United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, VEHICLE 

MAINTENCE FACILITY, Chicago, IL, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1125

Issued: March 8, 2021

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 May 4, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 7, 2020 merit decision and 

an April 14, 2020 nonmerit 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a back 

condition causally related to the accepted September 10, 2019 employment incident; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly determined that appellant had abandoned her request for an oral 

hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 17, 2019 appellant, then a 36-year-old tire vehicle maintenance employee, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 10, 2019 she pulled a 

muscle in her lower back while loading tires onto a truck. She stopped work on September 10,

2019 and returned on September 17, 2019.

In a September 10, 2019 note, Dr. Shantala Sreerama, a Board-certified internist, advised 

that appellant was seen that day and should be excused from work until September 17, 2019.

In a work status note dated September 10, 2019, Dr. Sanjay Sinha, a Board-certified family 

medicine physician, related an injury date of September 10, 2019 and diagnoses of lumbar 

ligament sprain and unspecified dorsalgia. He noted that appellant was capable of working with 

restrictions including no lifting over the shoulder or from waist to shoulder more than 10 pounds 

and no pulling/pushing more than 15 pounds.

Appellant attended physical therapy on November 19 and 21, 2019 for unspecified 

dorsalgia.

In a development letter dated December 4, 2019, OWCP indicated that when appellant’s 

claim was first received, it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time 

from work and, based on these criteria and because the employing establishment had not 

controverted continuation of pay or challenged the case, payment of a limited amount of medical 

expenses was administratively approved. It explained that it had reopened the claim for formal 

consideration of the merits because it received a claim for wage-loss compensation. OWCP 

requested additional evidence and afforded appellant 30 days to respond to its inquiries.

In response to OWCP’s request for additional evidence, appellant submitted progress notes 

from Dr. Sreerama and additional physical therapy reports dated from November 19 to 

December 26, 2019.

Dr. Sreerama, in progress notes dated September 10, 2019, reported that appellant had 

injured her back at work that morning. Appellant related to Dr. Sreerama that she felt back pain 

while changing a tire on a truck and she had felt severe pain with pain and tingling radiating into 

her legs. On September 26, 2019 Dr. Sreerama noted that appellant was seen for a follow-up visit 

with regard to her September 10, 2019 employment injury and detailed her examination findings. 

She related that appellant had continued mid back pain and had been referred for physical therapy.

In a December 14, 2019 report, Dr. Sreerama noted appellant’s complaints of mid and low 

back pain since straining her back at work in September 2019.

By decision dated January 7, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between her diagnosed 

back condition and the accepted September 10, 2019 employment incident.

On January 8, 2020 appellant timely requested a telephonic hearing before a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
3

Appellant thereafter submitted a physical therapy appointment summary, a September 26, 

2019 x-ray interpretation, and a report dated January 30, 2020 from Dr. Sreerama. In the 

January 30, 2020 report, Dr. Sreerama noted that appellant was first seen on September 10, 2019 

for back pain she sustained while pulling tires at work. She related appellant’s continued pain 

complaints and diagnosed mid back strain.

In a March 2, 2020 notice, OWCP’s hearing representative notified appellant that a 

telephonic hearing was scheduled for April 3, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). 

The notice included a toll-free number to call and the required passcode to participate in the 

telephonic hearing. OWCP instructed appellant to “call the toll free number listed below and when 

prompted, enter the pass code also listed below.” It mailed the notice to her last known address of 

record. Appellant did not appear or request postponement of the hearing.

By decision dated April 14, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative found that appellant had 

failed to appear at the oral hearing and had abandoned her request. The hearing representative 

indicated that appellant received a 30-day advance notice of the hearing scheduled for April 3, 

2020 and found that there was no evidence that she had contacted OWCP either prior to or 

subsequent to the scheduled hearing to request a postponement or explain her failure to appear.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation 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 first must be determined whether the fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing the 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 employee must submit evidence, in the 

form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

 

2

Id.

3 D.D., Docket No. 20-0626 (issued September 14, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., 

Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

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

Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

5 D.D., id.; R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

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

6 D.D., id.; K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q).
4

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

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

identified by the claimant.7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

causally related to the accepted September 10, 2019 employment incident.

