United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.V., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH & 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, Bloomington, MN, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1726

Issued: March 23, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 14, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 12, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a cervical condition 

causally related to the accepted February 8, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 19, 2019 appellant, then a 38-year-old park ranger, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 8, 2019, when removing snow in a government 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

parking area, he slipped on ice while maneuvering a snow blower and strained his left shoulder, 

lower-middle back and neck while in the performance of duty. He further alleged that he fell 

backwards from his left foot, catching himself with his left hand and “rear” on the ground. 

Appellant did not stop work. 

In a February 22, 2019 report, David Winecoff, a physician assistant, noted that appellant 

suffered an injury on February 8, 2019 when he slipped on ice at work and fell on his left side. 

Appellant initially reported persistent pain and tingling in his left arm, posterior shoulder and arm 

pit that radiated down to his fingers, as well as intermittent weakness in his left hand. 

Mr. Winecoff referenced an x-ray of appellant’s cervical spine that demonstrated no acute 

pathologies, fractures or dislocations. He opined that appellant’s fall caused a new onset of acute 

C6-7 cervical radiculopathy and referred appellant to physical therapy for rehabilitation. 

In a March 13, 2019 medical report, Dr. Eric Deal, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,

recounted appellant’s history of falling at work on February 8, 2019 while snow blowing and 

catching himself with his left arm. Appellant indicated that he experienced pain on the left side of 

his neck and left shoulder, with numbness down his left arm to his hand. On evaluation Dr. Deal 

provided his findings, stating that based on appellant’s six-week history of cervical radiculopathy, 

his symptoms were most consistent with C6 radiculopathy. He requested that appellant undergo a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan for further evaluation.

In a development letter dated April 9, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that his claim 

initially appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work and that 

continuation of pay was not controverted by the employing establishment, and thus, limited 

expenses had therefore been authorized. However, a formal decision was now required. OWCP

advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence required to establish his traumatic injury 

claim and requested a narrative medical report from appellant’s physician which contained a 

diagnosis and provided the physician’s rationalized medical explanation as to how the alleged 

employment incident caused his diagnosed condition. It afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

No further evidence was received. No response was received.

By decision dated May 17, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

employment incident. Thus, it found that he had not established the medical component of fact of 

injury. OWCP concluded that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined 

by FECA.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In a June 6, 2019 narrative medical report, Dr. Deal 

detailed appellant’s history of treatment with regard to the February 8, 2019 employment incident 

and noted that appellant denied any history of injury for his neck prior to the date of injury. He 

explained that, based on his objective physical examination, appellant’s symptoms of C6 

radiculopathy “likely” indicated neurological impingement in his cervical spine. Dr. Deal 

indicated that he would be unable to identify a specific diagnosis without a cervical MRI scan.

In a July 3, 2019 witness statement, C.S., the assistant visitor service manager, explained 

the events of the February 8, 2019 employment incident in which appellant fell on a patch of ice 

while utilizing a snow blower. 
3

On July 11, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s May 17, 2019 decision. 

By decision dated August 12, 2019, OWCP affirmed its decision, as modified, finding that 

the medical evidence of record established that appellant was diagnosed with cervical 

radiculopathy. It denied the claim, however, finding that he had not established that his diagnosed 

condition was causally related to the accepted February 8, 2019 employment incident. 

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 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.5 First, 

the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that she actually experienced the 

employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.6 Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

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 sufficient to establish such causal relationship.8 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 factors identified by the claimant.9 

 

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

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

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

8 K.V., Docket No. 18-0723 (issued November 9, 2018).

9

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).
4

ANALYSIS

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

causally related to the accepted February 8, 2019 employment incident.

In narrative medical report dated June 6, 2019, Dr. Deal detailed appellant’s history of 

treatment in relation to the February 8, 2019 employment incident and noted that appellant had no 

history of a cervical injury prior to this date. He explained that based on his objective physical 

examination, appellant’s symptoms of C6 radiculopathy “likely” indicated neurological 

impingement in his cervical spine. The Board has held that an opinion that a condition is causally 

related to an employment injury because the employee was asymptomatic before the injury but 

symptomatic after it is insufficient, without supporting rationale, to establish causal relationship.10 

Without explaining how, physiologically, the movements involved in the employment incident 

caused or contributed to the diagnosed condition, Dr. Deal’s opinion is of limited probative value 

and insufficient to establish causal relationship.11

In Dr. Deal’s March 13, 2019 report, he referenced appellant’s history of falling on 

February 8, 2019 and provided that, based on appellant’s six-week history of cervical 

radiculopathy, his symptoms were most consistent with C6 radiculopathy. While his report 

generally supports causal relationship, Dr. Deal did not offer any medical rationale sufficient to 

explain how and why he believes the February 8, 2019 employment incident could have resulted 

in or contributed to the diagnosed condition. Without explaining how slipping and falling on his 

left side caused or contributed to appellant’s injuries, Dr. Deal’s March 13, 2019 medical report is 

of limited probative value.12

The remaining medical evidence consists of a February 22, 2019 medical report from

Mr. Winecoff, a physician assistant. The Board has held that health care providers such as 

physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not physicians under FECA.13 Thus,

Mr. Winecoff’s opinions on causal relationship do not constitute a rationalized medical opinion 

and has no weight or probative value.14

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his

condition is causally related to the accepted February 8, 2019 employment incident, the Board 

finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

 

10 M.B., Docket No. 19-0840 (issued October 2, 2019); John F. Glynn, 53 ECAB 562 (2002).

11 S.J., Docket No. 19-0696 (issued August 23, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-0951 (issued January 7, 2019).

12 See A.P., Docket No. 19-0224 (issued July 11, 2019).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2) of FECA provides that 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 also K.C., Docket No. 19-0834 (issued October 28, 2019) and E.T., Docket No. 17-0265 (issued 

May 25, 2018) (physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA).

14 See A.A., Docket No. 19-0957 (issued October 22, 2019); Jane A. White, 34 ECAB 515, 518 (1983).
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 cervical injury 

causally related to the accepted February 8, 2019 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 12, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 23, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board