United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHURCHILL POST 

OFFICE, Churchill, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0195

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 November 21, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 29, 2022 merit 

decision and a June 24, 2022 nonmerit 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted August 17, 2021 employment incident; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for review of the written record as 

untimely filed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 19, 2021 appellant, then a 59-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 17, 2021 she was involved in a motor vehicle accident 

while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on August 17, 2021. Appellant went to the 

emergency room that day. She indicated that nothing was broken but she had soreness in her neck 

and back. 

On August 20, 2021 the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16, authorization for 

examination and/or treatment, of neck/back conditions. 

In an August 23, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of medical evidence needed to establish her claim. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Diagnostic testing dated August 17, 2021 was received by OWCP. An August 17, 2021 

computerized tomography (CT) scan of appellant’s neck noted a large mildly complicated colloid

cyst, nonspecific straightening of the normal cervical lordosis; and multilevel degenerative 

changes of the cervical spine. A cervical spine x-ray reported degenerative changes lower cervical 

spine with no acute appearing abnormality. A thoracic spine x-ray noted degenerative spurring 

thoracic spine with no acute osseous abnormality, slight deviation of the trachea to the right which 

may be related to a thyroid mass, and minor scoliosis in the lower thoracic spine with no fracture 

seen in the visualized osseous structures. A lumbar spine x-ray found no acute or chronic fracture 

but moderate degeneration of the L5-S1 disc with moderate multilevel facet joint degeneration. 

In a September 3, 2021 note, Dr. Kacey Charles, a chiropractor, reported that appellant was 

seen for pain in thoracic/lumbar region which radiated to the right side. She indicated that after 

examination and x-ray review, appellant had severe loss of range of motion and could not lift or 

perform her job duties.

By decision dated October 7, 2021, OWCPaccepted that the August 17, 2021 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that 

she had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis from a qualified physician 

in connection with the accepted August 17, 2021 employment incident. Consequently, OWCP 

found that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

OWCP received notes dated September 10 and 24, 2021 from Dr. Charles verifying that 

appellant had been seen that day. In a note dated September 24, 2021, Dr. Charles related that 

appellant would be seen twice a week for the next nine weeks to address her structural issues 

arising from her motor vehicle accident. 

A billing statement noted the dates appellant was seen by Dr. Charles through October 18, 

2021 and the charges.

On June 1, 2022 appellant requested review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
3

In a September 3, 2021 report, Dr. Charles noted the history of appellant’sAugust 17, 2021 

employment incident. She noted that x-rays had been taken at an area hospital on the day of the 

motor vehicle accident and that appellant had undergone x-ray examination at her office on 

September 3, 2021. The report included a new patient examination form wherein appellant 

indicated that she had not received treatment for her injury as she could not find a physician in the 

area that accepted federal workers’ compensation claimants. The form defined chiropractic 

treatment as the treatment of subluxation and listed five main factors of subluxations, for which

Dr. Charles noted her findings of limited flexion and severe decreased range of motion for 

appellant’s cervical and thoracic spine. Dr. Charles indicated that appellant’s x-rays taken in her 

office on September 3, 2021 revealed cervical facet syndrome at C3-C7, with decreased cervical 

disc space at C5-T1; thoracic sclerosis at T5-T8, with facet syndrome at T5-T8, and decreased disc 

space at T5-T8; lumbar facet syndrome at L4-L5, lumbar sclerosis at L3-L5; and decreased lumbar 

disc space at L3-L6. She indicated that the underlying chiropractic problems in appellant’s case 

were loss of cervical curve, unlevel shoulders, decreased disc space at C5-C6, C6-C7, and C7-T1; 

canal stenosis at C3-C7, loss of lumbar curve, decreased disc spacing at L3-L4, L4-L5, L5-S1, 

high right pelvis, closing of L5-S1 joint, and lumbar canal stenosis at L1-L5. Dr. Charles

indicated, at the bottom on the form, that appellant’s x-rays revealed dislocation and subluxations 

of the vertebrae. She also opined that the precipitating causes of appellant’s condition were trauma 

from car accident and wear and tear from job.

By decision dated June 24, 2022, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

appellant’s request for a review of the written record, finding that it was untimely filed. It further 

exercised its discretion and determined that the issue in the case could equally well be addressed 

through a reconsideration request with the submission of new evidence.

On August 31, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. OWCP received statements from 

her dated July 15 and August 29, 2022. In her August 29, 2022 statement, appellant alleged that 

the records she had sent from Dr. Charles showed subluxation. OWCP also received a 

Congressional inquiry dated August 3, 2022. 

By decision dated September 29, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its October 7, 2021 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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,3that 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 

2

Supra note 1.

3 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).
4

employment injury.4 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.5

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 that 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. The second component is 

whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical 

evidence.6

Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that the term physician, as used therein, 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 regulation by the Secretary.7 OWCP’s implementing federal regulation at 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(bb) defines subluxation as an incomplete dislocation, off-centering, misalignment, fixation 

or abnormal spacing of the vertebrae which must be demonstrated on x-ray.

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has established a diagnosed medical condition in connection 

with the accepted August 17, 2021 employment incident.

In her September 3, 2021 report, Dr. Charles reviewed x-rays taken in her office on 

September 3, 2021 and noted examination findings, which included decreased disc spacing of 

appellant’s cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. She also concluded that the x-rays showed spinal 

subluxation. As Dr. Charles diagnosed subluxation based on x-rays taken in her office on 

September 3, 2021, she is a qualified physician under FECA and her opinion constitutes competent 

medical evidence.8 Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has established a diagnosed 

medical condition. In her September 3, 2021 report, Dr. Charles also opined that the precipitating 

causes of appellant’s dislocation and subluxations of the vertebrae were the trauma from motor 

vehicle accident and wear and tear from job. 

Consequently, the case must be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence as to 

whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that his diagnosed medical conditions 

are causally related to the accepted October 24, 2022 employment incident. Following this and 

4 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).

5 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 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).

7

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.311.

8

Id.;see R.A., Docket No. 19-0650 (issued January 15, 2020); see also JayK. Tomokiyo, 51 ECAB 361 (2000).
5

other such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision on the issue 

of causal relationship.9

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.10 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 29, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board. The June 24, 2022 nonmerit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is rendered moot.

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

9

In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot. 

10 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16. A completed Form CA-16 authorization 

may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when properly executed. 

The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the 

examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); V.S., Docket No. 20-

1034 (issued November 25, 2020); J.G.,Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 

608 (2003).