United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.V., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Pasco, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0039

Issued: May 15, 2023

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 16, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 6, 2022 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 in connection with the accepted January 18, 2022 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the June 6, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 18, 2022 appellant, then a 33-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he injured his left wrist when his mail truck was rearended while in the performance of duty. He did not stop work. 

In support of his claim, appellant submittedFebruary 16, 2022 chart and examination notes

from Dr. Adam Evans, a chiropractor, noting that appellant sustained a work injury on January 18, 

2022 when his postal truck was rear-ended. He related that he experienced lumbosacral pain and 

left wrist pain, reported the incident to his supervisor, and went to the emergency room. Dr. Evans

performed a chiropractic examination of the low back and diagnosed a sprain of the ligaments of 

the lumbar spine, segmental and somatic dysfunction of the lumbar region, a muscle spasm of the 

back, and a sprain/strain of the left wrist. He provided massage and chiropractic manipulative 

therapy. 

In a May 5, 2022 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 afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No response was received within the 

time allotted.

By decision dated June 6, 2022, OWCP accepted that the January 18, 2022 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that 

he had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis from a qualified physician 

in connection with the accepted January 18, 2022 employment incident. Consequently, OWCP 

found 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

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); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 
3

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. The first component 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 a 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 diagnosed 

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

Appellant submitted February 16, 2022 chart and examination notesfrom Dr. Evans noting 

that he treated appellant for a January 18, 2022 work injury sustained when appellant’s postal truck 

was rear-ended, causing lumbosacral pain and left wrist pain. Dr. Evans diagnosed a sprain of the 

ligaments of the lumbar spine, segmental and somatic dysfunction of lumbar region, a muscle 

spasm of the back, and a sprain/strain of the left wrist. Chiropractors, however, are only considered 

physicians for purposes of FECA if they diagnose spinal subluxation based upon x-ray evidence.

10

 

Dr. Evans did not indicate that he obtained or reviewed x-rays to diagnose a subluxation of the 

spine. Therefore, his notes are of no probative value and are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden 

of proof.11

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January28, 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).

10 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that the term “physician” includes chiropractors only to the extent that their 

reimbursable services are limited to treatment consisting of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation 

as demonstrated by x-ray to exist and subject to regulations by the Secretary. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see K.W., Docket 

No. 20-0230 (issued May 21, 2021); J.D., Docket No. 19-1953 (issued January 11, 2021); George E. Williams, 44 

ECAB 530 (1993).

11 Id.
4

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence from a qualified physician establishing a 

diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted January 18, 2022 employment 

incident, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

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 January 18, 2022 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 6, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 15, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board