United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Louisville, KY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0102

Issued: May 3, 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 October 24, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 21, 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.

ISSUE

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted July 5, 2022 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 22, 2022 appellant, then a 57-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 5, 2022 he sustained a lower back strain with rightsided radiculopathy and sciatica when exiting his postal vehicle while in the performance of 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant 

was injured in the performance of duty. He stopped work on July 7, 2022. 

On July 8, 2022 appellant was seen by Julie L. Heuser, a nurse practitioner. An unsigned 

medical note indicated a diagnosis of radiculopathy and sciatica of right side. A work status note 

of even date signed by Ms. Heuser allowed appellant to return to work on July 11, 2022 with no 

restrictions.

In a development letter dated August 3, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It noted that medical evidence must be submitted by a qualified 

physician. OWCP advised appellant of the type of additional factual and medical evidence 

needed to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to respond. No response was received.

By decision dated September 21, 2022, OWCP found that the July 5, 2022 incident had 

occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the 

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

to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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, that 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.3 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.4

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There are two 

components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly occurred at the time and place, and 

in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a 

personal injury and can generally be established only by medical evidence. 5

2

Id.

3

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

4 B.H., Docket No. 20-0777 (issued October 21, 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).

5 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) (traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, 

respectively).
3

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.6 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.7

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted July 5, 2022 employment incident. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a medical note dated July 8, 2022 from

Ms. Heuser who diagnosed radiculopathy and sciatica of right side. OWCP also received a work 

status note of even date that allowed appellant to return to work on July 11, 2022 with no 

restrictions. However, certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurse 

practitioners, physical therapists, and social workers are not considered “physician[s]” as defined 

under FECA and their reports do not constitute competent medical evidence. 8 These notes are 

thus of no probative value and insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the medical evidence of record does not contain a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted July 5, 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 not met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted July 5, 2022 employment incident.

6

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019);

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

7 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).

8 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, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013);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); see also J.D., Docket No. 21-0164 (issued June 15, 2021) (nurse practitioners are not 

physicians as defined under FECA).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 21, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 3, 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