United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CARROLL REECE 

POST OFFICE, Johnson City, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0551

Issued: October 5, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 9, 2022 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 causally related to the accepted December 28, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 28, 2020 appellant, then a 34-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging on that date he sustained a low back strain when he bent over sorting 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

flats and felt a “pop” in his lower back while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

December 28, 2020 and returned on December 29, 2020. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a note from Dr. Steven M. Fitzgerald, a Boardcertified internist, dated December 28, 2020, who treated him in the emergency room and returned 

him to work on December 29, 2020 with restrictions of no lifting over 10 pounds.

On December 29, 2020 the employing establishment offered appellant a limited-duty 

position as a rural carrier subject to restrictions. Appellant accepted the position and returned to 

work on December 29, 2020.

In an August 13, 2021 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies in 

his claim. It requested that he submit additional factual and medical information, including a 

comprehensive report from his physician regarding how a specific work incident contributed to 

his claimed injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received additional evidence. In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) 

dated August 23, 2021, Ashley Seale, a physician assistant, indicated that appellant developed 

back pain on December 28, 2020 after lifting packages. She diagnosed chronic bilateral low back 

pain without sciatica and checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that appellant’s condition had 

been caused or aggravated by the December 28, 2020 employment activity. Ms. Seale noted that 

appellant was totally disabled from December 28, 2020 through March 28, 2021.

By decision dated September 14, 2021, OWCP accepted that the December 28, 2020

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. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been 

met to establish an injury as defined under FECA.

OWCP received an emergency department report from Dr. Fitzgerald dated December 28, 

2020 who treated appellant for back pain. Appellant reported that he was bent over sortin g items 

and lifting heavy objects when he felt a “pop” in his lower back and immediately fell to his knees. 

Findings on physical examination revealed mild tenderness to palpation over L1 and L2 and 

paraspinal muscle tenderness. An x-ray of the lumbar spine revealed no acute fracture or 

malalignment and vertebral body heights and intervertebral disc spaces were maintained. 

Dr. Fitzgerald diagnosed strain of the lumbar region, initial encounter and recommended that he 

follow up with his primary care doctor for further evaluation.

On September 20, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The hearing was held on January 5, 2022.

OWCP received a Form CA-20 dated September 23, 2021 that identified Dr. Kevin Sweet, 

a Board-certified internist, as the countersigner; however, the signature was blacked out and 

illegible.

By decision dated February 9, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

September 14, 2021 decision.
3

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 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 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. 6

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship 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 incident identified by the employee.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an emergency department report from

Dr. Fitzgerald dated December 28, 2020 who treated him for back pain. He reported that he was 

bent over sorting items and lifting heavy objects at work when he felt a “pop” in his lower back 

and immediately fell to his knees. Dr. Fitzgerald noted physical findings of mild tenderness to 

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.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).

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

palpation over L1 and L2 and paraspinal tenderness. He diagnosed strain of the lumbar region, 

initial encounter. The Board, therefore, finds that, based on the report of Dr. Fitzgerald, appellant 

has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition c ausally related to the 

accepted factors of his federal employment. 

The Board further finds, however, that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether 

the diagnosed medical condition is causally related to the accepted December 28, 2020 

employment incident. As the medical evidence of record establishes a diagnosed medical 

condition, the case must be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to the 

issue of causal relationship.9 Following this and any other such further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted December 28, 2020 employment incident. The Board 

further finds that this case is not in posture for decision as to whether the diagnosed medical 

condition is causally related to the accepted December 28, 2020 employment incident. 

9

See F.D., Docket No. 21-1045 (issued December 22, 2021).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 9, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded 

to OWCP for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: October 5, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board