United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.R., claiming as widow of D.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

SECRETARIAT HEADQUARTERS, 

Washington, DC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1644 

Issued: February 24, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 21, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the June 10, 2014 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

survivor benefits. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 7, 2014 appellant filed a claim for survivor benefits. She alleged that workrelated asbestosis contributed to her husband’s death on June 23, 2012. Appellant’s husband was 

retired from the employing establishment at the time of his death.2 A portion of the form was 

completed by Dr. Joselito O. Vicente3 who indicated that the direct cause of death was acute 

myocardial infarction. The contributory causes of death were listed as asbestosis, morbid 

obesity, and “pulmonary embolism is also considered.” Dr. Vicente stated that precipitating 

factors such as restricted lung disease secondary to asbestosis and obesity could be “attributed to 

the cause of death of the patient.” 

Appellant submitted a June 26, 2012 certificate of death in which Dr. Cynthia H. 

Mendoza4

 indicated that the causes of death were cardiopulmonary arrest, acute myocardial 

infarction, cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus.”5 Appellant also submitted other 

documents, including examination reports and progress notes beginning in 1980, laboratory 

findings, Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient service documents, and a funeral bill. 

By letter dated March 11, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that survivor benefits might be 

payable to eligible dependents if the death resulted from a “Civilian Federal” job-related injury 

or medical condition caused by hazardous exposure on the job. It stated: 

“The information submitted indicates [the deceased] was in the military and 

retired from the Department of the Navy. There is no indication he was a civilian 

employee working in the [F]ederal [G]overnment. Was your husband employed 

as a civilian in the [F]ederal [G]overnment? Provide the name and address of the 

civilian office where he was last employed.” 

In a letter April 7, 2014, appellant stated that almost all of her husband’s records had 

been lost and stated: 

“I wish to inform your good office that I cannot provide the record of my last 

husband employer in Saudi Arabia, Dammam. I am enclosing his medical report 

or record where he was hospitalized for illness.”6

 2

 Appellant’s husband was 72-years-old at the time of his death. Whether the deceased formerly worked in a 

civilian capacity for the employing establishment or was on active military service remains unclear from the face of 

the survivor’s benefits claim form. Other documents submitted by appellant suggest that he formerly was on active 

military service, including an October 17, 2011 e-mail in which appellant’s husband stated that he was a “veteran 

and retired U.S. Navy personnel.” 

3

 Dr. Vicente’s medical specialty is unclear from the evidence of record. 

4

 Dr. Mendoza’s medical specialty is unclear from the evidence of record. 

5

 The certificate of death listed appellant as being married to the deceased at the time of death on June 23, 2012. 

6

 Appellant attached medical records produced by a physician based in Saudi Arabia. 
3

In a June 10, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for survivor benefits as she 

had failed to establish that her late husband was an “employee” within the meaning of FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides that the United States “shall pay compensation as specified by this 

subchapter for the disability or death of an employee resulting from personal injury sustained 

while in the performance of his duty.”7

 A claimant seeking compensation under FECA has the 

burden of establishing the essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, 

probative and substantial evidence, including that he or she or a decedent, as in the present case, 

was an “employee” within the meaning of FECA.8

For purposes of determining entitlement to compensation benefits under FECA, an 

“employee” is defined, in relevant part, as: 

“(A) a civil officer or employee in any branch of the [g]overnment of the United 

States, including an officer or employee of an instrumentality wholly owned by the 

United States; 

“(B) an individual rendering personal service to the United States similar to the 

service of a civil officer or employee of the United States, without pay or for 

nominal pay, when a statute authorizes the acceptance or use of the service, or 

authorizes payment of travel or other expenses of the individual....”9

ANALYSIS 

On March 7, 2014 appellant filed a claim for survivor benefits. She alleged that workrelated asbestosis contributed to her husband’s death on June 23, 2012. Appellant indicated that 

her husband was retired from the employing establishment at the time of his death. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for survivor benefits as 

she had not established that her late husband was an “employee” within the meaning of FECA. 

Appellant did not establish that her late husband was a “civil officer or employee in any branch 

of the [g]overnment of the United States, including an officer or employee of an instrumentality 

wholly owned by the United States.”10 Rather, it appears from the record that he was serving in 

the military service. Appellant was provided an opportunity to provide clarifying documentation 

that her husband was such a “civil officer or employee” but she failed to do so. 

Moreover, there is no indication that appellant’s husband was an “employee” under 

section 8101(1)(B) of FECA, one who rendered personal service to the United States similar to 

 7

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

8 Nettie Jackson (Lee F. Jackson), 53 ECAB 223 (2001). 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8101(1). 

10 See supra note 9. 
4

the service of a civil officer or employee of the United States, without pay or for nominal pay, 

when a statute authorized the acceptance or use of the service, or authorized payment of travel or 

other expenses of the individual.11

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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish entitlement 

to survivor benefits. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 10, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 24, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 11 Id.