United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Catonsville, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0727

Issued: December 21, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 16, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 9, 2021 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.3

1 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of his oral argument request, appellant asserted that oral argument should be granted because recorded calls 

existed and he submitted documents in support of his claim that had not been reviewed. He further alleged that he 

was being discriminated against. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s request for oral argument

because this matter requires an evaluation of the medical evidence presented. As such, the Board finds that the 

arguments on appeal can be adequately addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Oral argument

in this appeal would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As such, the oral 

argumentrequest is denied and this decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that,following the March 9, 2021 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 left hip condition 

causally related to the accepted June 10, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 13, 2020 appellant, then a 33-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 10, 2020 he injured his left hip as he was in the process of 

defending himself from a loose dog that tried to bite him while in the performance of duty. He did 

not stop work. 

Appellant submitted a June 16, 2020 visit summary in which Nora Bianco, a physician 

assistant, indicated that appellant had undergone an x-ray scan of his left hip and was diagnosed 

with an unspecified sprain of the left hip. 

In an undated statement, appellant explained that, in the process of trying to get away from 

a pit bull on June 10, 2020, he twisted his hip. He informed his manager of his injury and took the 

next couple of days off from work before visiting a physician on June 15, 2020. Appellant returned 

to work on June 22, 2020 and when he attempted to deliver to another route he experienced more 

pain. He treated his symptoms with ice that night, but the next morning experienced pain shooting 

from his left foot up to his left hip. At the direction of his manager, appellant completed a Form 

CA-1 on June 25, 2020. Appellant indicated that he had been in pain and had not received 

reimbursement for medical treatment or wage-loss compensation since June 10, 2020. 

Appellant also submitted a photograph of the medical center where he went for treatment,

as well as photographs of receipts demonstrating that he purchased prescription medication. He 

also submitted an illegible duty status report (Form CA-17). 

In a development letter dated July 17, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of even 

date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional information regarding 

appellant’s alleged injury, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the 

accuracy of her allegations and an explanation of any areas of disagreement. It a fforded both 

parties 30 days to submit the requested evidence. No additional evidence was received. 

By decision dated August 18, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he had notsubmitted medical evidence signed by a qualified physician containing a 

diagnosis in connection with his claimed injury. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had 

not been met to establish an injury as defined under FECA. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In a July 30, 2020 report, Dr. Motti Mulleta, Boardcertified in internal medicine, indicated that appellant’s hip pain was aggravated by a 

December 2019 motor vehicle accident as well as the June 10, 2020 employment incident in which 

appellant was attacked by a pit bull. On evaluation she diagnosed an unspecified sprain of the left 

hip. 

In an August 18, 2020 medical report, Dr. Stephen Faust, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, indicated that appellant twisted his left hip two months prior while trying to avoid an 

attack from a dog. He also observed that appellant had two prior episodes over the last year and a 
3

history of injury in the same area. Dr. Faust reviewed a June 15, 2020 x-ray scan of appellant’s

left hip and diagnosed chronic left hip pain. In a workers’ compensation case report of even date,

he checked a box to indicate appellant’s need for severe work restrictions and arranged for 

appellant to undergo a magnetic resonance imaging scan of his left hip. 

On September 1, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

OWCP subsequently received medical reports dated June 15 and 25, 2020wherein Dr. Eric 

Simball, Board-certified in family medicine, evaluated appellant for hip pain appellant had been 

experiencing for approximately nine months. Appellant reported that he strained his hip when his 

foot slipped as he was walking and overextended. He alleged that this injury happened at work,

but he did not inform his physician that it was work related. Dr. Simball diagnosed an unspecified 

sprain of the left hip and a left hip strain with an onset date of June 8, 2020. 

An oral hearing was held on January 6, 2021. Appellant recounted the events of the 

accepted June 10, 2020 employment incident. The hearing representative informed appellant of 

the medical evidence necessary in order to establish his claim and held the case record open for 

submission of additional evidence for at least 30 days. No additional evidence was submitted.

By decision dated March 9, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed, as modified, 

the August 18, 2020 decision, finding that the medical evidence submitted was sufficient to 

establish a diagnosed medical condition. The claim remained denied, however, as the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed 

condition and the accepted June 10, 2020 employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,5that 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. 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 

4

Supra note 2.

5 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 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).

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

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
4

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

caused a personal injury.8

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

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

complete factual and medical background. 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.10

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.11

ANALYSIS

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

causally related to the accepted June 10, 2020 employment incident.

Dr. Mulleta, in a July 30, 2020 report, opined that appellant’s left hip pain was related to 

both, a December 2019 motor vehicle accident and the June 10, 2020 employment incident. On 

evaluation she diagnosed an unspecified sprain of the left hip. However, Dr. Mulleta did not offer 

any rationale for this opinion relative to causal relationship. The Board has held that medical 

opinion evidence should offer a medically-sound explanation of how the specific employment 

incident or work factors physiologically caused the injury. 12 Dr. Mulleta’s report is, therefore,

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant submitted reports dated June 15 and 25, 2020 in which Dr. Simball diagnosed 

an unspecified left hip strain with an onset date of June 8, 2020. Dr. Simball related this injury to 

an incident approximately nine months prior when appellant was walking and strained his hip as 

he slipped on something and overextended it. As the Board has held, medical opinions based on 

an incomplete or inaccurate history are of diminished probative value.

13

 Additionally, in any case 

where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present and the issue of causal 

relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation, the medical evidence 

must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects of the work -

8 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9 L.S., Docket No. 19-1769 (issued July 10, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

10 B.C., Docket No. 20-0221 (issued July 10, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

11 Federal (FECA) ProcedureManual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013). See 

R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).

12 See H.A., Docket No. 18-1466 (issued August 23, 2019); L.R., Docket No. 16-0736 (issued September 2, 2016).

13 See D.B., Docket No. 19-0663 (issued August 27, 2020); D.W., Docket No. 18-0123 (issued October 4, 2018); 

L.G., Docket No. 09-1692 (issued August 11, 2010).
5

related injury or disease and the preexisting condition. As Dr. Simball did not specifically 

differentiate between appellant’s preexisting condition and the effects of the accepted June 10, 

2020 employment incident, and did not explain how the employment incident aggravated his

preexisting condition, his medical reports are insufficient to establish causal relationship.14

Dr. Faust’s August 18, 2020 medical report observed left hip injury due to the June 10, 

2020 employment incident in which he twisted while trying to avoid an attack from a dog. On

evaluation Dr. Faust diagnosed chronic left hip pain. The Board has held that pain is a symptom 

and not a compensable medical diagnosis.15 For this reason, Dr. Faust’s August 18, 2020 medical 

report is also insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

The remaining medical evidence consists of a June 16, 2020 visit summary signed by a 

physician assistant. The Board has long held that certain healthcare providers such as physical 

therapists, nurses, physician assistants, and social workers are not considered physicians as defined 

under FECA.16 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes 

of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing a left hip 

condition causally related to the accepted June 10, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds that 

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

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 left hip 

condition causally related to the accepted June 10, 2020 employment incident.

14 Supra note 10.

15 See S.L., Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June26, 2020); D.Y., Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020).

16 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 supra note 11at Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013);M.F.,Docket 

No. 17-1973 (issued December 31, 2018); K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); DavidP. 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). 
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 9, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 21, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board