United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Capitol Heights, MD, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0133

Issued: April 16, 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 October 23, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 28, 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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the September 28, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

ISSUE

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

related to the accepted June 12, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 14, 2018 appellant, then a 67-year-old general expeditor, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he injured his right thumb on June 12, 2018 when an allpurpose container shelf came down on his thumb while in the performance of duty. He resumed 

his full-time regular duties on June 13, 2018. 

A June 12, 2018 return to work/school note from a hospital indicated that appellant was 

seen in the emergency department that day and that he would be able to return to work in three 

days. The note was signed by Tanya R. Pallia, a physician assistant. 

In an August 29, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him to submit a narrative report from 

a physician, including diagnoses and a rationalized medical opinion on causal relationship. OWCP

also requested additional information regarding the alleged June 12, 2018 employment incident, 

as well as similar disability or symptoms before the injury. It afforded appellant 30 days to submit 

the requested evidence. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated September 28, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he 

had not submitted medical evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with the accepted

June 12, 2018 employment incident. Therefore, appellant had not met the requirements to 

establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

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 of FECA,4that 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 compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

 

3 Supra note 1.

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

153 (1989). 

5

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 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).
3

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 

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence supporting such causal relationship.10 Causal relationship is a medical issue, and 

the medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.11 

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.12 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.13

ANALYSIS

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

causally related to the accepted June 12, 2018 employment incident. 

In support of his claim appellant submitted a June 12, 2018 return to work/school note 

completed by a physician assistant at a hospital. This note does not constitute competent medical 

evidence because physician assistants are not considered “physician[s]” as defined under FECA.14 

As such, this note is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish his claim. 

 

7 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8 D.S., Docket No. 17-1422 (issued November 9, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 J.L., Docket No. 18-0698 (issued November 5, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

465 (2005).

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

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

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

14 See M.M., Docket No. 17-1641 (issued February 15, 2018); K.J., Docket No. 16-1805 (issued February 23, 

2018); 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).
4

In its August 29, 2018 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual 

and medical evidence necessary to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the 

requested evidence. However, appellant did not submit additional evidence in support of his claim. 

The Board finds that, because the evidence of record at the time of OWCP’s September 28, 

2018 decision was devoid of medical evidence containing a specific diagnosis in connection with 

the accepted June 12, 2018 employment incident, appellant has not met his burden of proof to 

establish his claim. 

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 his burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to the accepted June 12, 2018 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 28, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 16, 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