United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTH SHORE 

BRANCH POST OFFICE, Milwaukee, WI, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1894

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 September 13, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 22, 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.

2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the April 22, 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

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted March 1, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 4, 2019 appellant, then a 40-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 1, 2019 he sustained an injury to his right 

hip/buttocks when he slipped and fell on ice while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side 

of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor checked a box marked “Yes” acknowledging that 

appellant had been injured in the performance of duty. Appellant did not stop work.

In a March 18, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies in 

his claim. It advised him of the factual and medical evidence necessary to establish his claim and 

provided a factual questionnaire for completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

Appellant submitted physical therapy notes dated March 1 and 5, 2019 from Gregrey Barta, 

a physical therapist, who noted diagnoses of right hip and knee strains. Mr. Barta described the 

mechanism of injury as appellant walking over icy concrete while working and sliding forward 

with his right leg. He reported experiencing a sharp pain to his right hip following this incident. 

By decision dated April 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that the 

March 1, 2019 employment incident occurred as alleged, however, it found that he had not 

established a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted employment incident.

Thus, OWCP found that the requirements had not been met for establishing 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 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 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

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. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second the component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence.7 

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship between a claimed 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted March 1, 2019 employment incident.

When appellant filed his Form CA-1, on March 4, 2019, he did not provide medical 

evidence with respect to his claimed injuries. On March 18, 2019 OWCP advised him of the 

deficiencies in his claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the requested factual and medical

evidence. In response, appellant submitted physical therapy records dated March 1 and 5, 2019, 

describing the mechanism of injury as appellant sliding on his right leg while walking over icy 

concrete and subsequently experiencing sharp pain in his right hip. 

In his physical therapy notes, Mr. Barta, noted diagnoses of right hip and knee strains 

following an injury at work. The Board has held that certain medical providers, such as physical 

therapists, are not considered “physician[s]” as defined under FECA.10 Consequently, their 

medical findings and/or opinions are of no probative value and will not suffice for purposes of 

establishing entitlement to compensation benefits. Accordingly, as Mr. Barta’s notes are of no 

probative value, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a 

medical condition causally related to the accepted March 1, 2019 employment incident.

 

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); Victor J. 

Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

10 See 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). E.W., Docket No. 16-1729 (issued May 12, 2017) (physical therapists); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 

316, 320 n.11 (2006). See also Charley V.B. Harley, 2 ECAB 208, 211 (1949) (where the Board held that medical 

opinion, in general, can only be given by a qualified physician).
4

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 10.607.15

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted March 1, 2019 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 22, 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