S.B. and U.S. Postal Service (Board decision, April 21, 2026)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's November 24 and December 18, 2025 decisions denying the injury claim and merit reconsideration. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A postal worker reported a left wrist condition after an accepted August 29, 2025 incident. The submitted diagnosis came from nurse practitioner records that did not provide the physician evidence required for a FECA medical diagnosis. The Board upheld the claim denial and OWCP's refusal to reopen it on the later reconsideration submission.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c), 501.3.
• Outcome: OWCP's injury denial and refusal to reopen were affirmed.
• Key point: The incident was accepted, but the record lacked a qualifying physician diagnosis connected to it.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
S.B., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 26-0230
) Issued: April 21, 2026
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BIRMINGHAM POST
)
OFFICE, Birmingham, AL, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 8, 2026 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 24, 2025 merit decision and a December 18, 2025 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 29, 2025 employment incident; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 29, 2025 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural delivery specialist, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she injured her wrist/hand that day when she swatted at a

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. spider which landed on her shoulder when she was delivering a parcel while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on August 30, 2025, and returned to work on September 6, 2025.

In a September 16, 2025 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim and afforded her 60 days to respond. No response was received.

In an October 10, 2025 follow-up letter, OWCP advised appellant that it had performed an interim review of the case file and found that the evidence remained insufficient to support her claim. It informed her that she had 60 days from the date of its September 16, 2025 letter to provide the necessary evidence. OWCP further advised that if the evidence was not received during this time, it would issue a decision based on the evidence contained in the record.

In response, appellant submitted an October 8, 2025 statement, wherein she described the events of August 29, 2025.2

OWCP also received August 29, 2025 hospital emergency department records which indicated that appellant was seen by Basheba Porter and Lisa McKenzie, nurse practitioners. A discharge diagnosis was noted of left wrist sprain.

By decision dated November 24, 2025, OWCP accepted that the August 29, 2025 employment incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied the claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted August 29, 2025 employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On December 9, 2025 appellant requested reconsideration. In support thereof, she submitted a hospital bill for a service date of August 29, 2025.

By decision dated December 18, 2025, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

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,4 that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that

2
Appellant indicated that the employing establishment provided her with several forms. The Board notes that 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); S.G., Docket No. 23-0552 (issued August 28, 2023); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003). 3 Supra note 1.
4
E.K., Docket No. 22-1130 (issued December 30, 2022); F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020);
J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

2 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

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 and place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that the employment incident caused an injury.7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific condition and an employment incident 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 -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted August 29, 2025 employment incident.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted August 29, 2025 emergency room discharge instructions from Ms. Porter and Ms. McKenzie, nurse practitioners, which noted a diagnosis of left wrist sprain. The Board has held, however, that medical reports signed solely by a nurse practitioner 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.10

5
S.H., Docket No. 22-0391 (issued June 29, 2022); 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 E.H., Docket No. 22-0401 (issued June 29, 2022); 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). 7 B.H., Docket No. 26-0067 (issued March 3, 2026); H.M., Docket No. 22-0343 (issued June 28, 2022); 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.M., Docket No. 22-0075 (issued May 6, 2022); 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). 9 J.D., Docket No. 22-0935 (issued December 16, 2022); 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 Section 8101(2) 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 also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (May 2023); 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 also N.H., Docket No. 26-0136 (issued March 18, 2026) (neither nurse practitioners nor physician assistants are considered physicians as defined under FECA); F.A., Docket No. 24-0014 (issued January 30, 2026) (neither nurse practitioners nor physician assistants are considered physicians as defined under FECA).

3
Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for the purpose of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.11 This evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish the claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted August 29, 2025 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof.12

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

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against compensation at any time on his or her own motion or on application.13

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must provide evidence or an argument which: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.14

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.15 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens and reviews the case on its merits.16 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one of the requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case for review on the merits.17

11
Id.
12
B.H., supra note 7.
13
5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see R.C., Docket No. 22-0612 (issued October 24, 2022); M.S., Docket No. 19-1001 (issued December 9, 2019); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 (issued October 10, 2017); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008). 14 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see R.C., id.; L.D., id.
15
Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision.
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020). Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received date in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b. 16 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).
17
Id. at § 10.608(b); M.S., Docket No. 19-0291 (issued June 21, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).

4
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

Appellant’s December 9, 2025 request for reconsideration did not allege or demonstrate that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Additionally, it did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Consequently, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of her claim based on either the first or second above- noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

In support of her reconsideration request, appellant submitted the hospital bill for her August 29, 2025 visit to the emergency department. However, this evidence is irrelevant to the underlying issue in this case, i.e., whether appellant established a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted August 29, 2025 employment incident. This issue is medical in nature and requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue.18 The Board has held that the submission of evidence, which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.19 Because appellant did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence with her request for reconsideration, she is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the third above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).20

The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R.
§ 10.606(b)(3).21 Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.22

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted August 29, 2025 employment incident. The Board further finds OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

18
See D.B., Docket No. 25-0919 (issued February 13, 2026); R.M., Docket No. 21-0963 (issued April 19, 2023).
19
P.G., Docket No. 24-0404 (issued September17, 2024); C.C., Docket No. 22-1240 (issued June 27, 2023); D.P., Docket No. 13-1849 (issued December 19, 2013); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979). 20 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3)(iii); see also D.B., supra note 18; S.W., Docket No. 25-0261 (issued February 24, 2025).
21
D.B., id.; R.G., Docket No. 25-0390 (issued April 9, 2025).
22
D.B., id.; W.P., Docket No. 25-0367 (issued April 4, 2025).

5
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 24 and December 18, 2025 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: April 21, 2026
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6