United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

San Ysidro, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0621

Issued: July 20, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 20, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 21, 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 back condition 

causally related to the accepted June 9, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 16, 2021 appellant, then a 50-year-old customs and border patrol agriculture 

specialist, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 9, 2021 he strained his 

lower back when lifting heavy contraband while in the performance of duty. He did not stop work. 

In a work status report dated June 13, 2021, Cori Anne McMahon, a physician assistant, 

diagnosed lumbar muscle strain and placed appellant on modified duty from June 14 to 27, 2021. 

She noted that the onset of his condition was June 10, 2021.

In a June 24, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his

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

and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated July 29, 2021, OWCP accepted that the June 9, 2021 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that 

he had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that he had not met the requirements 

to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. An August 15, 2021 magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan report by Dr. Adam Wang, a Board-certified radiologist, noted that appellant had 

complained of ongoing lower back pain, precipitated by heavy lifting, for greater than three weeks. 

The MRI scan report noted an impression of a small left paracentral disc protrusion at L3-L4 

resulting in mild left neural foraminal narrowing, and a high signal intensity zone in the posterior 

annulus consistent with annular fissure or tear at L5-S1.

In a work status report dated August 17, 2021, Dr. Scott Andrew McIver, a family medicine 

specialist, diagnosed lumbar disc annular tear and placed appellant on modified duty from 

August 18 to 31, 2021.

In a letter dated August 27, 2021, appellant explained that he was assigned to collect and 

weigh contraband as part of his federal work duties. He asserted that he injured his lower back on 

June 9, 2021 while placing heavy contraband on the weighing scale. Appellant noted that there 

were no witnesses. He thought it was a minor sprain, but on June 13, 2021 he was assigned a 16-

hour double shift, which aggravated the injury and caused pain to the point of limited movement. 

Appellant subsequently sought medical treatment on June 13, 2021. He provided a summary of 

his medical treatment and encounters.

On August 28, 2021 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held telephonically on 

November 16, 2021.

In a September 28, 2021 work status report, Dr. Adrian Christopher Nickolescu, a 

physiatrist, noted a diagnosis of chronic low back pain of greater than three months with 

lumbosacral radiculopathy. He placed appellant on modified duty from September 22 to 

November 5, 2021 and noted that, thereafter, appellant could return to full duty.
3

In a letter dated November 22, 2021, appellant explained that he was initially examined by 

a physician assistant rather than a doctor, and this was beyond his control. He then revisited the 

urgent care center on June 27, 2021 and was seen by a physician who ordered an MRI scan of his 

lower back. Appellant noted that he underwent an MRI scan on August 8, 2021, which showed 

damage to his lower back as a result of the June 9, 2021 employment incident. He related that on 

August 17, 2021 Dr. McIver provided a diagnosis and referred him to Dr. Nickolescu, for 

rehabilitation, which he was undergoing. Appellant attached a copy of the August 15, 2021 MRI 

scan report and Dr. McIver’s August 17, 2021 return-to-work note. He also attached a work status 

report dated August 30, 2021, in which Dr. Nickolescu diagnosed low back pain, lumbar disc 

degeneration, and lumbar radiculopathy and placed appellant on modified duty from September 1 

to 21, 2021.

By decision dated December 21, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed, as 

modified, the July 21, 2021 decision, finding that appellant had established a medical diagnosis in 

connection with the accepted June 9, 2021 employment incident. However, the claim remained 

denied because the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a causal relationship between 

the accepted June 9, 2021 employment incident and the diagnosed lower back conditions.

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 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 fact of injury has been established. There 

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

2

Supra note 1.

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

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).
4

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, 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 incident 

identified by the claimant.8

ANALYSIS

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

causally related to the accepted June 9, 2021 employment incident. 

In his work status report dated August 17, 2021,Dr. McIver provided a diagnosis of lumbar 

disc annular tear and provided work restrictions. He did not, however, offer an opinion as to 

whether the diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted employment incident. The 

Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 9 Therefore,

Dr. McIver’s August 17, 2021 report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Likewise, in his August 30 and September 28, 2021 work status reports, Dr. Nickolescu

diagnosed chronic low back pain, lumbar disc degeneration, and lumbar radiculopathy and 

provided work restrictions. He did not offer an opinion on causal relationship. As noted above, a 

report that does not address causation is of no probative value. Therefore, Dr. Nickolescu’s 

August 30 and September 28, 2021 reports are also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.10

Appellant also submitted an August 15, 2021 MRI scan report from Dr. Wang. The Board 

has held, however, that diagnostic testing reports, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue 

of causal relationship as they do not address the relationship between the accepted employment 

factors and a diagnosed condition.11 For this reason, this evidence is also insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.

6 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).

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 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April9, 2020);LeslieC. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

9

See S.S., Docket No. 21-0837 (issued November 23, 2021); J.M., Docket No. 19-1926 (issued March 19, 2021); 

L.D., Docket No. 20-0894 (issued January 26, 2021); T.F., Docket No. 18-0447 (issued February 5, 2020); L.B., 

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

10 Id.

11 W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April10, 2020).
5

The remaining medical evidence of record consists of a June 13, 2021 work status report

signed by a physician assistant. However, physician assistants are not considered “physician[s]”

as defined under FECA and, thus, their reports do not constitute competent medical opinion 

evidence.12

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his 

diagnosed conditions are causally related to the accepted June 9, 2021 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 back condition

causally related to the accepted June 9, 2021 employment incident.

12 Section 8101(2) 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 S.S., Docket No. 21-1140 (issued June 29, 2022) (physician assistants are not considered physicians under 

FECA).
6

ORDER

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 20, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board