United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CURSEEN-MORRIS 

MAIL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION 

CENTER, Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1510

Issued: April 23, 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 August 10, 2020 appellant filed a timely1appeal from a February 11, 2020 merit 

decision and a July 29, 2020 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

 

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from OWCP’s February 11, 2020 decision was Sunday, August 9, 2020. 

Because the last day of the 180-day filing period fell on a Sunday, the filing period is extended until the close of the 

next business day, which was Monday, August 10, 2020. Accordingly, the appeal is timely filed pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(f)(2).
2

(OWCP).2 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted December 24, 2019 employment incident; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for an oral hearing 

before an OWCP hearing representative.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 27, 2019 appellant, then a 54-year-old sales and service distribution 

associate, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 24, 2019 she 

injured her right hip when she pulled and pushed over-the-road (OTR) containers while performing 

mail distribution in the performance of duty. She did not stop work.

In a December 26, 2019 medical report, Dr. Mubarik Shah, a Board-certified general 

surgeon, noted that appellant injured her right hip on December 24, 2019 while lifting and moving 

heavy equipment at work. He indicated that appellant had a history of right hip arthritic workrelated changes since 2016. Dr. Shah conducted a physical examination and assessed a right hip 

injury.

In a December 31, 2019 medical report, Dr. Eileen Greenwald, an occupational medicine 

specialist, noted that appellant’s right hip pain was worsened with prolonged standing or walking. 

She conducted a physical examination and assessed a right hip injury. Appellant also submitted 

physical therapy reports of even date.

In an undated attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Shah diagnosed right hip 

injury due to appellant lifting heavy equipment at work. He checked a box marked “Yes,”

indicating that appellant’s right hip condition was caused or aggravated by an employment activity.

In a January 10, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of

her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her 

claim and provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

Tara Jernejcic, a physician assistant, diagnosed right hip pain in a January 7, 2020 medical 

report.

 

2 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of appellant’s oral argument request, she asserted that oral argument should be granted because OWCP never 

contacted her on the date and at the time scheduled for the oral hearing. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies 

appellant’s request for oral argument because this matter requires an evaluation of the medical evidence presented. 

As such, the arguments on appeal can adequately be addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. 

Oral argument in this appeal would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As 

such, the oral argument request is denied and this decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board.

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3

In a January 23, 2020 medical report, Dr. Shah diagnosed right hip pain.

Appellant, in a January 30, 2020 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, 

indicated that she sustained her injury while moving heavy equipment across the workroom floor,

when one of the OTR containers got caught underneath a metal bumper of the double doors. She 

alleged that on December 25, 2019 she struggled to support her full weight onto her right hip and 

leg after getting out of bed and could not walk without using a cane. Appellant asserted that she 

sustained no other injury outside of work.

In a February 3, 2020 work status report, Hope A. Pennestri, a certified registered nurse 

practitioner, diagnosed right hip pain and provided work restrictions.

By decision dated February 11, 2020, OWCP accepted that the December 24, 2019 

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

finding that she had not submitted evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

injury and/or events. Consequently, OWCP found that appellant had not met the requirements to 

establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On March 9, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review.

In a May 14, 2020 letter, OWCP informed appellant that an oral hearing would take place 

on July 17, 2020 at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST). It provided a toll-free number and 

a passcode to access the hearing by telephone. OWCP requested that appellant dial the toll-free 

number “a few minutes” before the commencement of the scheduled hearing. It mailed the letter 

to appellant’s last known address of record.

By decision dated July 29, 2020, OWCP determined that appellant had abandoned her 

request for an oral hearing as she failed to make an appearance. It further noted that there was no 

indication in the record that appellant had contacted the Branch of Hearings and Review either 

before or after the scheduled hearing to explain her failure to appear.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,5that 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 

 

4 Supra note 2.

5 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 
4

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

caused a personal injury.8 

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.9 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.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted December 24, 2019 employment incident.

In a December 26, 2019 medical report and an undated Form CA-20, Dr. Shah noted that 

appellant injured her right hip at work on December 24, 2019 and assessed a right hip injury. 

