United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Kansas, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0202

Issued: June 21, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. MCGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 19, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 25, 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 her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

condition causally related to the accepted September 8, 2021 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 16, 2021 appellant, then a 34-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 8, 2021 she sustained multiple 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

injuries as the result of a motor vehicle accident (MVA) while in the performance of duty. She 

stopped work on September 8, 2021.

Accompanying appellant’s claim was an employing establishment accident form

describing the September 8, 2021 MVA.

On September 16, 2020 OWCP received an authorization for examination and/or treatment 

(Form CA-16) from the employing establishment. Appellant’s injury was described as head and 

lower arm injuries and a lower arm scratch. 

In a development letter dated September 21, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies in her claim. It informed her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to 

establish her claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP provided 30 days for 

response.

In a September 30, 2021 report, Katelyn Elaine Erwin, an advanced practice registered 

nurse, noted that appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 8, 2021. She 

diagnosed right elbow, neck, back, and rib pain and requested that x-rays be authorized. 

By decision dated October 25, 2021, OWCP found that appellant had established that the 

incident occurred as alleged on September 8, 2021, but denied the claim, finding that she had not 

submitted medical evidence signed by a qualified physician providing a diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to 

establish an injury as defined under FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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,

3

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.

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 

2

Id.

3 N.J., Docket No. 21-0551 (issued December 1, 2021); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., 

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

4 N.J., 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 N.J., id.; R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he orshe 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

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.

7

 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident must be based on a

complete factual and medical background.

8

 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment incident.

9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted September 8, 2021 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a September 30, 2021 report signed by

Ms. Erwin, an advanced practice registered nurse. The Board notes that this report related 

appellant’s pain complaints. However, the Board has held that certain healthcare providers such 

as physical therapists, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and social workers are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA.

10

 Consequently, their medical findings and/or 

opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing causal relationship. As such, this evidence 

is of no probative value and insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

11

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

qualified physician in connection with the accepted September 8, 2021 employment incident, the 

Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof.

6 N.J., 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).

7 N.J., id.; T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008); RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 N.J., id.; M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

9

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

10 Section 8101(2) of FECA 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 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); R.M., Docket No. 21-0602 (issued March 10, 2022) (an advanced 

practice nurse is not a physician under FECA); W.W., Docket No. 20-1587 (issued October 13, 2021); 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 alsoD.S., Docket No. 19-1657 (issued July 20, 2020) 

(nurse practitioners and registered nurses are not considered physicians under FECA). 

11 Id. 
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 diagnosed 

condition causally related to the accepted September 8, 2021 employment incident.12

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 25, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 21, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

12 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16. A completed Form CA-16 authorization 

may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when properly executed. 

The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the 

examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. As this form was unsigned it was not properly 

executed. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c);C.R., Docket No. 21-0056 (issued August19, 2021); C.B., Docket No. 19-1882 

(issued April1, 2020); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018);Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).