United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GREENTREE POST 

OFFICE, Pittsburgh, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0711

Issued: December 11, 2023

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 April 21, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 30, 2023 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 diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted January 23, 2023 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 25, 2023 appellant, then a 38-year-old sales and services distribution 

associate, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 23, 2023 he 

sustained left lower and middle back pain and sciatica after being hit by a bulk mail container

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, his supervisor 

acknowledged that he was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant did not stop work.

In a February 27, 2023 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.

Thereafter, appellant submitted a January 27, 2023 report from Dr. Stephen E. Perryman, 

a Board-certified family practitioner, relating that, on January 23, 2023, appellant was hit on the 

left side by a metal container at work, which caused him to twist his low back. Dr. Perryman’s 

examination demonstrated painful palpation of lumbar paraspinal muscles on the left, positive 

straight leg raise, and positive crossed straight leg raise. He diagnosed left hand pain, acute low 

back pain with sciatica, referred appellant to physical therapy, and recommended lifting 

restrictions at work.

Appellant also submitted a January 27, 2023 note from Sydney McWilliams, a physician 

assistant, releasing him for work with lifting restrictions, as well as an e-mail from

Ms. McWilliams advising the same.

The employing establishment submitted a March 29, 2023 challenge statement, indicating 

that appellant had not established a medical diagnosis other than pain, and had not established 

causal relationship.

By decision dated March 30, 2023, OWCP accepted that the January 23, 2023 employment 

incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had not submitted 

medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis by a physician in connection with his accepted 

employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by 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 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 period 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 

2

Id.

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).
3

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

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

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 whether the employment incident caused an injury.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 specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.8

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted January 23, 2023 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a January 27, 2023 report, wherein

Dr. Perryman related his history of injury and diagnosed left hand pain and acute low back pain 

with sciatica. However, the Board has held that pain is a description of a symptom, not a diagnosis 

of a medical condition.9 It is appellant’s burden of proof to obtain and submit medical 

documentation containing a firm diagnosis causally related to the accepted employment incident. 10 

This report is, therefore, insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

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);

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

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 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).

9

See K.S., Docket No. 19-1433 (issued April26, 2021); S.L., Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June 26, 2020); D.Y., 

Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020).

10 J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020); R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020).
4

Appellant also submitted January 27, 2023 records from a physician assistant. The Board 

has held that medical reports signed solely by a physician assistant, registered nurse, or medical 

assistant are of no probative value as such healthcare providers are not considered physicians as 

defined under FECA, and are therefore, not competent to provide medical opinions. 11 

Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for the purpose of 

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.

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

in connection with the accepted January 23, 2023 employment incident, the Board finds that 

appellant 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 diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted January 23, 2023 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. § 8102(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (May2023); 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); see also S.S., Docket No. 21-1140 (issued June 29, 2022) (physician assistants are not considered 

physicians under FECA and are not competent to provide medical opinions); George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004) 

(physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 30, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 11, 2023

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