United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0973

Issued: December 5, 2022 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 21, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

in connection with the accepted July 12, 2021 employment incident.

1 The Board notes that,following the December 21, 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 15, 2021 appellant then a 55-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging on July 12, 2021 she tripped over a threshold and fell injuring her 

mouth, teeth, eyebrow, chin, knees, hands, wrist, toes, and neck while in the performance of duty. 

On the reverse side of the claim form L.R., an employing establishment supervisor, acknowledged 

that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant did not stop work. 

Appellant provided a July 12, 2021 narrative statement asserting that she tripped over a 

threshold and fell, hitting her face, bruising her hands and knees, and injuring her teeth. She also

noted cuts and swelling on her eyebrow and chin.

In an October 20, 2021 note, Kathryn L. Roggow, a physician assistant, assessed right knee 

osteoarthritis, right knee degenerative medial meniscus and lateral meniscus tear, left knee 

osteoarthritis, left knee degenerative lateral meniscus tear, and bilateral shoulder rotator cuff 

tendinitis/subacromial bursitis.

In an October 29, 2021 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim 

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

Appellant provided a series of notes dated September 29 through October 29, 2021 from 

Daniel R. Hassett, a physical therapist, addressing temporomandibular joint pain, cervical pain, 

and headache resulting from a fall at work on July 12, 2021 in which she sustained trauma to her 

right lateral face, jaw, and neck.

By decision dated December 21, 2021, OWCP accepted that appellant tripped over a 

threshold and fell in the performance of duty on July 12, 2021 as alleged. However, it denied her

claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis

from a qualified physician in connection with the accepted July 12, 2021 employment incident. 

OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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, that 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. 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. 

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

performance of duty, itfirst must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the 

employee actually experienced the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury. 
3

The evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion 

evidence. 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 incident identified by the employee.

ANALYSIS

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

diagnosis in connection with the accepted July 12, 2021 employment incident.

Appellant provided notes from Ms. Roggow, a physician assistant, and Mr. Hassett, a 

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

assistants and physical therapists are not considered qualified “physician[s]” as defined under 

FECA and, thus, their findings, reports and/or opinions, unless cosigned by a qualified physician, 

will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits. 3

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in 

connection with the accepted July 12, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant 

has not met her burden of proof.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.

CONCLUSION

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

diagnosis in connection with the accepted July 12, 2021 employment injury.

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

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); R.L., Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (a physician 

assistant is not considered a physician as defined under FECA); 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).

4 N.B., Docket No. 20-0794 (issued July 29, 2022); J.M., Docket No. 21-0077 (issued June 27, 2022).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 21, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 5, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board