United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

HUNTER HOLMES McGUIRE HOSPITAL, 

Richmond, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0804

Issued: October 27, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 28, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 10, 2022 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted April 7, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the January 10, 2022 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 10, 2021 appellant, then 62-year-old information technology management 

employee, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 7, 2021 he sustained 

a back injury, with pain radiating down his legs. when he twisted while removing a server from a 

rack in the performance of duty. He did not stop work. 

In a development letter dated May 11, 2021, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

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

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

submit the necessary evidence.

In a report dated May 12, 2021, Dr. Vicki Colapietro, Board-certified in family practice, 

related that appellant had injured his lower back one month prior while lifting equipment. 

Appellant reported incidents of sharp pain shooting down both legs, thighs, and groin since the 

incident. She diagnosed bilateral low back pain with bilateral sciatica.

OWCP received a form report dated May 12, 2021 from Dr. Colapietro, who released 

appellant to return to work with restrictions on May 12, 2021, with an anticipated return to full 

duty on June 12, 2021. 

Dr. Colapietro, in a prescription note also dated May 12, 2021, related appellant’s 

complaints of back pain, and left hip radicular pain. She referred appellant to a neurosurgeon. 

By decision dated June 11, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed 

conditions and the accepted April 7, 2021 employment incident.

On June 21, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s

Branch of Hearings and Review. 

OWCP subsequently received a progress note dated May 12, 2021 from Dr. Colapietro in 

which she related that on April 7, 2021 appellant felt shooting pain down his legs while helping to 

lift some heavy items. Dr. Colapietro also noted appellant’s medical history of chronic midline 

thoracic pain since falling from a roof in 2017. She related that appellant’s physical examination 

findings reflected no weakness or numbness, no gait problems or myalgia, decreased lumbar range 

of motion (ROM), negative bilateral straight leg raising, and no lumbar swelling, spasms, 

tenderness or edema. Dr. Colapietro diagnosed bilateral low back pain with bilateral sciatica.

OWCP also received an encounter report dated June 1, 2021 from Danyelle M. Owen, a 

physician assistant. Ms. Owen noted appellant’s history of injury and provided examination 

findings. She diagnosed chronic midline low back pain without sciatica.

In a report dated July 9, 2021, Dr. Agostino J. Visioni, Board-certified in neurosurgery, 

related that while appellant was helping a coworker lift some heavy equipment on April 7, 2021 

he felt shooting pain down his legs. He provided appellant’s physical examination findings and 

reviewed a June 28, 2021 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Dr. Visioni diagnosed lumbar 

stenosis with neurogenic claudication, lumbar spondylosis, lumbar disc herniation, and 

spondylotic changes with L4-5 changes and small disc herniation. He explained that any of these 

findings might be contributing to appellant’s lumbar pain. 
3

In progress notes dated July 12, 2021, Dr. Antonio Edgardo Valdes-Dapena, a Boardcertified family medicine specialist, noted appellant’s history of injury and reviewed diagnostic 

tests. He diagnosed acute midline low back pain with left-sided sciatica, likely aggravated by the 

April 7, 2021 employment incident, and chronic midline thoracic back pain. 

A telephonic hearing was held before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review on November 9, 2021.

In a report dated December 3, 2021, Dr. Valdes-Dapena, noted findings from a June 28, 

2021 MRI scan. He diagnosed lumbar spondylosis, multilevel multi factorial stenosis accentuated 

at L4-5 and L5-S1 by disc herniation, and chronic midline low pain with right-sided sciatica. 

Dr. Valdes-Dapena indicated that appellant continued to have lumbosacral pain after the April 

incident. He noted that appellant’s pain was undoubtedly chronic, predated the April event, and 

had been aggravated by lifting on April 7, 2021.

By decision dated January 10, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the June 11, 

2021 decision.

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 Un ited 

States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

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

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, 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.7

3

Id.

