United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

San Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0062

Issued: March 27, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 17, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 26, 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 August 6, 2022 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the September 26, 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 August 10, 2022 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 6, 2022 he developed headaches, severe 

soreness, and stiffness in his upper neck after he struck his head when entering his postal vehicle

while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on August 6, 2022.

Along with his claim, appellant submitted an August 12, 2022 excuse notefromDr. Debbie 

Goldring, a chiropractor, holding him off work beginning August 6, 2022. Dr. Goldring noted that

he experienced “subluxation and injury” due to hitting his head on the side of a truck.

In a letter dated August 8, 2022, appellant related that he sustained an injury on August 6, 

2022 when he struck his head on the upper entranceway of his parked vehicle, causing pain in his 

upper neck. 

In an August 15, 2022 letter, appellant asserted that a qualified medical examiner had 

determined that he experienced a severe subluxation while at work and further noted that he had 

incurred out-of-pocket medical expenses. 

In an August 23, 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 provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the requested information. Appellant did not respond within the afforded period.

An August 24, 2022 report of work status (Form CA-3) noted that appellant stopped work 

on August 6, 2022 and returned to full-duty work with no restrictions the following day.

By decision dated September 26, 2022, OWCP accepted that the August 6, 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 August 6, 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 

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). 
3

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. The first component is whether 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 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 August 6, 2022 employment incident.

In her August 12, 2022 note, Dr. Goldring noted that appellant had sustained a “subluxation 

and injury” due to hitting his head on the side of a truck. Chiropractors, however, are only 

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

evidence.10 Dr. Goldring did not indicate in her report that she obtained or reviewed x-rays in 

support of a diagnosis of spinal subluxation. As Dr. Goldringhas not diagnosed subluxation based 

upon x-ray evidence, she is not considered a physician as defined under FECA and her note, 

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 C.H., Docket No. 22-0219 (issued February 28, 2023); 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 C.H., id.; T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued 

January 22, 2020).

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); 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).
4

therefore, does not constitute competent medical evidence and is insufficient to meet appellant’s

burden of proof.11

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

diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted August 6, 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 August 6, 2022 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 26, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

11 M.O., Docket No. 21-1068 (issued March 1, 2022); S.L., Docket No. 21-0760 (issued January 6, 2022); P.C., 

Docket No. 18-0167 (issued May 7, 2019).