United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, Douglas, AZ,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1090

Issued: December 20, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 14, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 27, 2023

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

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted March 16, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has been previously before the Board. The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference.3 The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On March 17, 2020 appellant, then a 44-year-old border patrol agent, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 16, 2020 he injured his left knee while in the 

performance of duty. He explained that he loaded an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) onto a trailer and 

felt pain followed by burning in his left knee while dismounting the ATV. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, appellant’s supervisor, acknowledged that appellant was in the performance of 

duty when injured. Appellant did not stop work.

On March 18, 2020 the employing establishment executed an authorization for 

examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16) authorizing appellant to seek medical care related to 

pain in the left knee. In the accompanying attending physician’s report, Part B of the Form CA-16,

Dr. Adrienne Yarnish, an emergency medicine specialist, noted that his complaints of left knee 

pain after stepping down from his ATV. She diagnosed left knee pain and opined that she was 

unsure whether the condition was caused or aggravated by the employment activity described, as 

there was no direct trauma to the knee. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated March 19, 2020, Dr. Yarnish noted a history of 

left knee pain after appellant dismounted his service ATV. She diagnosed left knee pain and 

released him to return to full-duty work. In emergency room patient discharge forms and aftercare 

instructions of even date, Dr. Yarnish indicated that appellant complained of left knee pain and 

swelling. She diagnosed left knee pain and recommended rest, ice, compression, and elevation. 

In a development letter dated March 20, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of evidence needed to establish his claim and

afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP thereafter received a report of x-rays of the left knee dated March 19, 2020, which 

were negative for acute fracture or dislocation.

In a medical report dated April 6, 2020, Dr. Suezie Kim, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant complained of left knee pain which he attributed to twisting his left 

knee while loading an ATV on March 16, 2020.4 She performed a physical examination of the 

left knee, which revealed tenderness of the medial joint line, a positive medial McMurray’s sign, 

3 Docket No. 22-0293 (issued June 15, 2023).

4 The Board notes that Dr.Kim reported a date of injury of March 6, 2020; however, this appears to be a 

typographical error.
3

and patellar crepitus. Dr. Kim reviewed x-rays performed in the office that day and noted mild 

medial joint space narrowing, but no acute fracture or dislocation. She diagnosed left knee pain 

and chondromalacia versus medial meniscus tear and recommended physical therapy, light duty 

for six weeks, and a knee brace. In a Form CA-17 of even date, Dr. Kim indicated that appellant 

was loading an ATV and twisted his left knee on March 16, 2020. She diagnosed left knee pain 

and recommended light-duty restrictions with no kneeling or squatting.

OWCP also received a report dated April 14, 2020 by Justin Embry, a physical therapist, 

who noted that appellant related a history of left knee burning while stepping down from an ATV.

By decision dated April 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed 

conditions and the accepted March 16, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP thereafter received an emergency room medical report by Dr. Yarnish dated 

March 19, 2020, who noted that appellant was complaining of left knee pain and burning after

dismounting his ATV on March 16, 2020. Dr. Yarnish indicated that he denied feeling any pop, 

twist, or crack in the left knee and denied any direct trauma to the knee. She performed a physical 

examination and observed diffuse mild tenderness to palpation over the medial left knee with no 

associated swelling, edema, crepitus, or deformity. Dr. Yarnish diagnosed left knee pain.

In a Part B, attending physician’s report, dated April 7, 2020, Dr. Kim noted a history that 

appellant was loading an ATV and twisted his left ankle. In a Form CA-17 of even date, she 

indicated that he was loading an ATV and twisted his left knee on March 16, 2020 and diagnosed 

left knee pain.

Physical therapy reports dated April 17 through May 5, 2020 indicated that appellant 

underwent ongoing therapeutic treatments to the left knee. 

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left knee dated June 12, 2020, noted a 

history left knee pain since an injury on March 16, 2020 and revealed a degenerative tear of the 

posterior horn/body of the medial meniscus, minor medial, lateral, and patellofemoral 

compartment osteoarthritis, and an intraarticular ganglion cyst associated with the posterior 

cruciate ligament (PCL).

In a follow up report dated July 6, 2020, Dr. Kim noted that appellant related a history of 

twisting his left knee while loading an ATV on March 16, 2020. On physical examination, she 

again noted a positive medial McMurray’s sign and subpatellar crepitus. Dr. Kim reviewed the

June 12, 2020 MRI scan, and diagnosed early left knee osteoarthritis, a degenerative medial 

meniscus tear involving the posterior horn and body, and intraarticular ganglion associated with 

the PCL. She indicated that she discussed surgical and nonsurgical options with appellant, and 

that he elected to proceed with left knee arthroscopy and partial meniscectomy. 

