United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, 

Yuma AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0022

Issued: May 23, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 5, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 8, 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 his burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted March 3, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 11, 2020 appellant, then a 28-year-old border patrol agent, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 3, 2020 he strained his right hip, knee, and ankle

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

when participating in all-terrain vehicle (ATV) training while in the performance of duty. He did 

not stop work. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a medical report dated March 26, 2020 from

Dr. Rodney D. Henderson, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Henderson related that 

appellant’s injury occurred during training on an ATV and that appellant had pain in his right knee 

as well as radiating pain from his right hip to right ankle. He diagnosed right knee and right hip 

pain and stated that appellant’s “workplace accident IS the prevailing factor in causing 

[appellant’s] injury resulting in disability.” (Emphasis in the original.) 

On April 13, 2020 OWCP authorized a course of physical therapy, as recommended by

Dr. Henderson. Physical therapy reports were thereafter received commencing April 15, 2020. 

In a development letter dated June 22, 2020, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

in his claim. It noted the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided him with a 

questionnaire. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In medical reports dated April 15, May 6, and June 10, 2020, Dr. Henderson related that 

appellant’s hip pain had improved. He opined that appellant’s injuries were caused by the 

workplace accident and diagnosed right knee pain, right hip pain, and plantar fasciitis. 

Appellant submitted a response to OWCP’s development questionnaire dated 

July 20, 2020. He explained that he was injured when practicing tactical dismounts, which 

included jumping off an ATV. Appellant also attested that he had no similar disabilities or 

symptoms prior to the incident. 

By decision dated August 5, 2020, OWCP accepted that the March 3, 2020 employment 

incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim as causal relationship was not 

established between a diagnosed medical condition and the accepted employment incident. 

In reports dated July 9 and August 27, 2020, Dr. Henderson related that appellant was seen 

for a follow up for his right knee pain and plantar fasciitis. 

On August 27, 2020 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on December 10, 2020. The hearing 

representative afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence. 

Appellant submitted two letters dated January 4 and 29, 2021, which explained that he was 

having difficulty obtaining the requisite medical documentation. 

By decision dated February 18, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

August 5, 2020 decision. 

OWCP received a letter dated January 26, 2021 from Dr. Henderson where he opined that 

the constant use and operation of an off-road four-wheeler quad-type vehicle increases the risk for 

agents developing repetitive injuries without apparent traumatic accidents. Dr. Henderson 

reported that the injury in the right hip, knee, and foot sprain and pain. He concluded that the 

injury was casually related to the event while performing field training. 
3

On June 10, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s February 18, 2021 

decision. 

By decision dated September 8, 2021, OWCP denied modification. 

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 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 

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 a 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, place, and in the manner alleged. The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be established 

only by medical evidence.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

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).

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); 

DeloresC. 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).
4

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted March 3, 2020 employment incident. 

In a January 26, 2021 report, Dr. Henderson related diagnoses of right hip, knee, and foot 

sprain and pain which he concluded were causally related to the employment incident. He 

explained that the conditions occurred while appellant was performing field training on 

March 26, 2020. In reports dated April 15, May 6, June 10, July 9, and August 27, 2020,

Dr. Henderson listed appellant’s diagnosis as plantar fasciitis and stated that it was caused by 

appellant’s employment incident. A medical opinion is of limited value if it is conclusory in 

nature.9 While Dr. Henderson provided diagnoses and an opinion on causal relationship, his 

reports did not offer any medical rationale to explain how the accepted employment incident would 

have caused appellant’s diagnosed conditions.

10

 The Board has held that a medical opinion should 

offer a medically-sound explanation of how the specific employment incident physiologically 

caused the diagnosed condition. As these reports lacked any medical rationale explaining how the 

accepted employment incident caused the diagnosed conditions, they were insufficient to establish 

causal relationship. 

In a report dated March 26, 2020, Dr. Henderson noted diagnoses of right knee pain and 

right hip pain. The Board has held that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical 

diagnosis.11 For this reason, Dr. Henderson’s report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.

Progress notes from physical therapists were also received. However, physical therapists 

are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.12 As such, this evidence is also of no 

probative value and insufficient to establish the claim.

As there is no rationalized medical evidence of record establishing a condition causally 

related to the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden 

of proof. 

9

See R.B., Docket No. 19-1527 (issued July 20, 2020); R.S., Docket No. 19-1774 (issued April3, 2020).

10 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); see H.A., Docket No. 18-1466 (issued August 23, 2019); 

L.R., Docket No. 16-0736 (issued September 2, 2016).

11 See S.L., Docket No. 19-1536 (issued June26, 2020); D.Y., Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June 25, 2020).

12 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that the term 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 physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); see also R.L., 

Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (a physical therapist is not considered a physicianunder FECA). 
5

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 medical

condition causally related to the accepted March 3, 2020 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 8, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 23, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board