United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.O., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, BLUE GRASS 

ARMY DEPOT, Richmond, KY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1243

Issued: May 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 4, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 23, 2020 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 cervical condition 

causally related to the accepted August 21, 2019 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the April 23, 2020 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 August 21, 2019 appellant, then a 52-year-old security guard, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he developed neck pain when he struck his head on 

a ladder that was protruding from a truck he was inspecting while in the performance of duty. He

did not stop work.

An August 28, 2019 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s cervical spine 

revealed C4-7 broad-based disc bulges, and degenerative change in the mid and lower cervical 

spine producing mild bilateral neural foraminal narrowing at the C5-6 level. 

In progress notes dated September 10, 2019, Dr. James R. Bean, a Board-certified 

neurosurgeon, diagnosed cervical sprain and chronic moderate C5-6, mild C4-5, and mild C6-7 

degenerative disc disease. He reported that on August 21, 2019, while at work, appellant hit his 

head on a ladder protruding from a vehicle. Dr. Bean also noted that appellant had a history of 

intermittent neck pain since 1994, and that he had sustained a neck injury at work the prior month 

when he hit his head on a vehicle ceiling. Diagnostic testing was reviewed and examination 

findings were detailed.

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date, Dr. Bean noted clinical findings of neck 

pain and diagnosed neck sprain. He released appellant to return to work full time with restrictions. 

Appellant attended physical therapy from September 13 through November 12, 2019. 

Appellant was seen by Dr. Bean on October 8, 2019 for a follow-up of neck pain 

complaints. Dr. Bean reiterated appellant’s history of injury. A neurological examination of 

appellant’s neck revealed limited mild cervical range of motion to the right and intact neurological 

examination. Dr. Bean diagnosed cervical sprain injury. Appellant was released to return to 

regular work. 

In a development letter dated March 11, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence. Appellant did not respond.

By decision dated April 23, 2020, OWCP accepted that the August 21, 2019 employment 

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

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

employment incident. 

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 

 

3 Supra note 1.
3

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. 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. Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

The medical 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 incidents identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted August 21, 2019 employment incident.

The record contains reports dated September 10 and October 8, 2019 from Dr. Bean 

diagnosing cervical sprain and chronic moderate C5-6, mild C4-5, and mild C6-7 degenerative 

disc disease. However, Dr. Bean offered no opinion on causal relationship. The Board has held 

that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 

condition or disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10 Therefore, 

these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

 

4 V.L., Docket No. 20-0884 (issued February 12, 2021); F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., 

Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 C.H., Docket No. 20-1212 (issued February 12, 2021); L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); R.C., 

59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 V.L., supra note 4; P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued 

September 16, 2016); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August 11, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 C.H., supra note 5; S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued 

April 24, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 V.L., 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, 352 (1989).

10 See V.L., supra note 4; L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued 

July 6, 2018).
4

Appellant submitted physical therapy reports dated September 13 through 

November 12, 2019. However, certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurses, 

nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and social workers are not considered “physician[s]” as 

defined under FECA.11 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for 

purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.12

Appellant also submitted an MRI scan of his cervical spine. However, the Board has 

explained that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value as they do not address 

whether the employment incident caused any of the diagnosed conditions.13

As the medical evidence of record does not contain rationalized medical evidence 

establishing that appellant’s cervical condition was causally related to the accepted August 21, 

2019 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 cervical

condition causally related to the accepted August 21, 2019 employment incident.

 

11 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 also Procedure Manual, id at Chapter 2.805.3a(1) 

(January 2013); 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); J.R., Docket No. 20-0496 

(issued August 13, 2020) (physical therapists are not considered physicians under FECA).

12 Id.

13 V.L., supra note 4; R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 23, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board