessively. Dr. Jenkins opined that it was 

“highly likely” that appellant’s pain was caused by activities related to her employment. He 

recommended a course of physical therapy and modification of her workstation. 

In an August 31, 2018 note, Dr. Jenkins reported that appellant was evaluated on 

August 30, 2018 due to complaints of neck and upper back pain. He diagnosed myofascial pain 

and opined that it was “very likely” that her symptoms were directly caused by activities in the 

course of her employment. 

In a development letter dated September 19, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of medical 

and factual evidence needed and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. In a 

separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested the employing establishment provide 

comments pertaining to the accuracy of appellant’s occupational disease claim. 

Appellant responded to OWCP’s request on October 11, 2018 and described her repetitive

employment duties which she believed caused her medical conditions. 

In an October 15, 2018 statement from the employing establishment, appellant’s supervisor 

agreed with her statements pertaining to her occupational disease claim. She discussed appellant’s 

employment duties which she noted substantially increased in July 2018 when their district office 

was converted into a division office. An official position description for appellant’s job as a 

secretary was also submitted. 
3

Physical therapy notes dated September 6 through October 31, 2018 were also submitted 

documenting treatment to appellant’s cervical region. 

In a September 26, 2018 progress note Dr. Jenkins reported that appellant was evaluated 

on August 30, 2018 for myofascial pain and that he had nothing to add beyond what was in the 

medical record. He further reported that myofascial pain was the appropriate medical diagnosis 

with an associated international classification of diseases (ICD)-10 code which was adequate for 

the purposes of evaluation, treatment, coding, and billing. Dr. Jenkins reported that, if this was 

not adequate, then he would recommend further evaluation by a physical medicine specialist. 

By decision dated November 2, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence of record failed to provide a firm medical diagnosis which could be reasonably 

attributed to the accepted federal employment duties. It noted that the medical evidence submitted 

contained a diagnosis of pain which was a symptom and not a diagnosed medical condition. 

OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met for establishing an injury as 

defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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,2that 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.3 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.4

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for 

occupational disease, an employee must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment 

factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or 

condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition 

for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.5

 

2 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

3

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

4 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).

5 See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 
4

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship.6 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 rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment incident.7 

This medical opinion must include an accurate history of the employee’s employment injury and 

must explain how the condition is related to the injury. The weight of medical evidence is 

determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis 

manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.8

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment.9

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical notes dated August 30 and 31, and 

September 26, 2018 from Dr. Jenkins. The reports of Dr. Jenkins are insufficient to establish her

claim as they fail to provide a firm medical diagnosis which can be attributed to her accepted 

federal employment duties.10 The Board notes that Dr. Jenkins only diagnosed myofascial pain. 

The Board has consistently held that pain is a general description of a symptoms and is not a firm 

medical diagnoses.11 Lacking a firm diagnosis, Dr. Jenkins’ reports are of little probative medical 

value.12

Appellant also submitted reports dated September 6 through October 31, 2018 from a 

physical therapist documenting treatment for her conditions. However, physical therapists are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA and their opinions, therefore, are of no probative 

 

6 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); M.M., Docket No. 18-1366 (issued February 27, 2019); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 

234 (1983).

7 S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019). 

8 S.H., Docket No. 17-1660 (issued March 27, 2018); James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

9

J.S., Docket No. 18-0726 (issued November 5, 2018).

10 E.W., Docket No. 18-1423 (issued March 19, 2019).

11 See B.P., Docket No. 12-1345 (issued November 13, 2012) (regarding pain); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued 

October 10, 2008) (regarding pain). 

12 P.Y., Docket No. 18-1136 (issued January 7, 2019); see also Samuel Senkow, 50 ECAB 370 (1999).
5

value.13 As such, this evidence is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish her 

claim.14

For these reasons, the Board finds that there is no medical evidence of record establishing 

a medical condition causally related to the accepted federal employment duties.15 As such, 

appellant has not met her burden of proof.

On appeal, appellant argues that her physician disagreed with OWCP’s decision and would 

not provide a diagnosis other than myofascial pain despite her request. The Board notes that it is 

her burden to submit the evidence necessary to establish her claim for compensation.16 Appellant 

further argues that her physical therapist provided a diagnosed medical condition of strain of 

muscle, fascia, and tendon. As discussed above, physical therapy reports are of no probative value 

as they are not signed by a qualified physician under FECA.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(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 medical

condition causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

 

13 The term “physician” includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, 

and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by state law. See 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); M.M., 

Docket No. 16-1617 (issued January 24, 2017) (lay individuals such as physician assistants and physical therapists 

are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA). See also Gloria J. McPherson, 51 ECAB 441 (2000); 

Charley V.B. Harley, 2 ECAB 208, 211 (1949) (a medical issue such as causal relationship can only be resolved 

through the submission of probative medical evidence from a physician).

14 P.C., Docket No. 18-1703 (issued March 22, 2019).

15 T.O., Docket No. 18-0139 (issued May 24, 2018).

16 C.S., Docket No. 17-1345 (issued May 24, 2018).

17 Supra note 13.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 2, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 19, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board