United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Nashville, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1123

Issued: April 5, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 16, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 8, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted January 16, 2021 employment incident.

1 The Board notes that, following the March 8, 2021decision, 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 January 22, 2021 appellant, then a 31-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 16, 2021 she injured her back when she slipped as she

exited her mail vehicle while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form 

appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that she was injured in the performance of duty.

Appellant submitted a workers’ compensation form from a medical facility dated

January 18, 2021, bearing an illegible provider’s signature, which listed appellant’s diagnosis as 

lumbar sprain, and noted appellant’s restrictions.

In a narrative statement dated January 19, 2021, appellant attested that on January 16, 2021 

she missed a step while exiting her mail vehicle, which caused her to twist her back. She stated 

that the accident occurred at approximately 1:30 p.m. and that she was wearing slip on shoes. 

Appellant immediately contacted her manager by text message and after she finished her route she 

sought medical treatment.

In a development letter dated January 26, 2021, OWCP advised appellant of the type of 

factual and medical evidence needed and provided appellant with a questionnaire. It afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Appellant submitted additional workers’ compensation forms from a medical facility dated 

January 25 and February 12, 2021, bearing an illegible provider’s signature, which contained a

diagnosis of lumbar sprain.

OWCP also received January 28, February 2, 5, and 9, 2021 progress notes from physical 

therapists. The January 28, 2021 note related appellant’s history of injury on January 16, 2021 

when she missed a step as she was exiting an employing establishment vehicle. These notes 

indicated diagnoses of lumbar strain and acute low back pain, unspecified as to whether sciatica is 

present.

Appellant submitted a response to OWCP’s questionnaire. She stated that she slipped 

when exiting her van and injured her lumbar spine. Appellant noted that she was diagnosed with 

a lumbar sprain.

Appellant also submitted a February 12, 2021 form report, which noted appellant’s date of 

injury as January 16, 2021, and noted a diagnosis of lumbar sprain. The report bore an illegible 

signature. 

By decision dated March 8, 2021, OWCP accepted that the January 16, 2021 employment 

incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not submitted 

medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with her accepted employment 

incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.
3

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 FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period 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

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 

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.7

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

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 her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted January 16, 2021 employment incident.

3

Id.

4 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).

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); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

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 April24, 2019); RobertG. 

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).
4

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a series of form reports dated from January 18 

to February 12, 2021 which noted a diagnosis of lumbar sprain, but which only bore an illegible 

signature. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned by a physician or bear an illegible

signature lack proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical evidence as the 

author cannot be identified as a physician.10 Accordingly, these reports are insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

OWCP also received progress reports from physical therapists dated from January 28 to 

February 9, 2021. The Board has long held that certain healthcare providers such as physician

assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and social workers are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA.11 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will 

not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.12

As there is no medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosed medical condition 

causally related to the accepted January 16, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds that 

appellant 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 met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted January 16, 2021 employment incident.

10 M.A., Docket No. 19-1551 (issued April30, 2020); T.O., Docket No. 19-1291 (issued December 11, 2019);

Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

11 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 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013);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; see also A.M., Docket No. 20-1575 (issued May 24, 2021) (physical therapists). 

12 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 8, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 5, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board