United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE 

Phoenix, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0622

Issued: July 25, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 24, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 20, 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.

2

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted November 3, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 20, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 November 5, 2021 appellant, then a 43-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 3, 2021he experienced pain in the lower right side 

and middle of his back for which he indicated that he had no explanation for. On the reverse side 

of the claim form L.L., an employing establishment supervisor, controverted the claim, asserting

that there was no mechanism of injury, that pain is not a diagnosis, and that appellant had noted 

he was unaware as to how he was injured. Appellant did not stop work.

On November 5, 2021 appellant was treated by Dr. Yarden Tahan, Board-certified in

family medicine, for a new complaint of back pain. Dr. Tahan noted that appellant described pain 

in his lumbar and thoracic spine, aggravated by bending, lying, sitting, standing, and twisting.

Appellant reported that he exited his vehicle Wednesday morning and started walking with his 

satchel, did not do anything out of the ordinary, and shortly thereafter felt a pull in his back. As 

he continued to deliver mail, the pain worsened and when he reached the end of the block he 

contacted the office and advised that he could not continue his route. Dr. Tahan noted that 

appellant eventually presented to the emergency room. She diagnosed chronic bilateral low back 

pain without sciatica, prescribed medication for muscle spasms, and referred appellant to a pain 

clinic. 

In a November 9, 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. 

OWCP received evidence. In a letter dated November 5, 2021, Dr. Tahan noted that she 

saw appellant in her office due to back spasm and recommended that he not return to work until 

November 15, 2021. She prescribed medication and provided instruction on home exercises. 

Dr. Tahan recommended that appellant use a pushcart with baskets to avoid carrying a load on his 

shoulders or back to prevent further injuries upon return to work. On November 12, 2021 she

reported that appellant complained of continued back pain and that he would be evaluated by a 

specialist on November 16, 2021. Dr. Tahan requested that his leave be extended until that 

evaluation was complete. 

On November 30, 2021 OWCP received a report from Marla Polo-Ziza, a physician 

assistant. Ms. Polo-Ziza reported that she treated appellant on November 3, 2021 for complaints 

of pain in his lower and mid-back while at work lifting and delivering mail. Ms. Polo-Ziza 

diagnosed acute back pain or unspecified dorsalgia. The plan of care included oral over-thecounter medication, a hot/cold pack, and a physical therapy referral. 

In a December 17, 2021 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant 

asserted that he had parked his postal vehicle and grabbed his satchel and packed it with 

approximately 25 pounds of mail. As he approached his first stop, he reached for the mail and felt 

a sharp pain, which worsened as he continued his route. Appellant noted that, when he reached 

the end of the block, he was unable to continue his route and contacted his supervisor, filled out 

paperwork, and was sent to a medical center. After seeing a physician at the medical center, he 

made an appointment with his primary care doctor and missed approximately five days of work. 

Appellant also saw a pain specialist who provided work restrictions precluding carrying a satchel 
3

to prevent back strain. He also noted that carrying weight on his shoulder caused strain on his 

shoulder, as he walks nine miles a day, five days a week. Appellant asserted that his claimed 

condition could fall under both a traumatic injury and an occupational disease. 

By decision dated December 20, 2021, OWCP accepted that the November 3, 2021 

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that he 

had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis from a qualified physician in 

connection with the accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

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 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. 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, 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 a 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 

3

Supra note 1.

4 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). 

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).
4

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.

9

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted November 3, 2021 employment incident. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a November 3, 2021 note from Ms. Polo-Ziza, 

a physician assistant, diagnosing acute back pain or unspecified dorsalgia. The Board has long 

held that certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants 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.

10

 Accordingly, the November 3, 2021 report is insufficient to satisfy appellant’s burden 

of proof.11

Appellant also submitted medical evidence from Dr. Tahan dated November 5 and 12, 

2021, wherein she diagnosed chronic bilateral low back pain. The Board has consistently held that 

pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical diagnosis.

12

 As such, this evidence is also 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical

condition causally related to the accepted November 3, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds 

that he 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 diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted November 3, 2021 employment incident.

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).

10 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) 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) (September 2020); 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 E.W., Docket No. 20-0338 (issued October 9, 2020).

11 R. H., Docket No. 21-1382 (issued March 7, 2022); S.E., Docket No. 21-0666 (issued December 28, 2021).

12 See S.L., Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June26, 2020); D.Y., Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 20, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 25, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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