United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BEDFORD PARK 

POST OFFICE, Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1352

Issued: May 19, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 19, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 14, 2022 merit 

decision and an August 23, 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. 2

ISSUES

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

condition causally related to the accepted August 20, 2021 employment incident; and (2) whether 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the issuance of the August 23, 2022 decision, and on appeal, appellant submitted 

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.
2

OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for an oral hearin g before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 11, 2022 appellant, then a 35-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 20, 2021 she sustained injury to her lower back when 

she lifted a 50-pound box while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. The 

form indicated that appellant stopped work on August 20, 2021 and returned to work on 

August 21, 2021.

On October 30, 2021 appellant was seen in an emergency department by Dr. Vishal Anil 

Patel, a Board-certified family practice physician, for wrist pain and back pain. Dr. Patel assessed 

back strain and tenosynovitis of the left wrist. Appellantsubmitted another emergency department

visit with an illegible date. On this visit, she was seen by Dr. Jennifer Behrens, a Board-certified 

emergency medicine physician, for back pain. Dr. Behrens diagnosed bilateral back pain and 

muscle spasm. She referred appellant to physical therapy and released appellant to return to work 

on February 11, 2022.

Appellant submitted a February 23, 2022 physical therapy progress note signed by Tess 

Marcordes, a certified physical therapist. She related complaints of chronic low back pain. 

Appellant further indicated that she felt a strain in her back after lifting the 50-pound box at work

in August 2021. She also felt frequent spasms in her back with certain movements. Ms. Marcordes

diagnosed chronic bilateral low back pain without sciatica and muscle spasm. She assessed that 

appellant’s source of pain was due to muscle spasms in the paraspinals.

On February 28, 2022 appellant was seen by Kevin Wilson, a physician assistant. 

Appellant related that she was pulling a box off an all-purpose container when she injured her 

back. She indicated pain in her lower back, left shoulder, and right shoulder and that her condition

began on August 20, 2021. Mr. Wilson diagnosed sprain of ligaments of the lumbar spine. In his 

assessment, he noted that appellant was “doing okay” until she strained her back again recently.

In a development letter dated March 14, 2022, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

factual and medical evidence was necessary to establish her claim and provided a development 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

On March 21, 2022 appellant was seen for a follow-up appointment with Mr. Wilson. The 

note indicated no significant improvement. Appellant’s diagnosis was listed as strain of muscle, 

fascia, and tendon of lower back. Mr. Wilson recommended modified-duty status until 

April 5, 2022.

By decision dated April 14, 2022, OWCP accepted that the August 20, 2021 employment 

incident occurred as alleged and that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection with the 

incident. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish causal relationship between her diagnosed condition and the accepted 

August 20, 2021 employment incident.
3

On April 6, 2022 appellant was seen by Dr. David J. Fletcher, a Board-certified 

occupational, public health, and general preventive medicine physician. She related her history of 

pulling a box off an all-purpose container and injuring her back. Dr. Fletcher diagnosed strain of 

muscle, fascia, and tendon of lower back. He also placed appellant on modified duty from April 6 

to 13, 2022. A duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date by Dr. Fletcher reiterated appellant’s 

injury and indicated a diagnosis of lumbar strain. Appellant was allowed to continue working on 

modified duty. She also submitted an unsigned medical note that continued her work restrictions.

On April 21, 2022 appellant was seen in an emergency department by Nicholas Holwey, a 

certified physician assistant, for back pain. Mr. Holwey diagnosed acute exacerbation of chronic 

low back pain.

Appellant continued to submit physical therapy progress notes with a diagnosis of lumbar 

strain from Brooks Freiburger, a physical therapist, and Sewon Lee, a physical therapist. She also 

submitted a progress note from physician assistant, Mr. Wilson, dated April 29, 2022.

On May 14, 2022 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

On April 29, 2022 appellant was seen for a follow up with Dr. Fletcher. She repeated her 

diagnosis and work restrictions. A Form CA-17 report of even date by Dr. Fletcher continued 

appellant’s modified-duty status.

Appellant submitted additional physical therapy progress notes. A progress evaluation 

note dated May 10, 2022 was submitted, as well as a discharge summary dated May 25, 2022. 

On May 24, 2022 appellant was seen for a follow up with Dr. Fletcher. Her diagnosis and 

work restrictions remained the same. A Form CA-17 report of even date by Dr. Fletcher continued 

appellant’s modified-duty status.

In a July 7, 2022 notice, OWCP’s hearing representative informed appellant that her oral 

hearing was scheduled for August 10, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). She 

provided appellant with a toll-free telephone number and appropriate passcode for access to the 

hearing. The hearing representative mailed the notice to appellant’s last known address of record.

Appellant, however, failed to appear for the hearing.

By decision dated August 23, 2022, OWCP found that appellant had abandoned her request 

for an oral hearing, as she had received written notification of the hearing 30 days in advance, but 

failed to appear. It further noted that there was no indication in the record that she had contacted 

the Branch of Hearings and Review either prior to or after the scheduled hearing to exp lain her

failure to appear.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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, 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.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 whether the 

employee 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. 6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion

evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the employment injury must be based on a complete factual 

and medical background.8 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 appellant’s employment injury.9 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.10

3

Id.

