United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0666

Issued: May 19, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 3, 2020 appellantfiled a timely appealfroma January 29,2020merit decision

of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs(OWCP).1 Pursuantto the FederalEmployees’

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over

the merits of this case.

3

1 Appellant timely requested oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the Board’s Rules 

of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In support of her oral 

argument request, appellant asserted that she submitted all requested documents and because her claim was denied 

she is no longer able to continue treatment. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s request for oral 

argument because the arguments on appeal can adequately be addressed in a decision based on a review of the case 

record. Oral argument in this appeal would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. 

As such, the oral argument request is denied and this decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the January 29, 2020decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional

condition in connection with the accepted August 24, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 30, 2019 appellant, then a 35-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 24, 2019 she sustained soreness and bruising to her 

left hip when a customer on her route became angry charged after her and later tried to run her

over with her vehicle while in the performance of duty. She noted that while on the sidewalk she 

had to jump out of the way of the customer’s vehicle. Appellant recounted that the customer 

continued to make threats from a police car after being arrested for disorderly conduct. She further 

noted that she was mentally unfit to continue performing her job until she could undergo therapy.4 

On the reverse side of the claim form, M.E., an employing establishment supervisor, contended 

that appellant was not in the performance of duty when injured because she did not sustain any 

physical injuries. Appellant stopped work on August 24, 2019. 

Appellant subsequently submitted an undated narrative statement further describing the 

August 24, 2019 employment incident.

A work injury summary report dated August 24, 2019 by Anne Mutitu, an advanced 

practice nurse prescriber, documented that appellant was physically assaulted at work. A note of 

even date by a registered nurse bearing an illegible signature, recommended that appellant remain 

off work for the remainder of the day. 

In a September 11, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her 

claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond. No response was received.

In an October 2, 2019 note, Ryan Larkey, a licensed clinical social worker, diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and generalized anxiety disorder. He noted a treatment goal of 

reducing feelings of panic and anxiety related to traumatic incidents. 

OWCP received an incomplete authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form 

CA-16) dated October 1, 2019 noting an August 24, 2019 date of injury and describing appellant’s 

injury as “mental anguish.” On the reverse side of the Form CA-16, Part B attending physician’s 

report, Mr. Larkey diagnosed PTSD due to a work-related incident. 

By decision dated October 17, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that she had sustained an injury in the performance 

of duty, as alleged. It noted that she had not responded to its development questionnaire requesting 

4 The record reflects that appellant previously filed a Form CA-1 alleging that on July 18, 2014 she developed an 

emotional condition after witnessing a traumatic event while in the performance of duty. OWCP denied the claim 

under OWCP File No. xxxxxx980. That claim has not been administratively combined with the present claim. 
3

additional information regarding the alleged employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, 

that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 5

On November 6, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s October 17, 2019 

decision. She attached a response to the development questionnaire dated September 25, 2019 

relating that she had sustained bruises to her hip and arm as a result of falling when she jumped 

out of the way of the customer’s car. Appellant explained, however, that she was making a claim 

only for an emotional condition.

Appellant also submitted a municipal court case information statement dated October 31, 

2019, which noted that the customer involved in the August 24, 2019 incident was found guilty 

and fined for disorderly conduct. 

In a report dated January 2, 2020, Dr. Shehla Baig, a family medicine specialist, diagnosed 

PTSD and recommended ongoing behavioral therapy with a clinical social worker. 

By decision dated January 29, 2020, OWCP modified its prior decision, finding that 

appellant had established that the August 24, 2019 employment incident had occurred, as alleged. 

However, it continued to deny the claim, finding that she had not submitted sufficient medical 

evidence to establish a diagnosis in connection with the accepted August 24, 2019 employment 

incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6 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,7that 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.8 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.9

To establish a claim for an emotional condition in the performance of duty, an employee 

must submit: (1) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have 

caused or contributed to his or her condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or she has 

an emotional or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing 

5 On October 18, 2019 appellant accepted an offer from the employing establishment for a full-time modified 

position as a city carrier, with duties including setting routes and collections for any station and transporting vehicles 

between stations for up to eight hours per day. 

6

Supra note 2.

7 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

8 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).

9 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). 
4

that the identified compensable employment factors are causally related to his or her emotional 

condition.10 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional

condition in connection with the accepted August 24, 2019 employment incident.

Appellant submitted a January 2, 2020 letter by Dr. Baig, a family practitioner, which 

contained a diagnosis of PTSD. However, OWCP’s procedures provide that, “[a] claim for an 

emotional condition must be supported by an opinion from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist 

before the condition can be accepted.”

11

 Consequently, Dr. Baig’s report is of no probative 

medical value for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.

The remaining evidence of record consists of nursing notes dated August 24, 2019 and the 

October 2 and 16, 2019 reports of Mr. Larkey, a licensed clinical social worker. Certain healthcare 

providers such as physician assistants, physical therapists, nurse practitioners, and social workers 

are not considered “physician[s]” as defined under FECA.

12

 Consequently, their medical findings 

and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.13

As there is no evidence of record that establishes a valid diagnosis of an emotional 

condition from a qualified physician in connection with the accepted employment incident, the 

Board finds that appellant has not established that she sustained an emotional condition causally 

related to the accepted August 24, 2019 employment incident.

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.

10 R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issued February 14, 2020).

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(d)(3)(c) 

(January2013).

12 Section 8101(2) provides that under FECA the term physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by the applicable state law. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See id. at Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); 

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); see also B.B., Docket No. 06-0392 (issued 

January 22, 2007) (treatment notes from social workers and mental health counselors are of no probative value asthey 

are not considered to be physicians under the Act);Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623, 626 (2000); Frederick C. Smith, 

48 ECAB 132 (1996).

13 D.P., Docket No. 19-1295 (issued March 16, 2020); G.S., Docket No. 18-1696 (issued March 26, 2019); see 

M.M., Docket No. 17-1641 (issued February 15, 2018); K.J., Docket No. 16-1805 (issued February 23, 2018); 

David P. Sawchuk, id.
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional

condition causally related to the accepted August 24, 2019 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 29, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

14

Issued: May 19, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

14 The Board notes that the employing establishment executed a Form CA-16. 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).