United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PITTSBURGH POST 

OFFICE, Pittsburgh, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0789

Issued: November 16, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 26, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 22, 2021 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted October 18, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP following the December 22, 2021 

decision. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 9, 2021 appellant, then a 19-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 18, 2021 while in her delivery vehicle, she 

arose from her chair and struck the top of her head against a metal door frame, causing an 

intracerebral hematoma and major concussion. She stopped work on the date of injury. On the 

reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment acknowledged that appellant was in 

the performance of duty when the incident occurred, but noted that there was insufficient medical 

records and no diagnosis from a physician.

On November 18, 2021 OWCP received an October 18, 2021 work slip signed by Andrea 

Liebersohn, a certified registered nurse practitioner; and October 25 and 29, 2021 work slips 

signed by Abbey B. Vanderlin, a physician assistant.

In a November 18, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of additional factual and medical evidence needed, and

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded her 30 days to respond.3

In a December 15, 2021 letter, the employing establishment controverted the claim, 

asserting that appellant had not submitted medical evidence from a qualified physician. 

On December 20, 2021 OWCP received November 12 and 22, 2021 work slips signed by 

Kirsten Bubb, a certified registered nurse practitioner. 

By decision dated December 22, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted October 18, 2021 employment incident. It concluded, 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,5that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA, that 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 

3 On December 13, 2021 OWCP received an undated report of work status which indicated appellant returned to 

full-time modified duty. 

4

Supra note 1; D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); L.C., Docket No. 19-0503 (issued February 7, 

2020); A.A., Docket No. 18-0031 (issued April5, 2018);Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

5 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).
3

employment injury.6 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.7

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 

time and place, and in the manner alleged.8 Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.9

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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.10

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted October 18, 2021 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an October 18, 2021 work slip signed by

Ms. Liebersohn, a certified registered nurse practitioner, October 25 and 29, 2021 work slips 

signed by Ms. Vanderlin, a physician assistant, and November 12, and 22, 2021 work slips signed 

by Ms. Bubb, a certified registered nurse practitioner. However, certain healthcare providers such 

as nurse practitioners and physician assistants are not considered physicians as defined under 

6 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).

7 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).

8 D.S., Docket No. 17-1422 (issued November 9, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); JohnJ. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 K.R., Docket No. 21-0822 (issued June 28, 2022); D.R., Docket No. 22-0471 (issued June 27, 2022); M.E., 

Docket No. 22-0091 (issued May 6, 2022); 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

FECA.11 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of 

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.12

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted October 18, 2021 employment incident, the 

Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.13

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 her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted October 18, 2021 employment incident.

11 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. § 8102(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); DavidP. 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 S.S., Docket No. 21-1140 (issued June 29, 2022) (physician assistants are not considered 

physicians under FECA and are not competent to provide medical opinions); George H. Clark,56 ECAB 162 (2004) 

(physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA).

12 Id.

13 K.R., supra note 10.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 22, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 16, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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