Dr. Sinha provided a work status note dated September 10, 2019 in which he noted 

appellant sustained an injury that day. He provided impressions of lumbar ligament sprain and 

unspecified dorsalgia and opined that she was capable of working with restrictions. However,

Dr. Sinha did not offer an opinion on causal relationship. The Board has held that 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.8 Dr. Sinha’s work status note is,

therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Dr. Sreerama provided several reports and disability notes dated from September 10 

through December 14, 2019 in which she either noted the history of the accepted employment 

incident or reiterated appellant’s complaint that her back pain started after changing a tire on a 

truck at work. She provided impressions of mid-back pain and periods of disability from 

appellant’s position. The Board has long held, however, that pain is a symptom, not a compensable 

medical diagnosis.9 Moreover, a medical opinion must explain how the implicated employment

incident caused, contributed to, or aggravated the specific diagnosed conditions.10 Lacking a 

compensable medical diagnosis and such an explanation, Dr. Sreerama’s reports are insufficient 

to meet appellant’s burden of proof.11

 

7 D.M., Docket No. 20-0314 (issued June 30, 2020); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345 (1989).

8 See A.S., Docket No. 20-0301 (issued October 26, 2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); 

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

9 M.B., Docket No. 19-1816 (issued April 28, 2020); M.H., Docket No. 19-0162 (issued July 3, 2019).

10 C.M., Docket No. 19-0360 (issued February 25, 2020).

11 Id.
5

Appellant submitted reports from physical therapists. However, the Board has held that 

physical therapists are not considered physicians as defined under FECA and, thus, these reports 

do not constitute competent medical evidence.12

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence explaining a causal 

relationship between her diagnosed back conditions and the accepted September 10, 2019 

employment incident, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish her 

traumatic injury 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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Under FECA and its implementing regulations, a claimant who has received a final adverse 

decision by OWCP is entitled to receive a hearing upon writing to the address specified in the 

decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought. Unless otherwise 

directed in writing by the claims examiner, an OWCP hearing representative will mail a notice of 

the time and place of the hearing to the claimant and any representative at least 30 days before the 

scheduled date.13 OWCP has the burden of proving that it mailed notice of the scheduled hearing 

to a claimant.14 Section 10.622(f) of OWCP’s regulations provides that a claimant who fails to 

appear at a scheduled hearing may request in writing within 10 days after the date set for the 

hearing that another hearing be scheduled.15 Where good cause for failure to appear is shown, 

another hearing will be scheduled and conducted by teleconference. The failure of the claimant to 

request another hearing within 10 days, or the failure of the claimant to appear at the second 

scheduled hearing without good cause shown, shall constitute abandonment of the request for a 

hearing. Where good cause is shown for failure to appear at the second scheduled hearing, review 

of the matter will proceed as a review of the written record.16 Where it has been determined that 

a claimant has abandoned his or her right to a hearing, OWCP will issue a formal decision finding 

that the claimant abandoned the request for a hearing.17

 

12 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that medical opinions can only be given by a qualified physician. This section 

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. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(t). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(a)(1) 

(January 2013); A.S., supra note 8; H.K., Docket No. 19-0429 (issued September 18, 2019); K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 

(2007); 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).

13 Id. at § 10.617(b).

14 T.R., Docket No. 19-1952 (issued April 24, 2020); A.R., Docket No. 19-1691 (issued February 24, 2020).

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f).

16 Id.

17 T.R., supra note 14; A.J., Docket No. 18-0830 (issued January 10, 2019); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, 

Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 2.1601.6(g) (October 2011).
6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for 

a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

The record establishes that on March 2, 2020, in response to appellant’s timely request for 

an oral hearing, a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review properly mailed a 

notice of the scheduled telephonic hearing scheduled for April 3, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. EST. The 

hearing notice was mailed to appellant’s last known address of record and provided instructions 

on how to participate. Appellant failed to call-in for the scheduled telephonic hearing. She did 

not request a postponement or provide an explanation to OWCP for her failure to attend the hearing 

within 10 days of the scheduled hearing. The Board, thus, finds that OWCP properly determined 

that appellant abandoned her request for a telephonic hearing.18

CONCLUSION

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

causally related to the accepted September 10, 2019 employment incident. The Board further finds 

that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for a telephonic hearing 

before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 14 and January 7, 2020 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: March 8, 2021

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

 

18 Id.