United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, FEDERAL CORRECTIONS 

COMPLEX BEAUMONT, Beaumont, TX, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0811

Issued: January 31, 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 May 3, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 25, 2021 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

1 The Board notes that, during the pendency of this appeal, OWCP issued a May 25, 2021 nonmerit decision which 

denied appellant’s request for a hearing regarding OWCP’s February 25, 2021 decision. The Board and OWCP may 

notsimultaneously exercise jurisdictionover the same issue(s). Consequently, OWCP’s May25, 2021 decision is set 

aside as null and void. 20 C.F.R. § § 501.2(c)(3), 10.626; see J.W., Docket No. 19-1688, n.1 (issued March 18, 2020);

J.A., Docket No. 19-0981, n.2 (issued December 30, 2019); Arlonia B. Taylor, 44 ECAB 591 (1993) (Groom, 

Alternate Member, concurring in part and dissenting in part); RussellE. Lerman, 43 ECAB 770 (1992); Douglas E. 

Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990). 
2

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case.3

ISSUE

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

condition in connection with the accepted June 4, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 5, 2020 appellant, then a 50-year-old correctional officer, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 4, 2020 he injured his right shoulder and lower back and 

became dehydrated and fatigued while in the performance of duty. He explained that this occurred 

after he carried heavy items, including crates of milk and food, up five flights of stairs because the 

elevators were not working. Appellant further explained that he began to feel dizzy and

experienced back pain before notifying his supervisor. He did not stop work. 

In a June 8, 2020 medical note, Dr. Darrella Cooper, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, diagnosed muscle spasms of the back and low back pain. She noted that appellant could 

return to work on June 12, 2020. 

In a June 15, 2020 medical report, Tara Deville, a nurse practitioner, noted that appellant 

experienced back pain on June 4, 2020 after carrying crates up the stairs at work. She diagnosed 

lumbar back pain and advised that he remain out of work to begin his physical therapy treatment. 

In a form report of even date, Ms. Deville diagnosed a lumbar strain and advised that appellant 

remain out of work for two weeks.

In an attending physician’s report, Part B of an authorization for examination and/or 

treatment (Form CA-16) dated June 15, 2020, Ms. Deville diagnosed a lumbar strain due to a 

work-related injury of walking upstairs while carrying crates. She checked a box marked “Yes”

indicating that appellant’s condition was caused by employment activity.

In a June 29, 2020 medical report, Chad Lapray, a nurse practitioner, treated appellant on 

follow-up regarding the June 4, 2020 employment incident and his subsequent back pain. He 

diagnosed lumbar back pain and prescribed medication. In a form report of even date, Mr. Lapray 

diagnosed a lumbar strain and held appellant off work until July 8, 2020.

In a July 8, 2020 medical report, Joe Dodd, a nurse practitioner, evaluated appellant for 

continued low back pain and diagnosed lumbar back pain.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the February 25, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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.
3

Appellant also submitted physical therapy reports dated August 18 to November 5, 2020

in which Melissa Meagher and Allen Edano, physical therapists, who noted diagnoses of a strain 

of muscle, fascia, and tendon of the lower back.

In a December 8, 2020 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish his

claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond. 

Appellant subsequently submitted copies of the June 29 and July 8, 2020 medical reports 

from Mr. Lapay and Dodd, respectively.

By decision dated February 25, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record did not establish a diagnosed medical condition from a 

qualifying physician in connection with the accepted June 4, 2020 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 FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact 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,5that 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.6 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.7

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether the fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. First, 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. Second, the employee must submit evidence, in 

the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

4

Supra note 2.

5

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January9, 2019);see 5 U.S.C. §8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 

10.5(q).
4

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medica l opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.9 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

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

complete factual and medical background.10 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.11

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted June 4, 2020 employment incident.

In a June 8, 2020 medical note, Dr. Cooper diagnosed muscle spasms of the back and low 

back pain. The Board has found that pain and spasm are symptoms and not a specific medical 

diagnosis.12 The Board has held that a medical report lacking a firm diagnosis and a rationalized 

medical opinion regarding causal relationship is of no probative value.13 For these reasons,

Dr. Cooper’s June 8, 2020 medical report is insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of proof.

The remaining evidence consists of medical evidence signed by nurse practitioners and 

physical therapists. However, the Board has held that certain healthcare providers such as 

physician assistants, nurse practitioner, physical therapists, and social workers are not considered 

physician[s] as defined under FECA.14 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will 

not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.15

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted rationalized, probative medical evidence 

sufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted June 4, 2020 

employment incident. Appellant, therefore, has not met his burden of proof. 

9 T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008); RobertG. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

10 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

11 Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

12 M.H., Docket No. 18-0873 (issued December 18, 2019); J.S.,Docket No. 19-0863 (issued November 4, 2019);

V.B., Docket No. 19-0643 (issued September 6, 2019).

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

14 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 June15, 2021) (nurse practitioners are not physicians as defined 

under FECA); A.M., Docket No. 20-1575 (issued May 24, 2021) (physical therapists are not physicians as defined by 

FECA).

15 Id.
5

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 June 4, 2020 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 25, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 31, 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