Dr. Greenwald, in her December 31, 2019 medical report, also noted a right hip injury. Drs. Shah 

and Greenwald, however, did not provide a specific diagnosis. The Board has held that a medical 

report lacking a firm diagnosis and a rationalized medical opinion regarding causal relationship is 

of no probative value.11 Thus, their reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In a January 23, 2020 medical report, Dr. Shah diagnosed right hip pain. The Board has 

consistently held, however, that pain is a description of a symptom and not, in itself, considered a 

 

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); 

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

8 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).

9 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 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).

11 J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020); R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020).
5

firm medical diagnosis.12 Thus, his January 23, 2020 report is also insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim. 

Appellant also submitted reports dated from December 31, 2019 to February 3, 2020 from 

a physician assistant, a nurse practitioner, and a physical therapist. The Board has held, however, 

that certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physical 

therapists, and social workers are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.13 

Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing 

entitlement to FECA benefits.14

As there is no evidence of record that establishes a medical diagnosis in connection with 

the accepted December 24, 2019 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not met 

her burden of proof.

15

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

A claimant who has received a final adverse decision by OWCP may obtain a hearing by 

writing to the address specified in the decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for which 

a hearing is sought.16 Unless otherwise directed in writing by the claimant, OWCP’s hearing 

representative will mail a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the claimant and any 

representative at least 30 days before the scheduled date.17 OWCP has the burden of proving that 

it properly mailed to a claimant and any representative of record a notice of a scheduled hearing.18

 

12 See C.H., Docket No. 20-0228 (issued October 7, 2020); T.G., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued November 25, 2019). 

13 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that medical opinions can only be given by a qualified physician. This section 

defines a physician as 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. § 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); M.M., Docket No. 20-0019 (issued May 6, 2020); K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); 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 C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January 29, 

2021); C.P., Docket No. 19-1716 (issued March 11, 2020) (physician assistants are not considered physicians as 

defined under FECA); S.L., Docket No. 19-0603 (issued January 28, 2020) (nurse practitioners are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA).

14 See O.R., Docket No. 20-0743 (issued January 28, 2021).

15 J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April 12, 2019); M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a).

17 Id. at § 10.617(b).

18 A.R., Docket No. 19-1691 (issued February 24, 2020); M.R., Docket No. 18-1643 (issued March 1, 2019); 

Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463(1991).
6

A claimant who fails to appear at a scheduled hearing may request in writing, within 10 

days after the date set for the hearing, that another hearing be scheduled. Where good cause for 

failure to appear is shown, another hearing will be scheduled and conducted by teleconference.19 

The failure of the claimant to request another hearing within 10 days, or the failure of the claimant 

to appear at the second scheduled hearing without good cause shown, shall constitute abandonment 

of the request for a hearing.20 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for 

an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

Following OWCP’s February 11, 2020 decision, appellant filed a timely request for an oral 

hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. In a May 14, 2020 

letter, OWCP’s hearing representative notified her that OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review 

had scheduled a telephonic hearing for July 17, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. EST. The hearing 

representative properly mailed the hearing notice to appellant’s last known address of record21 and 

provided instructions on how to participate, including that she was to call-in “a few minutes”

before the hearing was scheduled to begin. Appellant failed to call-in for the scheduled hearing 

using the provided telephone number and passcode. She did not request a postponement or provide 

an explanation to OWCP for her failure to attend the hearing within 10 days of the scheduled 

hearing.22 The Board, thus, finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her 

request for a telephonic hearing.23

CONCLUSION

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted December 24, 2019 employment incident. The 

Board further finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for an 

oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.

 

19 Supra note 16 at § 10.622(f).

20 Id.; Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 

2.1601.6(g) (October 2011); see also E.M., Docket No. 20-0837 (issued January 27, 2021); A.J., Docket No. 18-0830 

(issued January 10, 2019).

21 Absent evidence to the contrary, a letter properly addressed and mailed in the ordinary course of business is 

presumed to have been received. This is called the mailbox rule. See C.Y., Docket No. 18-0263 (issued 

September 14, 2018). Appellant did not submit evidence of nondelivery of OWCP’s May 14, 2020 hearing notice 

such that the presumption of receipt would be rebutted.

22 E.S., Docket No. 19-0567 (issued August 5, 2019).

23 A.J., supra note 20.
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 29 and February 11, 2020 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: April 23, 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