United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHARLES A. HAYES 

POST OFFICE, Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0223

Issued: January 30, 2023

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 1, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 5, 2020 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 October 13, 2018 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 13, 2018 appellant, then a 58-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he injured his left lower leg when he lost his balance 

and fell as he was about to descend stairs while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

that same date. 

In an accompanying statement, appellant alleged that on October 13, 2018 at 10:45 a.m. he 

fell down the stairs when a support column gave way while he was delivering mail. He asserted 

that he fell backward down the stairs, which bruised his back, scraped his leg, and tore his uniform 

pants. 

In an October 18, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

in his claim. It advised 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 respond. 

OWCP received additional evidence. In an October 15, 2018 letter, Dr. Max Pitlosh, 

Board-certified in family practice, excused appellant from work for the period October 15 through 

November 1, 2018 due to a work-related injury. He indicated that appellant required an x-ray to 

rule out fracture.

In an October 29, 2018 letter, Dr. Pitlosh released appellant to work effective 

November 11, 2018.

In an October 31, 2018 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Pitlosh noted that 

appellant fell off a porch due to a broken banister and injured his left shoulder on October 13, 2018. 

He indicated that an x-ray revealed no fracture. Dr. Pitlosh diagnosed a left shoulder injury, neck 

pain, and abrasion. He checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that the diagnosed conditions were 

caused or aggravated by the described employment activity.

Appellant also submitted physical therapy reports dated October 30 to November 9, 2018. 

In a November 12, 2018 letter, Dr. Pitlosh noted that appellant underwent physical therapy 

and was significantly improved. On November 17, 2018 he held appellant off work and indicated 

that appellant required additional physical therapy.

Treatment notes received on December 18, 2018 indicated that appellant underwent 

occupational and physical therapy. 

By decision dated October 5, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted October 13, 2018 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.
3

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 and can be established only by medical evidence. 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 

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 met his burden of proof to establish an abrasion causally 

related to the accepted October 13, 2018 employment incident.

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).

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

OWCP found that the October 13, 2018 employment incident, in which appellant fell down 

the stairs while delivering mail, had occurred as alleged. Dr. Pitlosh, in his October 31, 2018 Form 

CA-20, noted that he observed an abrasion resulting from a fall at work. As the evidence of record 

establishes that appellant’s fall resulted in a visible injury, the Board finds that appellant has met 

his burden of proof to establish an abrasion causally related to the accepted employment incident.10

As appellant has established an abrasion as an accepted employment-related condition, the 

Board will reverse in part the August 5, 2020 decision and the case shall be remanded for payment 

of medical costs and wage-loss compensation for disability, if any.

The Board further finds, however, that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish 

additional conditions causally related to the accepted October 13, 2018 employment injury.

Dr. Pitlosh, in his October 31, 2018 Form CA-20, related a history that appellant had fallen

off of a porch due to a broken banister while at work on October 13, 2018 and injured his left 

shoulder and sustained an abrasion. However, he did not provide an opinion on causal relationship.

The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.

11

 Therefore,

Dr. Pitlosh’s October 31, 2018 report is insufficient to establish additional conditions causally 

related to the accepted employment injury. 

In his notes dated October 15 to November 17, 2018, Dr. Pitosh held appellant off work 

and noted that his condition improved with physical therapy. However, he did not provide an

opinion on causal relationship. As noted above, medical evidence that does not offer an opinion 

on causal relationship is of no probative value.

12

 Likewise, medical evidence that does not offer 

an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of 

causal relationship.13 As such, this evidence is also insufficient to establish additional conditions 

causally related to the accepted employment injury.

The remaining medical evidence consists of occupational and physical therapy treatment 

notes. The Board has held that medical reports signed solely by an occupational therapist or a 

physical therapist are of no probative value, as such healthcare providers are not considered 

10 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6a 

(June 2011); see also, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3c (January 2013). See also J.S., Docket No. 21-0376 

(issued September 16, 2022); A.J.,Docket No. 20-0484 (issued September 2, 2020); S.K., Docket No. 18-1411 (issued 

July 22, 2020).

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

12 Id.

13 M.G., Docket No. 19-1863 (issued December 15, 2020); R.D., Docket No. 19-1076 (issued July 2, 2020).
5

physicians as defined under FECA, and therefore are not competent to provide a medical opinion. 14 

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

entitlement to compensation benefits.15

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing additional 

medical conditions causally related to the accepted October 13, 2018 employment injury, the 

Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.16

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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an abrasion causally 

related to the accepted October 13, 2018 employment incident. The Board further finds that 

appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish other medical conditions causally related to 

the accepted October 13, 2018 employment injury.

14 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that 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. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); see 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 V.R., Docket No. 19-0758 (issued March 16, 2021) (a physical therapist is not considered a 

physician under FECA); J.R., Docket No. 19-0812 (issued September 29, 2020) (an occupational therapist is not 

considered a physician under FECA).

15 See C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January 29, 2021);B.B., Docket No. 18-0732 (issued March 11, 2020).

16 C.W., Docket No. 20-1027 (issued November 18, 2020); J.T., Docket No. 18-1755 (issued April4, 2019).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 5, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board