United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bronx, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1657

Issued: July 20, 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 April 5, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 24, 2019 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act2(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 an emotional 

condition causally related to an accepted December 5, 2018 employment incident.

 

1 The Board notes that following the January 24, 2019 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 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 7, 2018 appellant, then a 47-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 5, 2018 he experienced “mental trauma” as a result 

of a dog bite that occurred when he was delivering a package while in the performance of duty. 

He stopped work on December 5, 2018 and returned to full-time regular duty on January 19, 2019. 

In a statement dated December 5, 2018, appellant indicated that on December 5, 2018 

between 6:30 p.m. and 6:45 p.m., he was delivering a package to a residence, and since it was dark 

outside and there was no bell on the front gate, he yelled “mailman” to get the resident’s attention. 

As the resident approached, he opened the gate to hand her the package when a dog ran out from 

the front door and jumped up on him, and then grabbed him on both pants legs and in his midsection. Appellant explained that he attempted to defend himself and it took a while before he 

finally was able to get away and leave the premises. He then called his supervisor to report the 

incident. Appellant indicated that he was in shock and terrified. 

A hospital intake form dated December 5, 2018 noted that appellant was bitten on the leg 

by a dog. It indicated that he had obtained medical treatment.

An emergency room summary indicated that appellant had been seen by Dr. Margaret 

Zielinski, Board-certified in emergency medicine, on December 5, 2018. It included a discharge 

diagnosis of animal bite. In a work excuse note of the same date, Dr. Zielinski indicated that 

appellant should not work or perform physical activity through December 6, 2018, but could return 

to full physical activity on December 7, 2018.

On December 6, 2018 Moonju Bae, a nurse practitioner, excused appellant from work for 

the period from December 6, 2018 to January 18, 2019 due to his injury. She noted that it appeared 

that he had experienced trauma after an attack by a dog while at work. Ms. Bae indicated that

appellant would follow-up with psychiatry for his symptoms. 

Eli Leiter, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, noted on December 12, 2018, that appellant’s 

absence was physician-advised due to illness or injury. He indicated that appellant had an 

appointment on December 19, 2018 and would continue to be seen until further notice.

In a development letter dated December 19, 2018, OWCP informed appellant of the 

evidence needed to support his claim. It described the type of evidence needed, which should 

include a medical explanation regarding the cause of his emotional condition. OWCP also 

provided a questionnaire for his completion and afforded him 30 days to submit the requested 

information. 

OWCP subsequently received December 5, 2018 emergency room triage records in which 

Dina Glori, a registered nurse, assessed appellant. Ms. Glori reported a history that appellant was 

attacked by a dog while delivering mail and sought emergency medical treatment. She advised 

that there were no visible bite marks because he was wearing multiple layers of clothing. Appellant

denied pain or discomfort.

In a December 6, 2018 report, Dr. Zielinski noted a history that, while delivering mail, 

appellant was attacked by a dog which tried to bite him multiple times, but since he was wearing 
3

two pairs of pants the dog’s teeth did not puncture his clothing. She noted examination findings 

of warm and dry skin, no cyanosis, no foreign bodies detected, no distal neurovascular deficit, no 

evidence of infection, and no lacerations or bite marks on the skin, with tenderness of the left thigh 

without puncture wound. Dr. Zielinski advised that appellant was shaken up from the event, but 

otherwise sustained no trauma, bite wound, or injury. She diagnosed animal bite without serious 

injury and noted that appellant was discharged in stable condition and instructed to follow-up with 

his primary care physician. 

By decision dated January 24, 2019, OWCP accepted that the December 5, 2018

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with 

the December 5, 2018 employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements 

had not been met 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury. 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 a claim for an emotional condition in the performance of duty, an employee 

must submit: (1) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have 

caused or contributed to his or her condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or she has 

an emotional or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing 

that the identified compensable employment factors are causally related to his or her emotional 

condition.5

Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is 

somehow related to an employee’s employment. In the case of Lillian Cutler,

6

the Board explained 

that there are distinctions as to the type of employment situations giving rise to a compensable 

emotional condition arising under FECA. There are situations where an injury or illness has some 

connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within coverage under FECA.7 

 

3

Id.

4 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

5 R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issued February 14, 2020).

6 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

7 M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019); Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999).
4

When disability results from an emotional reaction to regular or specially assigned work duties or 

a requirement imposed by the employment, the disability is deemed compensable.8

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which he or she claims compensation was caused or 

adversely affected by employment factors.9 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions which he or she believes caused or adversely 

affected a condition for which compensation is claimed, and a rationalized medical opinion 

relating the claimed condition to compensable employment factors.10

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally 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 factors identified by the claimant.11

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted December 5, 2018 employment incident. 

OWCP accepted that on December 5, 2018 appellant sustained a dog bite while in the 

performance of duty. Appellant claimed that he sustained mental trauma due to this condition. 

Based on Dr. Zielinski’s opinion, a diagnosed condition of animal bite without serious injury was 

caused by this incident. The record, however, does not include a medical diagnosis of an emotional 

condition in connection with the accepted employment incident. 

In her December 5, 2018 emergency room report, Dr. Zielinski diagnosed animal bite 

without serious injury. Although she indicated that appellant appeared shaken up by the incident, 

she did not otherwise comment on his psychological condition and did not provide a diagnosis of 

any type of stress-related condition. Dr. Zielinski’s opinion is therefore insufficient to satisfy 

appellant’s burden of proof with respect to satisfying the medical component of his emotional 

condition claim.12 

Appellant also submitted emergency room triage notes dated December 5 and 6, 2018 

signed solely by Ms. Bae, a nurse practitioner, and Ms. Glori, a registered nurse, respectively. 

 

8 R.B., supra note 5; Pamela D. Casey, 57 ECAB 160 (2005); Lillian Cutler, supra note 6.

9 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838 (1987).

10 P.B., Docket No. 17-1912 (issued December 28, 2018); Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470 (1993).

11 D.M., Docket No. 20-0314 (issued June 30, 2020); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345 (1989).

12 See J.B., Docket No. 19-1767 (issued March 18, 2020).
5

Nurse practitioners and registered nurses are not considered physicians as defined under FECA 

and accordingly their reports do not constitute medical evidence.13

On December 12, 2018 Dr. Leiter merely noted appellant’s absence was physician-advised 

due to illness or injury. He did not, however, characterize the injury in any way, provide a 

diagnosis in connection with an incident, or address causal relationship. Dr. Leiter’s report is, 

therefore, of no probative value and insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.14

As appellant has not set forth a medical diagnosis relating to an emotional condition the 

Board therefore finds that appellant has failed to establish the medical component of this emotional 

condition claim. 

On appeal appellant asserts that his claim should have been accepted because he was very 

traumatized by the dog attack. However, as noted, there is no evidence of record that establishes 

a diagnosis of an emotional condition in connection with the accepted employment incident. 

Consequently, appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof. 

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 failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained an emotional condition causally related to the accepted December 5, 2018 employment 

incident.

 

13 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); 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); J.D., Docket No. 16-1752 (issued March 1, 2017) (a nurse practitioner is not considered a physician under 

FECA).

14 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 24, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 20, 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