United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.F., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

CAPTAIN JAMES F. LOVELL FEDERAL 

HEALTH CARE CENTER, North Chicago, IL, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0476

Issued: September 25, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record1

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 30, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 22, 2019 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

 

1 Appellant timely requested oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). By order dated September 23, 

2020, the Board exercised its discretion and denied the request, finding that the arguments on appeal could adequately 

be addressed based on the case record. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 20-0476 (issued 

September 23, 2020). The Board’s Rules of Procedure provide that an appeal in which a request for oral argument is 

denied by the Board will proceed to a decision based on the case record and the pleadings submitted. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.5(b).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a back condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 17, 2019 appellant, then a 73-year-old physician, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed low back pain radiating into his leg due to factors 

of federal employment, including prolonged working at his desk. He noted that the pain began 

two weeks earlier and increased in intensity on October 17, 2019. Appellant indicated that he first 

became aware of his condition on October 1, 2019, and realized its relationship to his federal 

employment on October 15, 2019. He did not stop work.

In an attached statement, appellant explained that he had a history of low back, right 

buttock and leg pain related to prolonged sitting at his desk for five to six hours per day, which 

became more intense in October 2019. He noted that he had not suffered a similar condition in 

the past.

On October 15, 2019 appellant was treated by Dr. Howard K. Chey, a Board-certified 

physiatrist and employing establishment physician, for right buttock and right leg pain radiating 

into the right posterolateral thigh and calf that began on October 11, 2019. He reported that the 

pain began while he was sitting in his office chair and he has since been unable to get into a 

comfortable position. Findings on examination revealed an antalgic gait and positive straight leg 

raise testing on the right side. Dr. Chey diagnosed right-sided sciatica and prescribed medication

for pain. He advised that appellant continue with current work duties.

In a report of even date, Santhi M. Jaison, a registered nurse, indicated that appellant was 

treated for right leg pain radiating into the lower thigh and calf, which began on October 11, 2019. 

Appellant reported that he was unable to sit, stand, or walk, making it difficult to work.

In an October 22, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence. It did not receive a response.

By decision dated November 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship 

between his diagnosed conditions and the accepted factors of his federal employment.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period 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 establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or 

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the identified employment factors.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual 

and medical background of the claimant, 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 the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a back condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

In a report dated October 15, 2019, Dr. Chey noted that appellant reported that he had an 

onset of pain in his lower back radiating into his right buttock, thigh and leg beginning on 

October 11, 2019, while he was sitting in his office chair. On physical examination he noted an 

antalgic gait and positive straight leg raise testing on the right side and diagnosed sciatica. 

However, Dr. Chey did not provide an opinion on the cause of appellant’s condition. Medical 

evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability 

 

4 R.S., Docket No. 19-1774 (issued April 3, 2020); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

5 C.F., Docket No. 19-1748 (issued March 27, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.115; E.S., Docket No. 18-1580 (issued January 23, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued 

February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 See T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Victor J. 

Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

8 P.L., Docket No. 19-1750 (issued March 26, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

9 A.M., Docket No. 18-0562 (issued January 23, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).
4

is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.10 As he did not address causal 

relationship, his report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.11

Appellant submitted a report from Ms. Jaison, a registered nurse. However, certain 

healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurses, physical therapists, and social workers 

are not considered physician as defined under FECA.12 Consequently, these reports do not 

constitute competent medical evidence.13

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence explaining causal 

relationship between his diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted factors of his federal 

employment, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof.

On appeal appellant asserts that he submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he 

developed an occupational disease causally related to employment factors. However, as noted 

above, he has not provided a pathophysiological explanation as to how the accepted incident either 

caused or contributed to his diagnosed conditions of the accepted factors of his federal 

employment. Thus appellant 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 back condition 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

 

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

11 T.R., Docket No. 18-1272 (issued February 15, 2019).

12 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); 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); B.B., Docket No. 09-1858 ( issued April 16, 2010) (nurse’s reports are of no probative medical value as nurses 

are not physicians under the FECA).

13 N.B., Docket No. 19-0221 (issued July 15, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 22, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 25, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board