United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1205

Issued: January 13, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 4, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 11, 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 diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted January 17, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the March11, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP. 

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 January 20, 2021 appellant, then a 48-year-old law enforcement officer, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 17, 2021 he sustained trauma to the 

body, including soreness in the shoulders, neck, back, and hips and possible whiplash , due to a 

motor vehicle accident (MVA), which occurred while in the performance of duty. He reported 

that he was being transported in a government vehicle after the completion of a protective 

assignmentwhen the vehicle he was traveling in was rear ended by another vehicle. On the reverse 

side of the claim form the employing establishment acknowledged that appellant wa s injured in 

the performance of duty and indicated that appellant’s injury was caused by a third party. 

Appellant stopped work on January 17, 2021 and returned to work on January 20, 2021.

In a development letter dated January 28, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him as to the type of additional factual and medical evidence 

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

respond.

In support of his claim, appellantsubmitted a January 17, 2021attending physician’s report 

(Form CA-20) from Dr. Uthman Alamoudi, a Board-certified emergency medicine, who examined 

him on January 17, 2021. Dr. Alamoudi related that appellant was a backseat passenger in a car 

that was rear ended. He noted that appellant had been wearing a seatbelt and that no air bag had 

deployed. On examination, Dr. Alamoudi noted that appellant experienced mild neck pain on the 

right side. He diagnosed neck muscle strain. Dr. Alamoudi checked a box marked “No,”

indicating that he did not believe appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by an 

employment activity. He advised that appellant could resume work immediately. In a January 17, 

2021 employing establishment medical clearance checklist, Dr. Alamoudi diagnosed motor 

vehicle collision, noting that appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision.

In Part B, attendingphysician’s report, of a January 17, 2021 authorization for examination 

and/or treatment (Form CA-16), Dr. Samantha Noll, an emergency medicine physician, related 

appellant’s history of injury, including the fact that he was in a government vehicle at the time of 

the alleged injury. She marked boxes indicating “Yes” and “No” as to whether she believed the 

condition was caused or aggravated by the employment activity. Dr. Noll diagnosed mild neck 

pain and advised that appellant could return to work without restrictions.

OWCP also received a January 17, 2021 police report signed by an investigating police 

officer, which listed appellant as a backseat passenger in the car that was rear ended that morning. 

The report indicated that appellant sustained a possible injury and that all vehicle occupants were 

taken to the hospital as a precaution.

In an emergency medical service (EMS) conversion record of even date, an emergency 

medical technician (EMT) indicated that, on that date, appellant was transported to a hospital from 

the scene of the accident. The record related appellant’s history of injury and indicated symptoms 

of neck injury and malaise. A second EMS report of even date repeated appellant’s history of 

injury and noted symptoms of neck injury and malaise.

By decision dated March 11, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in 
3

connection with the accepted January 17, 2021 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 FECA3 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 period 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 if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.7 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 9 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.10

ANALYSIS

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

diagnosed neck strain was causally related to the accepted January 17, 2021 employment incident.

3

Supra note 1.

4

S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

6

S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020);L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); DeloresC. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 R.K., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued April10, 2020); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April6, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9

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).

10 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).
4

Dr. Alamoudi diagnosed a neck muscle strain in the January 17, 2021 Form CA-20; 

however, he checked a box marked “No” indicating that he did not believe that the condition was 

caused or aggravated by the employment activity. The Board has held that evidence that negates 

causal relationship is of no probative value.11 While this evidence is sufficient to establish a valid 

medical diagnosis, it is insufficient to establish causal relationship.

In a January 17, 2021 employing establishment medical clearance checklist, Dr. Alamoudi

diagnosed motor vehicle collision noting that appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision. 

However, he did not provide an opinion regarding causal relationship. The Board has held that 

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

of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.

12

 Therefore, this report is insufficient to 

establish appellant’s traumatic injury claim. 

Appellant also submitted two January 17, 2021 EMS reports not signed by a physician. 

The Board has held that medical reports signed solely by an EMT, 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.13 

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

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.

OWCP also received a January 17, 2021 Form CA-16 wherein Dr. Noll related appellant’s 

history of injury, including the fact that he was in a government vehicle at the time of the alleged 

injury. She diagnosed mild neck pain and advised that appellant could return to work without 

restrictions. Dr. Noll marked boxes indicating both “Yes” and “No” as to whether the injury was 

caused or aggravated by the employment activity. The Board has long held that medical opinions 

that are equivocal in nature are of diminished probative value. 14 Therefore, this report is also of 

no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing causal 

relationship between his diagnosed condition and the accepted January 17, 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.

11 T.W., Docket No. 19-0677 (issued August16, 2019).

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

13 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 also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); D.B.,Docket No. 16-1219 (issued November 8, 2016) (an EMT is 

not considered a physician under FECA); R.L., Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (nurse practitioners are not 

considered physicians under FECA); 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). 

14 T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009).
5

CONCLUSION

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

diagnosed neck strain was causally related to the accepted January 17, 2021 employment 

incident.

15

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 11, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed as modified.

Issued: January 13, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

15 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. See 

20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); TracyP. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).