On August 17, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s April 23, 2020 

decision.

By decision dated November 9, 2021, OWCP modified its April 23, 2020 decision,finding 

that appellant had not established the factual component of his claim. It concluded, therefore, that 

the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.
4

On December 10, 2021 appellant, through counsel, appealed the November 9, 2021

decision to the Board.

By decision dated June 15, 2023,5the Board reversed OWCP’s November 9, 2021 

decision, finding that appellant had established that the March 16, 2020 employment incident 

occurred, as alleged. The Board remanded the claim to OWCP for consideration of the medical 

evidence.

By decision dated July 27, 2023, OWCP denied the claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were causally 

related to the accepted March 16, 2020 employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6 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,7that 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.8 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.9

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 comp onent is that 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 an injury which can be established only by medical 

evidence.10

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.11 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the accepted employment incident must be based on a 

5

Id.

6

Supra note 1.

7 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). 

8 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).

9 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). 

10 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).

11 L.S., Docket No. 19-1769 (issued July 10, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).
5

complete factual and medical background. Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment incident.12

In any case where a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.13

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a left knee

condition causally related to the accepted March 16, 2020 employment incident. 

Dr. Kim, in her April 6, 2020 report, noted physical examination findings, reviewed x-rays, 

and diagnosed left knee pain and chondromalacia versus medial meniscus tear. In a July 6, 2020

follow-up report, she reviewed the June 12, 2020 MRI scan and diagnosed early left knee 

osteoarthritis, a degenerative medial meniscus tear involving the posterior horn and body, and 

intraarticular ganglion associated with the PCL. Dr. Kim did not, however, offer an opinion as to 

whether the diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted March 16, 2020 

employment incident. 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.14 Therefore, the April 6 and July 6, 2020 reports of Dr. Kim are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s claim. 

In a March 18, 2020 Part B, attending physician’s report, Dr. Yarnish diagnosed left knee 

pain and opined that she was unsure whether the condition was caused or aggravated by the 

employment activity described. In an emergency room report and Form CA-17 dated March 19, 

2020, she diagnosed left knee pain. Similarly, in an April 6, 2020 Form CA-17 and a Part B, 

attending physician’s report and Form CA-17 dated April 7, 2020, Dr. Kim diagnosed left knee 

pain. The Board has held that pain is a description of a symptom, not a clear diagnosis of a medical 

condition.15 Moreover, Dr. Yarnish’s opinion that she was unsure whether the condition was 

caused or aggravated by the employment activity described is equivocal in nature. Medical 

opinions that are speculative or equivocal in character are of diminished probative value. 16 

Accordingly, these reports are also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

12 B.C., Docket No. 20-0221 (issued July 10, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

13 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013). See 

R.D., Docket No. 18-1551 (issued March 1, 2019).

14 See S.S., Docket No. 21-0837 (issued November 23, 2021); J.M., Docket No. 19-1926 (issued March 19, 2021); 

L.D., Docket No. 20-0894 (issued January 26, 2021); T.F., Docket No. 18-0447 (issued February 5, 2020); L.B., 

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

15 D.R., Docket No. 18-1408 (issued March 1, 2019); D.A., Docket No. 18-0783 (issued November 8, 2018).

16 D.B., Docket No. 18-1359 (issued May 14, 2019); Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001).
6

OWCP also received physical therapy notes. Certain healthcare providers such as 

physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and physical therapists are not considered qualified 

physicians as defined under FECA.17 Their medical findings, reports and/or opinions, unless 

cosigned by a qualified physician, will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA 

benefits.18

The remainder of the evidence of record consisted of diagnostic study reports. The Board 

has held that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship as they do not address whether the accepted employment injury caused any of the 

additional diagnosed conditions.19

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a left knee condition causally 

related to the accepted March 16, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has 

not met his burden of proof.20

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 left knee 

condition causally related to the accepted March 16, 2020 employment incident.

17 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 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, at Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); C.G., Docket No. 20-0957 (issued January 27, 2021); DavidP. 

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). 

18 K.A., Docket No. 18-0999 (issued October 4, 2019); K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); David P. Sawchuk, id.

19 F.D., Docket No. 19-0932 (issued October 3, 2019); J.S., Docket No. 17-1039 (issued October 6, 2017).

20 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16, dated March 18, 2020. A completed 

Form CA-16 authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or 

physician, when properly executed. The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee 

directly, to pay for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.300(c); V.S., Docket No. 20-1034 (issued November 25, 2020); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 

2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 27, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 20, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board