United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Salt Lake City, UT, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-992

Issued: September 15, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 25, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 20, 2013 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established a laceration of the left hand in the 

performance of duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted new evidence to OWCP after November 20, 2013. Under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1) (2012), the Board may not consider evidence for the first time on appeal. Appellant may submit that 

evidence, along 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. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 16, 2013 appellant, then a 42-year-old telephone operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) claiming that on August 11, 2013, she sustained a knife 

wound to her left hand during her lunch break while using a steak knife to remove an avocado 

pit. Her supervisor confirmed that the injury occurred during appellant’s scheduled lunch break. 

In an October 9, 2013 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the additional evidence needed 

to establish her claim, including a medical report from her attending physician diagnosing an 

injury and supporting a causal relationship between that injury and the August 11, 2013 incident. 

Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit such evidence. She did not submit additional 

evidence. 

 By decision dated November 20, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the grounds 

that fact of injury was not established. It accepted that the August 11, 2013 incident occurred at 

the time, place and in the manner alleged and that she was in the performance of duty. OWCP 

further found, however, that as appellant had not submitted any medical evidence, she did not 

establish an injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that any 

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 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 on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

In order to determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether “fact of injury” has been 

established. Generally, fact of injury consists of two components that must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish 

that he or she actually experienced the employment incident that is alleged to have occurred.5

 

Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical 

evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

 

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the evidence generally required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion 

evidence is evidence which includes a physician’s opinion on the issue of whether there is a 

 3 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 See Irene St. John, 50 ECAB 521 (1999); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

5 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

6 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003).
3

causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, 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 the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant.7

ANALYSIS 

 Appellant claimed that she sustained a left hand laceration on August 11, 2013 while 

preparing food during her scheduled lunch break. OWCP accepted that this incident occurred as 

alleged and was within the performance of duty. However, it denied the claim as there was no 

medical evidence diagnosing an injury. OWCP advised appellant by October 9, 2013 letter that 

in order to establish her claim, she must submit medical evidence diagnosing an injury as 

claimed. The Board finds that she submitted no medical evidence prior to OWCP’s 

November 20, 2013 decision. Appellant did not provide the necessary proof that she sustained a 

left hand laceration as alleged. Therefore, OWCP’s November 20, 2013 decision denying her 

claim is proper under the law and facts of this case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a left hand injury in the performance of 

duty as alleged. 

 7 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated November 20, 2013 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 15, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board