4 C.W., Docket No. 21-1095 (issued May 20, 2022); F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., 

Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 C.W., id.; 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 C.W., id.; 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 A.D., Docket No.21-1205 (issued January 13, 2022); 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).
4

The evidence required to establish causal relationship 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 incident identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted April 7, 2021 employment incident.

OWCP received a report dated May 12, 2021 from Dr. Colapietro, noting that appellant

had injured his lower back approximately one month prior while lifting heavy equipment. 

Dr. Colapietro reported a low back injury. In a prescription note of even date,she diagnosed back 

pain with left hip radicular pain. Dr. Colapietro released appellant to return to work with 

restrictions in a May 12, 2021 return to work form. The Board has held that pain is a description 

of a symptom, not a diagnosis of a medical condition.10 A medical report lacking a firm diagnosis 

is of no probative value.11 These reports are, therefore, insufficient to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted employment incident.

In another May 12, 2021 progress note, Dr. Colapietro noted appellant’s April 7, 2021 

work incident and diagnosed bilateral sciatica. Similarly, Dr. Visioni, in a July 9, 2021 report 

noted the April 7, 2021 employment incident and diagnosed lumbar stenosis with neurogenic 

claudication, lumbar spondylosis, and lumbar disc herniation. Neither physician , however,

provided an opinion on the cause of appellant’s condition. The Board has long held that medical 

evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no 

probative value.12 Therefore, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

OWCP received progress notes dated July 12, 2021 and a report dated December 3, 2021 

from Dr. Valdes-Dapena. In the July 12, 2021 progress note, Dr. Valdes-Dapena diagnosed acute 

midline low back pain with sciatica, which he opined had likely been aggravated by the April 7, 

2021 employment incident. He also diagnosed chronic midline thoracic back pain. In a report 

dated December 3, 2021, Dr. Valdes-Dapena diagnosed lumbar spondylosis, multilevel multi 

factorial stenosis accentuated at L4-5 and L5-S1 by disc herniation, and chronic midline low back

pain with right-sided sciatica. While he related that appellant’s pain was chronic, he opined that 

it had been aggravated by the April 7, 2021 employment incident. As previously noted, pain is a 

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

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 C.W., supra note 4; 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 (1989).

10 Id.

11 K.V., Docket No. 22-0698 (issued August22, 2022); E.S.,Docket No. 21-0189 (issued November 16, 2021); 

R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June30, 2020).

12 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K.,Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018); see 

also Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988).
5

description of a symptom, not a diagnosis of a medical condition.

13

 Furthermore, Dr. ValdesDapena did not offer a rationalized medical opinion as to the cause of the diagnosed lumbar 

spondylosis, multilevel multi factorial stenosis accentuated at L4-5 and L5-S1 by disc herniation, 

and chronic right-sided sciatica. The Board has held that a medical opinion should reflect a correct 

history and offer a medically-sound and rationalized explanation by the physician of how the 

specific employment incident physiologically caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions.14 

As Dr. Valdes-Dapena provided insufficient rationale supporting his opinion regarding causal 

relationship, the Board finds that his reports are insufficient to establish causal relationship.

Appellant also provided an encounter report from Ms. Owen, a physician assistant. The 

Board has long held that certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants are not 

considered physicians under FECA.15 Consequently, her findings and/or opinions will not suffice 

for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.16

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a medical condition causally 

related to the accepted 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.

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted April 7, 2021 employment incident.

13 See D.M., Docket No. 21-1244 (issued March 25, 2022); E.S., Docket No. 21-0189 (issued November 16, 2021);

C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January29, 2021);D.R., Docket No. 18-1408 (issued March 1, 2019);D.A., Docket 

No. 18-0783 (issued November 8, 2018).

14 T.G., Docket No. 21-0175 (issued June 23, 2021); J.D., Docket No. 19-1953 (issued January 11, 2021);see K.W., 

Docket No. 19-1906 (issued April1, 2020).

15 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 H.M., Docket No. 22-0343 (issued June 28, 2022); A.C., Docket No. 20-1510 (issued April23, 

2021) (physician assistants are not physicians as defined by FECA).

16 Id.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 10, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 27, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board