United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WINTERWOOD 

POST OFFICE, Las Vegas, NV, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0386

Issued: August 10, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 6, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 19, 2019 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 her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted July 27, 2019 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 July 31, 2019 appellant, then a 33-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on July 27, 2019 she sustained emotional trauma when she found a 

decapitated body on her park and loop route while in the performance of duty. She stopped work 

on July 30, 2019.

In an August 1, 2019 work status note, a physician assistant noted that appellant was seen 

for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He listed diagnoses of generalized anxiety disorder and 

PTSD. In an accompanying report of initial treatment, the physician assistant diagnosed anxiety 

and indicated that appellant was referred for mental health treatment.

In an August 1, 2019 authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16), the 

employing establishing authorized appellant to seek medical care for the alleged incident at an 

Urgent Care clinic.3 In the corresponding attending physicians report (Part B of the Form CA-16), 

dated August 1, 2019, a physician assistant reported that appellant came across a decapitated body 

while delivering packages at work. He diagnosed PTSD and checked a box marked “Yes” to 

indicate that the diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated by the described employment 

activity. The physician assistant opined that appellant could resume regular work and 

recommended mental health treatment.

In an August 16, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record 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. In a separate development letter 

of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information 

regarding appellant’s claim from a knowledgeable supervisor. It afforded both parties 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. No additional evidence was received. 

By decision dated September 19, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in 

connection with the accepted July 27, 2019 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,5that 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 

 

3 Appellant also submitted a blank duty status report (Form CA-17) along with her Form CA-16 report.

4 Supra note 1.

5 S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June 26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

related to the employment injury.6 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.7

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.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 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 incident identified by the claimant.11

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted July 27, 2019 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a work status note, report of initial treatment, 

and an attending physician’s report (Part B of a Form CA-16), all dated August 1, 2019, and signed 

by a physician assistant. The Board has held, however, 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.12 As such, this evidence is of no probative value and is insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim.

On appeal appellant submitted new medical evidence. However, as noted, the Board’s 

review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of 

 

6 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

7 S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 R.K., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued April 10, 2020); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April 6, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

11 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April 9, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

12 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that physician “includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law.”

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). See also 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); M.W., Docket 

No. 19-1667 (issued June 29, 2020) (physician assistant).
4

its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first 

time on appeal. Accordingly, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for 

the first time on appeal.13

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted July 27, 2019 employment incident, the Board 

finds that she has not met her burden of proof.14

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 diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted July 27, 2019 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 19, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 10, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

13 Supra 

14 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16. A completed Form CA-16 authorization 

may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when properly executed. 

The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the 

examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); J.G., Docket No. 

17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).