United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0398

Issued: July 21, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 26, 2023 appellantfiled a timely appeal from a January 17, 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 that his left eye 

condition was causally related to the accepted December 3, 2022 employment exposure.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 3, 2022 appellant, then a 39-year-old air traffic controller, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that day he sustained a left eye injury when he was 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

exposed to toxic cleaning chemicals while in the performance of duty. He indicated that his left 

eye became irritated, inflamed, red and itchy and that he had a runny nose and sneezing. Appellant 

stopped work on December 3, 2022 and returned to work on December 8, 2022.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a December 3, 2022 after visit summary and a 

work status reportfrom Tyler James Ryan, a physician assistant, who diagnosed left conjunctivitis. 

He held appellant off work from December 3 through December 4, 2022.

On December 5, 2022 the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16 authorization for 

examination and/or treatment for the December 3, 2022 left eye irritation due to cleaning 

chemicals. 

In a development letter dated December 14, 2022, OWCP notified appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him regarding 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.

In response, OWCP received a December 3, 2022 progress note from Dr. Angelo Olmedo, 

a family medical specialist. Dr. Olmedo reported that appellant had pain associated with redness 

at left eye since the morning. Appellant denied injury/trauma or known foreign body. A diagnosis 

of left conjunctivitis was provided. 

OWCP also received the employing establishment’s December 15, 2022 letter 

controverting the claim. In a January 6, 2023 response, appellant reiterated his history of injury.

By decision dated January 17, 2023, OWCP accepted that appellant was exposed to toxic 

cleaning chemicals used in the facility, as alleged. However, it denied his claim finding that the 

medical evidence was insufficient to establish that the diagnosed medical condition was causally 

related to the accepted employment exposure.

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,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 to 

2

Id.

3

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B.,Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

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 

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 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 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual 

and medical background, 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 

the specific employment incident.8 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests 

itself during a period of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or 

aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition was causally related to the accepted December 3, 2022 employment incident.

In a December 3, 2022 progress note, Dr. Olmedo diagnosed left eye conjunctivitis. 

However, he failed to provide any 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.10 Thus, Dr. Olmedo’s report is 

insufficient to establish the claim.

The remaining evidence consists of medical evidence signed by a physician assistant. 

However, the Board has held that certain healthcare providers,such as physician assistants, are not 

4 L.C., Docket No. 21-0811 (issued January 31, 2023); 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 R.R.,Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M.,Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);

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

6 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 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8

S.S.,Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019); M.V.,Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018);

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

9 T.M., Docket No. 22-0220 (issued July 29, 2022); J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April 12, 2019).

10 See J.R., Docket No. 21-0223 (issued January 30, 2023); L.B.,Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018);

D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
4

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

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

the diagnosed condition(s) and the accepted employment exposure, 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 that his left eye 

condition was causally related to the accepted December 3, 2022 employment exposure.

13

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

Relationship,Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); 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 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); GeorgeH. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004) (physician 

assistants are not considered physicians under FECA). 

12 Id.

13 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16 authorization for examination and/or 

treatment of appellant’s December 3, 2022 injury. 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. The period for which treatment is authorized by a Form CA-16

is limited to 60 days from the date of issuance, unless terminated earlier by OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c);

J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 17, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 21, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board