United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Greensboro, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0760

Issued: January 6, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 7, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 13, 2021 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 medical condition 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 1, 2020 appellant, then a 39-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 10, 2020 impact from a motor vehicle accident 

caused whiplash to his neck and back. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

noted that appellant had stopped work on November 10, 2020 and acknowledged that appellant 

was injured in the performance of duty. 

In a development letter dated December 3, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

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

factual and medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received a report dated November 24, 2020 from Brian Gadoury, a chiropractor

who noted appellant’s history of injury and physical examination findings of subluxations at C1, 

C3, T8, L3, and S1. 

Appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire on December 18, 2020. He 

recounted that the side of his vehicle was hit by another driver who ran a red light. Appellant also 

stated that he did not initially seek medical treatment, but when his neck did not stop hurting, he 

sought treatment with his chiropractor.

By decision dated January 13, 2021, OWCP accepted that the incident occurred as alleged, 

but denied appellant’s claim as no medical evidence had been received containing a medical 

diagnosis causally related to the accepted incident. It noted that a report had been received from 

a chiropractor, however, the report did not diagnose subluxation based on x-ray evidence, and 

therefore it did not constitute probative medical evidence. OWCPconcluded that the requirements 

had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period of FECA,3that 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.4 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.5

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component to be 

established is that, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually 

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 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).

5 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).
3

experienced the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be established 

only by medical evidence.6

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 7 The opinion of 

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

reasonable medical certainty, and be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment factors identified by the 

employee.8

ANALYSIS

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

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

OWCP received a report from Dr. Gadoury, a chiropractor, which related subluxations 

findings based on his objective examination. A chiropractor, however, is only considered a 

physician for purposes of FECA if he or she diagnoses subluxation based upon x -ray evidence.9 

As Dr. Gadoury did not diagnose subluxation based upon x-ray evidence, he is not considered a 

physician as defined under FECA and his medical report does not constitute competent medical 

evidence.10 

As there is no medical evidence of record establishing a medical condition causally related 

to the accepted November 10, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not 

met 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.

6 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

7

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688(issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 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).

9 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that the term physician include chiropractors only if the treatment consists of 

manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). See 

T.T., Docket No. 18-0838 (issued September 19, 2019); Thomas W. Stevens, 50 ECAB 288 (1999); GeorgeE. 

Williams, 44 ECAB 530 (1993).

10 J.D., Docket No. 19-1953 (issued January 11, 2021); C.S., Docket No. 19-1279 (issued December 30, 2019).
4

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to November 10, 2020 employment incident

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 6, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board