United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Santa Clarita, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0296

Issued: July 1, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 20, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 19, 2021 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2(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 back condition 

causally related to the accepted June 7, 2021 employment incident.

1 The Board notes that, following the August19, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 8, 2021 appellant, then a 54-year-old postal collect and delivery employee, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 7, 2021 he injured the right side of his 

lower back when he overreached to place mail into a secure box, while in the performance of duty. 

On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor indicated that appellant was not 

injured in the performance of duty. Appellant did not stop work. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a narrative statement dated June 7, 2021,

attesting that he overreached while opening a mailbox and pulled his lower back on the right side. 

He also related that he continued to deliver mail to two additional mailboxes and then called his 

supervisor. 

OWCP received a report dated June 7, 2021 from Dr. Amarjit Mangat, an occupational 

medicine specialist. Dr. Mangat noted appellant’s diagnoses as lumbosacral and pelvis sprain. 

She related his history of injury that he injured his back at work when he was delivering mail and 

reached in a twisted position. In a separate report also dated June 7, 2021, Dr. Mangat listed 

appellant’s diagnoses as lumbosacral sprain and sacroiliac joint dysfunction of the right side and 

indicated his work restrictions. 

In a letter dated June 8, 2021, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. 

OWCP received physical therapy reports dated June 9, 11 and 14, 2021. 

In a report dated June 15, 2021, Dr. Mangat related that appellant was seen for a follow-up 

appointment and was undergoing physical therapy. She noted his continued physical examination 

findings and related that he could return to work that day with restrictions. 

In a development letter dated July 7, 2021, OWCP advised that the evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish appellant’s 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. 

OWCP received a work activity status report from Dr. Mangat dated June 15, 2021 which 

listed appellant’s diagnoses and noted his work restrictions. 

By decision dated August 19, 2021, OWCP accepted that the June 7, 2021 employment 

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

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

concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury or a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted employment incident. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,4that 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.5 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.6

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.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 

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 back condition 

causally related to the accepted June 7, 2021 employment incident.

3

Id.

4 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).

5 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).

6 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). 

7 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).

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).

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).
4

Appellant submitted reports dated June 7 and 15, 2021 fromDr. Mangatin which she noted 

his diagnoses of lumbosacral/pelvis sprain and sacroiliac joint dysfunction of right side. In the 

June 7, 2021 report, Dr. Mangat related in his history of injury that he injured his back at work 

when he was delivering mail and reached in a twisted position. However, she did not provide her 

own medical opinion explaining the cause of appellant’s diagnosed conditions. Dr. Mangat did 

not explain a pathophysiological process of how the accepted employment incident caused or 

contributed to his back condition.10 The Board has held that a medical opinion that does not offer 

a medically sound and rationalized explanation by the physician of how the specific employment

incident physiologically caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions is of limited probative 

value.11 As such, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Progress notes from physical therapists were also received. 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 medical evidence of record establishing that appellant’s diagnosed back 

condition was causally related to the accepted June 7, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds 

that he has not met his burden of proof. 

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 back condition 

causally related to the accepted June 7, 2021 employment incident.

10 J.B., Docket No. 22-0060 (issued April 26, 2022); J.B., Docket No. 21-0011 (issued April 20, 2021); A.M., 

Docket No. 19-1394 (issued February 23, 2021).

11 Id.

12 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that the term physicianincludes “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); David P. 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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 19, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 1, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board