United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, PINEDALE RANGER 

DISTRICT, Pinedale, WY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0654

Issued: December 14, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 1, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 23, 2020 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 his burden of proof to establish a back condition 

causally related to the accepted October 3, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 3, 2018 appellant, then a 33-year-old assistant fire engine operator (AFEO), 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he developed lower back 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

spasms and sharp pain when restacking cases of water while in the performance of duty. He 

stopped work on the date of the claimed incident.

2

On December 10, 2019 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) for medical 

treatment beginning November 25, 2019. He explained that the recurrence occurred when he 

woke up with a sharp back pain and spasms after going to bed with a sore back.

In a December 17, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that when it had 

received his claim it had appeared that his injury was minor and had resulted in minimal or no lost 

time from work. It had administratively approved payment of a limited amount of medical 

expenses without formally adjudicating the merits of the claim. OWCP advised appellant that it 

was now formally adjudicating his claim and requested that he submit additional factual and 

medical information, including a comprehensive report from a physician addressing the 

relationship between a diagnosed condition and the claimed employment incident. It also 

requested that appellant complete a factual questionnaire and afforded him 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. 

In an October 3, 2018 report, Brian Barton, a physician assistant, noted that appellant was 

seen that day for back pain he developed after picking up two cases of water at work. He detailed 

examination findings and diagnosed back muscle spasms.

In a November 26, 2019 report, Bradley Kent Lindstrom, Jr., a physician assistant, noted 

that appellant was seen for left lower back complaints, which began more than a year prior, 

following a work-related injury. Appellant’s physical examination revealed normal range of 

motion and mild low back tenderness. Mr. Lindstrom diagnosed chronic left-sided low back pain 

without sciatica.

On December 2, 2019 Dr. Geoffrey K. Skene, a Board-certified physiatrist, noted 

appellant’s history of injury and his current flare up of back pain. He recommended a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan. 

A December 5, 2019 MRI scan of appellant’s lumbar spine revealed findings of low-grade 

multilevel degenerative disc and joint disease, superimposed on a congenitally small spinal canal 

most focal at the L5-S1 level where a left central disc extrusion narrowed the left lateral recess and 

exerted mass effect on the descending left S1 nerve root; and moderate spinal canal stenosis at 

L4-5 and L5-S1. 

In a December 5, 2019 report, Dr. Skene noted that appellant did not have a lumbar MRI 

scan after his work-related injury, which he believed was a failure of diagnosis. He diagnosed 

intervertebral lumbar disc disorder with radiculopathy and concluded that appellant’s back 

condition was the direct result of his work-related injury. 

OWCP also received physical therapy reports dated from December 11, 2019 through 

January 6, 2020.

 

2 The record indicates that appellant returned to full-time regular work on November 24, 2019. 
3

On January 7, 2020 OWCP received appellant’s completed development questionnaire. 

Appellant again described his recurrence of back pain. 

By decision dated January 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim

finding that, although he had established that the October 3, 2018 employment incident occurred 

as alleged and had submitted a report from a physician identifying a diagnosed condition, the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the diagnosed 

conditions and the accepted employment incident. 

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

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 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

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. 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.10

 

3

Id.

4 A.M., Docket No. 20-0069 (issued June 25, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket 

No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989)

5 B.M., Docket No. 19-1341 (issued August 12, 2020); T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); R.C., 

59 ECAB 427 (2008).

6 T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 A.M., supra note 4; S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

8 L.T., Docket No. 18-1603 (issued February 21, 2019); 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 M.A., Docket No. 19-1551 (issued April 30, 2020); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a back condition 

causally related to the accepted October 3, 2018 employment incident.

Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Skene dated December 2 and 5, 2019 in support of 

his claim. In the December 2, 2019 report, Dr. Skene noted the history of injury and diagnosed 

low back pain. However, he offered no opinion as to the cause of diagnosed low back pain. The 

Board has long held that medical evidence offering no opinion about the cause of an employee’s 

medical condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.11 Therefore, for this 

reason, Dr. Skene’s report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

The December 5, 2019 report from Dr. Skene is also insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim. Dr. Skene diagnosed intervertebral lumbar disc disorder with radiculopathy. He opined 

that appellant’s lumbar conditions were attributable to his employment injury. Dr. Skene, 

however, failed to provide rationale for his conclusion that appellant sustained an employment 

injury. He did not provide a narrative description of the identified employment incident and a 

reasoned opinion as to whether the described incident caused or contributed to the diagnosed 

medical condition.12 Without medical rationale explaining how the accepted October 3, 2018 

employment incident physiologically caused the diagnosed conditions, Dr. Skene’s opinion is of 

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.13

OWCP received reports from physician assistants and physical therapists. Physician 

assistants and physical therapists, however, are not considered physicians as defined under FECA 

and, thus, these reports are of no probative value.14 Consequently, their medical findings and/or 

opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.15

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish that his 

diagnosed medical conditions were caused or aggravated by the accepted October 3, 2018 

employment incident, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof.

 

11 D.C., Docket No. 19-0354 (issued May 27, 2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 B.M., supra note 5; K.B., Docket No. 19-0398 (issued December 18, 2019).

13 T.D., Docket No. 20-0044 (issued May 19, 2020).

14 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: 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); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); 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). D.M., Docket No. 20-0386 (issued August 10, 2020); M.W., Docket No. 19-1667 (issued June 29, 

2020) (physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA); R.L., Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 

2019) (physical therapists are not considered physicians under FECA).

15 K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); see also C.K., Docket No. 19-1549 (issued June 30, 2020).
5

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 a back condition 

causally related to the accepted October 3, 2018 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 23, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 14, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board