United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NEW ORLEANS 

POST OFFICE, New Orleans, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1143

Issued: March 24, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 28, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 11, 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 February 23, 2022 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the May11, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP. 

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 March 4, 2022 appellant, then a 58-year-old maintenance mechanic, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 23, 2022 he sustained a right knee injury when 

he tripped and fell over a strap while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

February 24, 2022.

In an emergency department discharge note dated February 23, 2022, Samantha JuniusArcemont, a nurse practitioner, diagnosed a patella fracture and dispensed a knee immobilizer and 

crutches. Appellant was discharged home in stable condition and he was returned to work without 

restrictions. In a return-to-work form of even date, Junius-Arcemont noted that appellant was 

totally disabled from February 23 through March 3, 2022.

In an undated statement, appellant indicated that on February 23, 2022 he was walking 

toward the time clock and tripped over a strap attached to a pallet, which caused him to fall and 

strike his right knee. He immediately reported the accident to his supervisor and was transported 

to the emergency room. 

In a March 28, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It explained 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. No evidence was received.

By decision dated May 11, 2022, OWCP accepted that the February 23, 2022 employment 

incident occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted 

employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined under 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 

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

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).
3

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. First, 

the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the 

employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

The medical evidence required to establish a 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 incident 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 February 23, 2022 employment incident.

Appellant submitted an emergency department discharge note from Ms. Junius-Arcemont, 

a nurse practitioner, dated February 23, 2022, who diagnosed a patella fracture. Also submitted 

was a return-to-work form of even date, Ms. Junius-Arcemont noting that he was totally disabled. 

The Board has held that medical reports signed by a nurse practitioner10 are of no probative value 

as such healthcare providers are not considered physicians as defined under FECA and are, 

therefore, not competent to provide medical opinions.11 Consequently, their medical findings 

and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.12

7 T.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August 11, 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).

10 J.D., Docket No. 16-1752 (issued March 1, 2017) (where the Board found that, a nurse practitioner is not 

considered a physician under FECA, thus, her opinion is of no relevance to the issue of causal relationship).

11 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) (January2013); 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 alsoB.D.,Docket No. 22-0503 (issued September 27, 2022 (nurse practitioners are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA and their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of 

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits); L.S., Docket No. 19-1231 (issued March 30, 2021) (a nurse practitioner 

is not considered a physician as defined under FECA).

12 Id.
4

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

in connection with the accepted February 23, 2022 employment incident, the Board finds that 

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 met not his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted February 23, 2022 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 11, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 24, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board