United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Harrisburg, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1095

Issued: May 20, 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 July 13, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 19, 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the January 19, 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. 
2

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the accepted December 9, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 11, 2020 appellant, then a 59-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 9, 2020 he injured his neck when a vehicle struck 

the rear of his stationary postal delivery truck while in the performance of duty. He stopped work 

on December 9, 2020 and returned to work on December 11, 2020. 

In a December 14, 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 provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received the first page of an unsigned December 9, 2020 after-visit summary, 

which indicated that appellant was seen in the emergency department following a motor vehicle 

accident. It indicated that, following an x-ray of the lumbar spine and a computerized tomography 

scan of the cervical spine, he was diagnosed with strains of the neck muscle and lumbar region.

In a return-to-work note dated December 9, 2020, Jeffrey Kelly, a physician assistant, 

indicated that appellant could not return to work until cleared by a “company [physician].”

In a December 10, 2020 duty status report (Form CA-17), an unidentifiable healthcare 

provider noted that appellant was a city carrier who experienced neck and back pain after his postal 

delivery truck was rear ended on December 9, 2020. Appellant was diagnosed with neck and low 

back pain and released to regular-duty work. 

In a return-to-work note of even date, Michael Lukus, a physician assistant, released 

appellant to work without restrictions. 

By decision dated January 19, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

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

condition causally related to the accepted employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury under 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 

3

Supra note 1.
3

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

caused a personal injury.

7

The evidence required to establish causal relationship 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 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 December 9, 2020 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted the first page of an unsigned after visit 

summary report dated December 9, 2020 and a Form CA-17 dated December 10, 2020 from an 

unidentifiable healthcare provider. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear an 

illegible signature lack proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical evidence 

4 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). 

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

as the author cannot be identified as a physician.10 Accordingly, these reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim.

The remaining evidence of record consists of return-to-work notes dated December 9 

and 10, 2020 from Mr. Kelly and Mr. Lukus, both physician assistants. These notes, however, are

of no probative value to establish causal relationship because physician assistants are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA.11

As there is no rationalized medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted December 9, 2020 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 diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted December 9, 2020 employment incident.

10 M.A., Docket No. 19-1551 (issued April30, 2020); T.O., Docket No. 19-1291 (issued December 11, 2019); 

Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

11 5 U.S.C. § 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. See also 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). 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004) (a physician assistant is not considered a physician under 

FECA).
5

ORDER

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 20, 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