United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SUTTER CREEK 

POST OFFICE, Sutter Creek, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1359

Issued: April 26, 2023

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 September 26, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 1, 2022 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.

ISSUE

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

condition in connection with the accepted February 18, 2022 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 16, 2022 appellant, then a 58-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 18, 2022 he twisted his right knee, resulting 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

in a right knee strain, when he walked through an area with debris and children’s toys while in the 

performance of duty. He stopped work on February 23, 2022. 

OWCP received a February 23, 2022 work slip by Kelly Marie Grigoriyan, a nurse 

practitioner. It also received an unsigned emergency department discharge note of even date 

indicating that appellant was treated for right knee pain. 

In a March 11, 2022 report, Dr. Kamalpreet Dulai, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

returned appellant to modified duty from March 9 through April 10, 2022. She noted work 

restrictions limiting lifting, pulling, and pushing to 10 pounds, no climbing stairs, no prolonged 

standing, and limited walking. 

In a report dated April 12, 2022, Dr. Zachary Marks, a Board-certified internist, provided 

work restrictions through May 12, 2022. 

On April 21, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the period February 23 through May 5, 2022. 

In a development letter dated May 19, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Thereafter, OWCP received a series of CA-7 claims for compensation for the period 

February 23 through May 21, 2022, earnings and leave statements for the period February 12 

through May 20, 2022, and a May 11, 2022 time analysis form (Form CA-7a) indicating that 

appellant had returned to part-time light-duty work on April 6, 2022. 

By decision dated July 1, 2022, 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 February 18, 2022 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 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,3that 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 

2

Id.; 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 April 5, 2018); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

3 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.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 

time, place, and in the manner alleged.6 Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to 

establish that 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. 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.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 February 18, 2022 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted Dr. Dulai’s March 11, 2022 report and

Dr. Marks’ April 12, 2012 report providing work restrictions. However, neither physician 

provided a medical diagnosis nor addressed causal relationship. The Board has held that a medical 

report that does not provide a firm medical diagnosis of a particular condition and a rationalized 

medical opinion addressing causal relationship is of no probative value.9 Thus, the opinions of

Dr. Dulai and Dr. Marks are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted a February 23, 2022 work slip signed by Ms. Grigoriyan, a nurse 

practitioner. However, certain healthcare providers such as nurse practitioners are not considered 

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).

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

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

8 K.H., Docket No. 22-0489 (issued August 2, 2022); 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).

9 W.O., Docket No. 22-0418 (issued February 15, 2023); L.E., Docket No. 19-0470 (issued August 12, 2019); M.J., 

Docket No. 18-1114 (issued February 5, 2019); see also J.B., Docket No. 22-0872 (issued August 22, 2022); L.B., 

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
4

physicians as defined under FECA.10 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will 

not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.11

Additionally, appellant submitted unsigned February 23, 2022 emergency department 

discharge instructions for right knee pain. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned or 

bear an illegible signature lack proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical

evidence because the author cannot be identified as a physician.12 

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition 

in connection with the accepted February 18, 2022 employment incident, the Board finds that 

appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his 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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted February 18, 2022 employment incident.

10 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); 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); see also B.D., Docket No. 22-0503 (issued September 27, 2022) (nurse practitioners are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA and their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of 

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits); L.S., Docket No. 19-1231 (issued March 30, 2021) (a nurse practitioner 

is not considered a physician as defined under FECA).

11 Id.

12 See D.F., Docket No. 22-0904 (issued October 31, 2022); see also R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued 

July 15, 2019); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

13 K.H., supra note 8; K.R., supra note 8.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 1, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 26, 2023

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