United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

Y.T., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MIRAMAR 

FIRE DEPARTMENT, San Diego, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-406 

Issued: May 14, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 12, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal of a September 12, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying her traumatic 

injury claim. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained a 

traumatic injury on March 26, 2013, as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 27, 2013 appellant, then a 40-year-old fire inspector, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on March 26, 2013 she sustained a sharp pain in her left knee. She stated, “I 

was doing an exercise with my forearms on the ground with my legs extended. I put my knees 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

down, rolled back to sit on my heels and used the bed to stand up. When I woke up the next day, 

I put my feet on the ground to stand up and felt a sharp pain in my left knee.” Appellant’s injury 

occurred at 7:15 p.m. at Fire Station 61, Room 13 at the employing establishment. 

The employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. Tina R. Leary, appellant’s 

supervisor, completed a statement on March 27, 2013. She stated that appellant was not injured 

in the performance of duty. Ms. Leary noted that the activity was recreational exercising and 

was not part of any training or assigned duties for her position. She stated that appellant was not 

in any agency-approved physical fitness program. 

In a letter dated April 3, 2013, OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence 

from appellant in support of her claim. Dr. Gregory J. Basiago, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, examined appellant on March 27, 2013 and diagnosed left knee pain. Dr. Rupina 

Mann, a physician Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, examined appellant 

on April 3, 2013 and diagnosed left knee medial joint line pain with no locking. On April 17, 

2013 she diagnosed left knee strain. Dr. Mann noted that appellant was at work and doing 

exercises on the floor. Appellant showered and went to bed with no pain. She went to sleep at 

the employing establishment and woke up the next morning with pain in the left knee. Dr. Mann 

stated, “The stated mechanism is consistent with my clinical examination findings and no 

information has been presented that would indicate a cause other than the alleged employment 

event/exposure. The subjective and objective findings are consistent.” 

The employing establishment stated that appellant did not take the required steps to 

register for the March 19, 2010 station order for a civilian fitness program. The program 

provided excused absences of no more than three hours per employee per week. The fitness 

program must take place at the assigned duty station. 

By decision dated May 16, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she did not 

establish that the injury arose during the course of her employment while she was performing 

compensable work duties. 

Appellant requested a review of the written record before an OWCP hearing 

representative on May 23, 2013. 

On April 8, 2013 appellant noted that she worked a 56-hour a week schedule which 

required her to stay overnight on Tuesdays. She arrived at work at 6:30 p.m. and, after making 

her bed, performed an exercise called planking. Appellant completed the exercise, put her knees 

down and rolled back to sit on her heels and stood up. She then showered and called her 

husband. Appellant did not feel any pain. She went to sleep and awoke at 5:00 a.m. on 

March 27, 2013 and felt excruciating pain in her left knee when she put her feet on the floor to 

rise. Appellant provided a copy of her employment contract which required her to work 56 

hours a week and for a tour of duty from 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. On April 8, 2013 she stated that 

she was allowed to eat, sleep, read, listen to the radio or perform other similar activities when not 

performing active duties. 

By decision dated September 12, 2013, OWCP’s hearing representative modified 

OWCP’s May 16, 2013 decision to accept that appellant arose from her bed within the 
3

performance of her duties. The hearing representative found, however, that the medical evidence 

was not sufficient to establish that she sustained a left knee strain as the result of arising from her 

bed in the performance of duty. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, 

including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United States” within the meaning of 

FECA and that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time limitation period of FECA, 

that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any disability or 

specific condition for which compensation is claimed is 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 upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

OWCP defines a traumatic injury as, “[A] condition of the body caused by a specific 

event or incident, or series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such 

condition must be caused by external force, including stress or strain which is identifiable as to 

time and place of occurrence and member or function of the body affected.”5

 To determine 

whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, it must 

be determined whether a “fact of injury” has been established. The employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place and in the manner alleged.6

 The employee must also submit sufficient evidence, 

generally only in the form a medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.7 A medical report is of limited probative value on a given medical question if it 

is unsupported by medical rationale.8 

Medical rationale includes a physician’s detailed opinion on the issue of whether there is 

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

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

background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported 

by medical reasoning explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition 

and specific employment activity or factors identified by the claimant.9

 2

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

3 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 41 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

6 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

7 J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007). 

8 T.F., 58 ECAB 128 (2006). 

9 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 
4

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that 

she sustained a left knee strain in the performance of duty on March 26, 2013 as alleged. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a note from Dr. Basiago who examined her 

on March 27, 2013 and diagnosed left knee pain. The Board has held that the diagnosis of 

“pain” is not a firm medical diagnosis.10 Dr. Basiago did not provide a firm diagnosis of 

appellant’s left knee and his report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Mann diagnosed left knee strain. She listed the injury as occurring on March 26, 

2013 at 7:15 p.m. as noted by appellant. Dr. Mann noted that appellant woke up the next 

morning with pain in the left knee. She opined generally that appellant’s activities were 

consistent with the findings of left knee strain. The Board finds that her report does not provide 

sufficient medical reasoning to support a causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed left 

knee strain and her employment activities. Dr. Mann did not adequately explain how or why 

appellant’s action of arising from her bed resulted in a knee strain. She did not provide a full 

medical history pertaining to appellant’s left knee or address how appellant’s activity the prior 

evening was competent to produce the diagnosed condition. This report is not sufficient to meet 

appellant’s 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. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit the necessary medical opinion 

evidence to establish her claim for a traumatic injury. 

 10 Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 12, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 14, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board