United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ROBINS 

AIR FORCE BASE, Warner Robins, GA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1435 

Issued: October 10, 2014 

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 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 13, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 28, 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant sustained an injury on April 10, 2014 in the performance 

of duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal appellant stated that he sent evidence supporting his claim and also submitted additional evidence. 

The Board, however, has no jurisdiction to review new evidence for the first time on appeal.2

 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 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 14, 2014 appellant, then a 34-year-old aircraft sheet metal mechanic, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on April 10, 2014 he drilled a hole in his left thumb in the 

performance of duty. The description of injury on the claim form provided that he was holding a 

metal structure in place when another employee drilled a hole in his left thumb. Appellant 

stopped work on April 10, 2014 and returned to work on April 11, 2014 with restrictions. The 

employing establishment indicated that he was injured in the performance of duty. 

In an April 11, 2014 work status evaluation, Dr. Jean Felix Cyriaque, Board-certified in 

family practice, indicated that appellant’s visit was related to an occupational incident and 

provided an incident date of April 10, 2014. He found that he could return to work on April 11, 

2014 with no use of his left hand. 

By letter dated April 21, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

information in support of his claim, including a narrative report from his attending physician 

explaining the relationship between a diagnosed condition and the work incident. 

By decision dated May 28, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the grounds that he 

had not submitted medical evidence establishing that he sustained a diagnosed condition as a 

result of the accepted April 10, 2014 work incident. 

On appeal appellant relates that he and the employing establishment had sent the 

requested information. He also provides additional evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 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.4

 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.5

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, OWCP must determine whether “fact of injury” is established. First, an employee has the 

burden of demonstrating the occurrence of an injury at the time, place and in the manner alleged, 

by a preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence.6

 Second, the employee 

must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish a 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4 Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003). 

5 See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

6 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover, 51 ECAB 146 (1999). 
3

causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged disability and/or condition 

for which compensation is claimed.7

 An employee may establish that the employment incident 

occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability and/or condition relates to the 

employment incident.8

 

ANALYSIS 

The employing establishment did not dispute that on April 10, 2014 appellant was 

holding part of a metal structure in place when an employee drilled a hole in his left thumb. 

OWCP denied the claim after finding that he failed to provide any medical opinion explaining 

how this employment incident contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. In a work status 

report dated April 11, 2014, Dr. Cyriaque indicated by notation that he was evaluating appellant 

for an occupational incident and that it occurred on April 10, 2014. He found that he could 

resume work on April 11, 2014 with no use of his left hand. Dr. Cyriaque did not provide a 

diagnosis or a description of the April 10, 2014 work incident and thus his opinion is of little 

probative value.9

 While appellant is claiming a clear-cut traumatic injury, that of a drill going 

into his thumb, he must still provide a report containing a diagnosis and an affirmative 

statement.10 In the absence of a medical opinion containing a diagnosis and opinion on causal 

relationship, appellant has not met his burden of proof.11

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that he sustained an injury on April 10, 

2014 in the performance of duty. 

 7 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 

8 Id.

9 See John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003) (a physician must provide a narrative description of the 

employment incident and a reasoned opinion on whether the employment incident described caused or contributed 

to appellant’s diagnosed medical condition). 

10 In clear-cut traumatic injury claims, where the fact of injury is established and is clearly competent to cause the 

condition described (for instance, a worker falls from a scaffold and breaks an arm), a fully rationalized medical 

opinion is not needed. The physician’s diagnosis and an affirmative statement are sufficient to accept the claim. See

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(d)(1) (January 2013). 

11 See Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005). This case does not fall into the category of cases set forth in 

OWCP procedures where a case can be accepted without a medical report because the injury is a minor one that can 

be identified on visual inspection by a lay person, the injury was witnessed or reported promptly with no dispute as 

to fact of injury and no time was lost from work due to disability. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. at Chapter 

2.805.3(c) (January 2013). Here, the procedures do not apply as appellant missed time from work. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 28, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 10, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board