United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0867

Issued: July 17, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 18, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 7, 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a lower back injury 

causally related to the accepted December 12, 2017 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the February 7, 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 20, 2017 appellant, then a 24-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she suffered a lower back strain as a result of a December 12, 

2017 motor vehicle accident (MVA) while in the performance of duty. 

In a January 2, 2018 development letter, OWCP noted that, apart from the Form CA-1, it 

had not received additional documentation in support of appellant’s claim. It explained the 

requirements for establishing entitlement to FECA benefits, and requested that she submit factual 

evidence regarding the alleged MVA and a narrative medical report from a qualified physician that 

included a specific diagnosis and an explanation as to how the reported employment incident either 

caused or aggravated the diagnosed medical condition(s). OWCP afforded appellant’s 30 days to 

submit the requested factual information and medical evidence. 

In a January 24, 2018 statement appellant explained that, on December 12, 2018, at 11:47 

a.m., she was involved in an “‘on-the-job’” injury caused by a MVA. She explained that she was 

in her employing establishment vehicle stopped in traffic when a sports utility vehicle rear-ended 

her. Appellant further stated that the force of the impact caused her body to jerk back and forth, 

which resulted in a lower back sprain. 

OWCP received a Metropolitan Police Department traffic crash report, the contents of 

which are largely illegible. 

OWCP also received a December 21, 2017 note from Dr. Lynette Brown, a Board-certified 

internist, who indicated that appellant was being treated for low back pain. Dr. Brown advised 

that appellant should avoid lifting greater than 10 pounds and avoid standing and sitting for long 

periods. She excused appellant from work for the period from December 15 through 31, 2017. 

Dr. George Freeman Jr., a chiropractor, examined appellant on December 26, 2017 and 

noted a December 12, 2017 date of injury. Appellant complained of lower back pain after being 

involved in an MVA in which she had been rear-ended.3 Dr. Freeman diagnosed acute 

lumbosacral sprain and recommended physical therapy. The report is otherwise illegible. 

Additionally, OWCP received physical therapy treatment records, which are illegible. 

On January 4, 2018 Dr. Inder Chawla, a Board-certified physiatrist, advised that appellant 

should not work for four weeks. 

By decision dated February 7, 2018, OWCP accepted that the December 12, 2017 

employment incident occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim because 

the evidence of record did not contain a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the 

accepted employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to 

establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

 

3

In a January 24, 2018 addendum, Dr. Freeman clarified that appellant was operating a mail delivery truck at the 

time of the accident. 
3

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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,

5

that 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.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 whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established.8 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.9 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.10

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.11 Aphysician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.12 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment incident.13

ANALYSIS

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

injury causally related to the accepted December 12, 2017 employment incident.

 

4

Id. 

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

153 (1989).

6

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 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).

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

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

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

11 T.H., supra note 8 at 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

12 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

13 Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

In a December 21, 2017 note, Dr. Brown indicated that appellant was being treated for 

“low back pain.” She further advised that appellant should avoid lifting greater than 10 pounds, 

and avoid standing and sitting for long periods. Dr. Brown excused appellant from work for the 

period December 15 through 31, 2017. However, her December 21, 2017 note did not mention 

appellant’s December 12, 2017 employment incident or include a medical diagnosis. As OWCP 

correctly noted, pain is a symptom, not a specific medical diagnosis.14

Dr. Chawla’s January 4, 2018 prescription pad note excusing appellant from work for four

weeks did not include either a history of injury or a specific medical diagnosis. He merely advised 

against working. Appellant’s burden of proof includes demonstrating that the employment 

incident caused a personal injury.15 Dr. Chawla’s work excuse note is silent on that particular 

issue. As he has not offered an opinion on causal relationship, his report is of no probative value 

on that issue,

16 and therefore, it is insufficient to satisfy appellant’s burden of proof.

Dr. Freeman, a chiropractor, examined appellant on December 26, 2017 and diagnosed 

acute lumbosacral sprain. He also referenced her December 12, 2017 work-related MVA. 

However, Dr. Freeman did not treat appellant for a subluxation of the spine as demonstrated by 

x-ray.17 If the diagnosis of a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray is not established, the 

chiropractor is not a physician as defined under FECA and his or her report is of no probative value 

to the medical issue presented.18 The Board finds that, as the evidence of record does not include 

an x-ray establishing the diagnosis of subluxation, Dr. Freeman’s opinion is of no probative value 

to establish appellant’s claim.19 

Appellant’s physical therapy treatment records, which are largely illegible, similarly do not 

constitute competent medical evidence from a physician, and therefore, these records are 

insufficient to establish entitlement to FECA benefits.20

 

14 Findings of pain or discomfort alone do not satisfy the medical aspect of the fact of injury medical determination. 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803.4a(6) (August 2012).

15 See supra note 10.

16 Medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is 

of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); 

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

17 Subluxation means an incomplete dislocation, off-centering, misalignment, fixation or abnormal spacing of the 

vertebrae, which must be demonstrable on any x-ray film to an individual trained in the reading of x-rays. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(bb).

18 K.S., Docket No. 18-1781 (issued April 8, 2019); Mary A. Ceglia, 55 ECAB 626, 630 (2004).

19 Id. 

20 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) 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 Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005). 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); Jane A. White, 34 ECAB 515, 518 (1983) (physical therapist); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(t).
5

As appellant has not provided any rationalized medical evidence establishing a lower back 

injury causally related to the accepted December 12, 2017 employment incident, she has not met 

her 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 has not established a lower back injury causally related to 

the accepted December 12, 2017 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 7, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 17, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board