United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL 

& PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, 

Raleigh, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0806

Issued: February 1, 2023

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 3, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 25, 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 diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted November 16, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 18, 2020 appellant, then a 61-year-old city general biological scientist, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 16, 2020 he sprained or fractured 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

his right ankle when he stepped in a hole in a grassy area while in the performance of duty. He 

did not stop work.

In a physical therapy note dated December 21, 2020, Aaron Lubick, a physical therapist, 

sought approval to provide treatment to appellant’s right ankle between December 24, 2020 and 

February 15, 2021. 

In a January 7, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish his claim, 

and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Thereafter, OWCP received a physical therapy note dated December 16, 2020, bearing an 

illegible signature and reflecting a diagnosis of right ankle sprain. 

In a January 15, 2021 statement, appellant indicated that Dr. Waseem Hussain 

recommended that appellant undergo physical therapy and that he would request that second 

physician, provide forms and x-rays to OWCP. 

By decision dated February 25, 2021, OWCP accepted that the November 16, 2020 

employment incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with 

the accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that he had not met the 

requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

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. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

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); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

time, place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury.6 

The medical evidence required to establish a 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 the specific employment incident 

identified by the claimant.8

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted November 16, 2020 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a physical therapy note dated December 16,

2020, bearing an illegible signature9and reflecting a diagnosis of right ankle sprain. Reports that 

are unsigned or that bear illegible signatures cannot be considered probative medical evidence 

because they lack proper identification10 as the author cannot be identified as a physician.11

Appellant also submitted a physical therapy note by Aaron Lubick, a physical therapist. 

This form has no probative value, however, because physical therapists are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA.12

The Board finds that there is no evidence of record that establishes a valid medical 

diagnosis from a qualified physician in connection with the accepted employment incident. 

Consequently, appellant has not met his burden of proof.

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 April 24, 2019); Robert G. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April 9, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.331(a) provides that, use of medical report forms is not required; however, the report should bear 

the physician’s signature or signature stamp.

10 W.L., Docket No. 19-1581 (issued August 5, 2020).

11 D.T., Docket No. 20-0685 (issued October 8, 2020); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

12 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) 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 also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Causal Relationship, 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); E.W., Docket No. 20-0338 (issued October 9, 2020); Jane White, 34 ECAB 515, 518 (1983) (physical 

therapists are not considered physicians under FECA).
4

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 diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted November 16, 2020 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 25, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 1, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board