United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

Honolulu, HI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0323

Issued: August 15, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 20, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 23, 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the November 23, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP and with her appeal to the Board. 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a left shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted May 13, 2022 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 13, 2022 appellant, then a 60-year-old administrative officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she sustained left upper arm pain when she 

lifted monitors and a television in a storage room while in the performance of duty. She stopped 

work on the date of the claimed injury. 

In a work status report dated May 13, 2022, Dr. Stella W. Tadaki, a Board-certified 

internist, noted a diagnosis of left upper arm strain, and released appellant to modified-duty work. 

In an office visit report dated May 24, 2022, Dr. Tadaki noted a date of injury of May 13, 

2022 and indicated that appellant was treated for complaints of increased left arm pain. On 

examination of the left upper extremity, she observed tenderness to palpation over the deltoid and 

biceps muscles. Flexion and abduction were limited to 90 degrees by pain. Dr. Tadaki diagnosed 

left upper arm strain. 

Appellant submitted office visit reports and work status notes dated June 1 through July 6, 

2022 by Dr. Tadaki who noted a May 13, 2022 date of injury. Dr. Tadaki conducted examinations

and diagnosed left upper arm strain, and left shoulder adhesive capsulitis.

A June 10, 2022 left upper extremity magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed 

adhesive capsulitis and no acute muscular or tendon injury. 

In an August 3, 2022 office visit report, Dr. Tadaki noted the May 13, 2022 date of injury 

and described that appellant was moving all kinds of equipment at work when she lifted a monitor 

to the second shelf and felt sharp pain in her left upper arm. She reported that a left upper extremity 

MRI scan demonstrated adhesive capsulitis. On examination of appellant’s left upper extremity,

Dr. Tadaki observed limited range of motion on flexion and abduction. She diagnosed left upper 

arm strain and left shoulder adhesive capsulitis. In an August 3, 2022 work status note, Dr. Tadaki 

provided the same diagnoses and reported that appellant could work modified duty from August 3 

through September 7, 2022. 

In an October 12, 2022 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 her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond.

In an October 22, 2022 completed questionnaire and response to OWCP’s development 

letter, appellant alleged that the May 13, 2022 employment incident aggravated a previous 

October 1, 2021 work-related injury. She indicated that on October 1, 2021 she received the 

COVID-19 vaccination as required by her employment, and experienced significant left arm pain. 

Appellant reported that on May 13, 2022 she was lifting monitors and televisions onto shelves 

when she tweaked something in her left arm. She noted that she immediately filed a Form CA-1. 
3

Appellant indicated that her treating physician was sure that lifting the equipment strained 

something in her arm. 

Appellant submitted an October 17, 2021 Form CA-1, and an October 21, 2021 work status 

report by Charina Toilolo, a physician assistant, who indicated that appellant was unable to work 

on that date. 

OWCP received office visit reports dated September 7 and October 5, 2022 by Dr. Tadaki 

who indicated that appellant was evaluated for follow up of left arm pain. Dr. Tadaki described 

the May 13, 2022 employment incident, and provided examination findings. She diagnosed left 

upper arm strain and left shoulder adhesive capsulitis.

By decision dated November 23, 2022, OWCP accepted that the May 13, 2022

employment incident occurred as alleged, and that a left shoulder medical condition had been 

diagnosed; however, it denied appellant’s claim finding that she had failed to establish causal 

relationship between the accepted employment incident and the diagnosed condition. It concluded, 

therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury or cond ition due to the 

accepted employment incident.

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, OWCP must first determine whether fact of injury has been established. 7 

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 

3

Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); 

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); 

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August11, 2020); D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); S.P., 59 

ECAB 184 (2007).
4

time and place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit probative medical 

evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.8 

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit 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 

the specific employment incident identified by the employee.10 

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted May 13, 2022 employment incident.

Appellant submitted reports dated May 13 through October 5, 2022 by Dr. Tadaki, who 

described the May 13, 2022 employment incident. She noted examination findings of limited 

range of motion of the left upper extremity, and diagnosed left upper arm strain and left shoulder 

adhesive capsulitis based on MRI scan findings. Dr. Tadaki, however, did not provide an opinion 

addressing the cause of appellant’s diagnosed left shoulder conditions. The Board has held that 

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

disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 11 Therefore, these reports 

are insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of proof.12

Appellant also submitted an October 21, 2021 work status note from a physician assistant. 

The Board has held that certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants are not considered 

8 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); David 

Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); see 

also Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); C.F., Docket No. 18-0791 (issued February 26, 2019); M.V., 

Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345 (1989).

11 R.O., Docket No. 20-1243 (issued May 28, 2021); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 See M.F., Docket No. 21-0533 (issued January 31, 2023).
5

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 

OWCP received a June 10, 2022 left upper extremity MRI scan report. The Board has held 

that reports of diagnostic tests, standing alone, lack probative value as they do not provide an 

opinion as to whether the accepted employment factors caused the diagnosed condition.15 For this 

reason, this evidence is not sufficient to meet her burden of proof. 

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

causally related to the accepted May 13, 2022 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant 

has not met her burden of proof to establish her 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 her burden of proof to establish a left shoulder 

condition causally related to the accepted May 13, 2022 employment incident.

13 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) 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. § 8102(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); 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 George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004) (physician assistants are not considered physicians 

under FECA).

14 S.S.,Docket No. 21-1140 (issued June29, 2022) (physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA 

and are not competent to provide medical opinions).

15 S.E., Docket No. 21-1230 (issued January 27, 2023); V.Y., Docket No. 18-0610 (issued March 6, 2020); G.S., 

Docket No. 18-1696 (issued March 26, 2019); A.B., Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 23, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 15, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board