4

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 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).

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 R.P., Docket No. 21-1189 (issued July 29, 2022); E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 R.P., id.; F.A., Docket No. 20-1652 (issued May 21, 2021); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 

2018); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

9

Id.

10 T.M., Docket No. 22-0220 (issued July 29, 2022); S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019); see also

J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April 12, 2019).
5

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

TheBoard finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a back condition 

causally related to the accepted August 20, 2021 employment incident.

On October 30, 2021 appellant was seen by Dr. Patel for wrist pain and back pain.

Dr. Patel assessed back strain and tenosynovitis of left wrist. However, Dr. Patel did not provide 

an opinion regarding the causal relationship between the diagnosed conditions and the employment 

incident. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 11 

Therefore, this report is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Appellant was subsequently seen by Dr. Behrens for back pain. Dr. Behrens diagnosed 

bilateral back pain and muscle spasm. However, she did not provide an opinion causally relating 

a firm diagnosis to the accepted employment injury.12 As such, this evidence is also of no 

probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted medical notes from physician assistants and physical therapists.

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.13 These reports are therefore of no probative 

value and are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

her diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted August 20, 2021 employment incident, the 

Board finds that she has not met her 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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Under FECA and its implementing regulations, a claimant who has received a final adverse 

decision by OWCP is entitled to receive a hearing by writing to the address specified in the 

11 L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 E.K., Docket No. 22-1130 (issued December 30, 2022).

13 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 H.S., Docket No. 20-0939 (issued February 12, 2021) (physician assistants are not considered 

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

physicians as defined by FECA). 
6

decision within 30 days of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought. 14 Unless 

otherwise directed in writing by the claimant, OWCP’s hearing representative will mail a notice 

of the time and place of the hearing to the claimant and any representative at least 30 days before 

the scheduled date.15 OWCP has the burden of proving that it properly mailed notice of the 

scheduled hearing to a claimant and any representative of record. 16

A claimant who fails to appear at a scheduled hearing may request in writing, within 10 

days after the date set for the hearing, that another hearing be scheduled. Where good cause for 

failure to appear is shown, another hearing will be scheduled and conducted by teleconference. 17 

The failure of the claimant to request another hearing within 10 days, or the failure of the claimant 

to appear at the second scheduled hearing without good cause shown, shall constitute abandonment 

of the request for a hearing. Where good cause is shown for failure to appear at the second 

scheduled hearing, review of the matter will proceed as a review of the written record. 18 Where it 

has been determined that a claimant has abandoned his or her right to a hearing, OWCP will issue 

a formal decision, finding that the claimant abandoned the request for a hearing.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for 

an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

Following OWCP’s April 14, 2022 decision denying appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

she filed a timely request for an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of 

Hearings and Review. In a July 7, 2022 notice, OWCP’s hearing representative notified appellant 

that she had scheduled a telephonic hearing for August 10, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. EST. She mailed 

the notice to appellant’s last known address of record. The Board has held that, absent evidence 

to the contrary, a letter properly addressed and mailed in the ordinary course of business is 

presumed to have been received. This is called the mailbox rule. 20

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a).

15 Id. at § 10.617(b).

16 W.R., Docket No. 22-1016 (issued September 30, 2022); M.S.,Docket No. 22-0362 (issued July 29, 2022); L.L., 

Docket No. 21-1194 (issued March 18, 2022); L.T., Docket No. 20-1539 (issued August 2, 2021); V.C., Docket No. 

20-0798 (issued November 16, 2020); M.R., Docket No. 18-1643 (issued March1, 2019); T.P., Docket No. 15-0806 

(issued September 11, 2015); Michelle R. Littlejohn, 42 ECAB 463 (1991).

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.622(f).

18 Id.

19 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Hearings and Reviews of the Written Record, Chapter 

2.1601.6g (February 2022); K.H., Docket No. 20-1198 (issued February 8, 2021); A.J., Docket No. 18-0830 (issued 

January 10, 2019).

20 L.L., Docket No. 21-1194 (issued March 18, 2022); V.C.,Docket No. 20-0798 (issued November 16, 2020);

L.T., Docket No. 20-1539 (issued August 2, 2021).
7

Appellant failed to call in for the scheduled hearing at the prescribed time. She did not 

request a postponement or provide an explanation to OWCP for failure to appear for the hearing 

within 10 days of the scheduled hearing. As appellant failed to call in to the scheduled hearing or 

provide notification to OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review within 10 days of the scheduled 

hearing explaining her failure to appear, the Board finds that OWCP properly determined that she 

abandoned her request for an oral hearing.21

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a back condition 

causally related to the accepted August 20, 2021 employment incident. The Board further finds 

that OWCP properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for an oral hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 14 and August 23, 2022 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: May 19, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

21 Id.