United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SLIDELL MAIN POST 

OFFICE, Slidell, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0868

Issued: December 21, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 20, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 28, 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.2

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the accepted March 13, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the April 28, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence and appellant 

submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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 March 15, 2021 appellant, then a 28-year-old rural carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 13, 2021 he injured his lower back when he 

stood up as he was loading packages on his truck while in the performance of duty. He stopped 

work on the date of the alleged injury.

In an accompanying statement, appellant indicated that he was loading his truck when he 

experienced a striking pain in his lower back. He noted that he then notified his coworker and 

supervisors of his pain. Appellant related that his condition gradually worsened throughout the 

day and that he had to leave work at 6:30 p.m. due to his back pain.

In a March 15, 2021 witness statement, D.S, appellant’s supervisor, noted that on 

March 13, 2021, when he called appellant into his office to discuss a pay issue, he reported that 

his back was sore and that he believed the injury occurred the day before. He also alleged that he 

was leaning over to sort small parcels in the back of his truck when he experienced soreness. D.S. 

advised appellant not to lean for extended periods. In a witness statement of even date, A.E., a 

coworker, noted that on March 13, 2021 appellant notified her that his back was hurting without

indicating why. She offered appellant over-the-counter pain medicine, which he accepted.

In a March 23, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of medical evidence 

needed and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

On March 15, 2021 the employing establishment executed an authorization for 

examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16).

In a March 15, 2021 injury report, containing an illegible signature, an unidentifiable 

healthcare provider noted that appellant sustained an injury on March 13, 2021 and could return 

to work on March 17, 2021 with restrictions.

In a March 15, 2021 progress report, Amber Kelley, a medical assistant, noted that 

appellant experienced a sharp pain while loading his truck on March 12, 2021, but continued to 

work. She indicated that his pain worsened over the next days.

In a March 16, 2021 employing establishment accident report,C.D., appellant’s immediate 

supervisor, related that on March 13, 2021 appellant experienced lower back pain when loading 

his vehicle with large parcels.

In a March 19, 2021 injury report, containing an illegible signature, an unidentifiable 

healthcare provider noted that appellant could return to work the next day with restrictions.

In a March 19, 2021 progress report, Deanna A. Dardar, a nurse practitioner, noted that 

appellant presented with lower back pain after sustaining a work-related injury on March 13, 2021. 

She conducted a physical examination and diagnosed lumbar strain.

On March 22, 2021 appellant accepted an offer for a modified assignment as a limited-duty 

rural carrier assistant.
3

In an undated attending physician’s report, Part B of the Form CA-16, Julie Galloway, a 

nurse practitioner, noted that appellant experienced a sharp pain in his lower back while loading 

his truck with packages. She diagnosed lumbar strain.

In March 26, 2021 injury report and progress report, Ms. Galloway again diagnosed lumbar

strain. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date,she reiterated her diagnosis and provided 

work restrictions.

By decision dated April 28, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted March 13, 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 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 of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation 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 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. 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 

3

Supra note 1.

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).
4

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 incident 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted March 13, 2021 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted reports dated March 15, 19, and 26, 2021 from 

nurse practitioners and a medical assistant. OWCP also received an undated Part B of the Form 

CA-16 from a nurse practitioner. However, the Board has held that certain healthcare providers 

such as nurse practitioners and medical assistants are not considered physicians as defined under 

FECA.10 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of 

establishing causal relationship.11 As such, this evidence is of no probative value and insufficient 

to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Appellant also submitted May 15 and 19, 2021 injury reports, containing an illegible 

signature. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear an illegible signature lack 

proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical evidence, as the author cannot 

be identified as a physician.12 Therefore, these documents have no probative value and are 

insufficient to establish the claim.

Accordingly, as there is no rationalized medical evidence of record establishing a 

diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted March 13, 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.

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 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 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); see also J.T., Docket No. 20-1486 (issued March 16, 2021) (medical assistants); R.L., Docket No. 19-

0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (nurse practitioners).

11 Id.

12 R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020); M.A., Docket No. 19-1551 (issued April30, 2020); T.O., 

Docket No. 19-1291 (issued December 11, 2019); MertonJ. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).
5

CONCLUSION

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted March 13, 2021 employment incident.13

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 28, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 21, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

13 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).