United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Las Vegas, NV, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0198

Issued: July 7, 2022

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 November 19, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 24, 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 established a medical condition causally related to the 

accepted July 26, 2021 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 30, 2021 appellant, then a 54-year-old criminal investigator, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 26, 2021 he sustained an injury to his lower back 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

when training for an employing establishment physical fitness test while in the performance of 

duty. He reported that he was jogging, sprinting, and doing various plyometrics on the outdoor 

track when he felt a sharp pain in his lower back, his back locked up, and he experienced a back 

strain or spasm. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that 

appellant was injured while in the performance of duty.

In a development letter dated August 25, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

Appellant subsequently submitted a July 28, 2021 report from Dr. Brian Spencer Eaton, a 

chiropractor, relating appellant’s history of lumbar pain beginning on July 21, 2021, attributable 

to overarching or reaching while exercising. Dr. Eaton noted pain and tenderness in the upper 

lumbar, lower lumbar, lumbosacral, and sacral spine and observed reduced range of motion in the 

lumbar spine and reduced thoracic flexion and extension. He diagnosed spinal restriction/

subluxation at C1, C5, T5, T12, L5, left sacrum, and right pelvis, with findings on examination of 

severe muscle spasms in the left lumbar, lumbar, right lumbar, left sacroiliac, right sacroiliac, left 

pelvic, right pelvic, left buttock, and right buttock areas. Dr. Eaton performed spinal manipulation 

and mechanical traction. In a July 29, 2021 report, he diagnosed spinal restriction/subluxation at 

C1, C7, T5, T12, L5, left sacrum, and right pelvis, with findings on examination of severe muscle 

spasms in the left lumbar, lumbar, right lumbar, left sacroiliac, right sacroiliac, left pelvic, right 

pelvic, left buttock, and right buttock areas. Dr. Eaton again treated appellant with spinal 

manipulation and mechanical traction.

In a July 30, 2021 medical note, Dr. Jeaniene Talley, a Board-certified family practitioner,

related that appellant experienced severe low back pain with back lockup while sprinting and doing 

plyometrics on July 26, 2021. Her examination revealed antalgic gait due to evident back pain

and right lumbar paraspinous musculature with trigger points. Dr. Talley diagnosed low back pain 

and advised appellant to rest, avoid strenuous activity, and continue with his chiropractor.

Chiropractic reports from Dr. Eaton dated August 2, 6, and 12, 2021 documented his 

treatment of appellant’s spinal subluxations with spinal manipulation and mechanical traction.

An August 13, 2021 report from Dr. Michael Trainor, a Board-certified orthopedist,related 

that appellant was injured at work while training for a fitness test on July 26, 2021 and experienced 

constant lumbar pain since then. Dr. Trainor’s lumbar examination revealed tenderness to the 

thoracic, lumbar, gluteals, sacrum, sacroiliac joint, and trochanter, mild muscle spasm, decreased 

bilateral L5 sensation in the foot, ankle, and lower leg, and bilateral leg pain to foot with straight 

leg raise. He reviewed lumbar spine x-rays taken that day, which demonstrated moderate 

spondylosis, degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L5-S1, grade 1 L4 on L5 anterolisthesis without 

instability, and multilevel foraminal stenosis. Dr. Trainor diagnosed low back pain, moderate 

lumbar spondylosis, moderate L4-5 and L5-S1 degenerative disc disease, and L4 on L5 

anterolisthesis low grade 1 with stability. He noted that the low back pain, degenerative disc 

disease, and anterolisthesis arose following the accepted July 26, 2021 employment incident and 

that the lumbar spondylosis was aggravated by the employment incident. Dr. Trainor advised that 

appellant could resume progressive activities without restrictions and should continue his 

conservative management of chiropractic treatments, anti-inflammatories, and a muscle relaxant.
3

Appellant received additional chiropractic treatment for spinal subluxations from

Dr. Eaton on August 18 and 24, and September 13, 2021.

By decision dated September 24, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his medical condition was 

causally related to the accepted July 26, 2021 employment incident.

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

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 8 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 

2

Supra note 1.

3

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).

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

312 (1988).

5

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).

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

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

8

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).
4

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted July 26, 2021 employment incident.

In a July 30, 2021 medical note, Dr. Talley related that appellant experienced severe low 

back pain with back lockup while sprinting and doing plyometrics on July 26, 2021. She 

diagnosed low back pain. Similarly, in his August 13, 2021 report, Dr. Trainor related that 

appellant was injured at work while training for a fitness test on July 26, 2021. He diagnosed acute 

low back pain, moderate lumbar spondylosis, moderate L4-5 and L5-S1 degenerative disc disease, 

and L4 on L5 anterolisthesis low grade 1 with stability. Dr. Trainor noted that the low back pain,

degenerative disc disease, and anterolisthesis arose following the accepted July 26, 2021 

employment incident and that the lumbar spondylosis was aggravated by the employment incident. 

While both Dr. Talley and Dr. Trainor provided affirmative opinions suggestive of causal 

relationship, neither offered medical rationale sufficient to explain how appellant’s employment 

duties resulted in or contributed to his diagnosed condition. Without explaining how appellant’s 

employment duties caused or aggravated his condition, these reports are of limited probative value 

and are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.10

The record contains multiple reports from Dr. Eaton, a chiropractor, dated between July 28 

and September 13, 2021 diagnosing various spinal subluxations and muscle spasms.

Chiropractors, however, are only considered physicians for purposes of FECA if they diagnose 

spinal subluxation based upon x-ray evidence.11 Though appellant underwent lumbar spine x-rays

on August 13, 2021, which were reviewed by Dr. Trainor, Dr. Eaton did not indicate that he 

obtained or reviewed those x-rays or any others prior to diagnosing spinal subluxations. The Board 

finds that most of Dr. Eaton’s reports diagnosing spinal subluxations predate the August 13, 2021 

x-rays. Therefore, his reports are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish the claim.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his 

diagnosed medical condition is causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, 

the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

9 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).

10 See A.P., Docket No. 19-0224 (issued July 11, 2019).

11 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that the term “physician” includes chiropractors only to the extent that their 

reimbursable services are limited to treatment consisting of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation 

as demonstrated by x-ray to exist and subject to regulations by the Secretary. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); K.W., Docket No. 

20-0230 (issued May 21, 2021); J.D., Docket No. 19-1953 (issued January 11, 2021); George E. Williams, 44 ECAB 

530 (1993).
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 July 26, 2021 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 24, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 7, 2022

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