United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH 

LABORATORY, Fort Pierce, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1253 

Issued: August 27, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 14, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 21, 2015 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 the case.2

ISSUE 

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

disease while in the performance of duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal, the employing establishment submitted new evidence. However, the Board cannot consider 

evidence that was not before OWCP at the time of its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 27, 2015 appellant, then a 22-year-old biologic science technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she suffered from skin irritation, breathing 

difficulty, and burning of the throat, chest, eyes, and nose, as a result of sprouting trees. She first 

became aware of the condition and its relationship to her work on September 26, 2014. 

Appellant stopped work on September 26, 2014 and resigned on September 29, 2014.3 

A September 26, 2014 medical report, bearing an illegible signature, reflects that 

appellant was cutting trees when she experienced shortness of breath, a scratchy throat, and a 

sore tongue. Appellant was diagnosed with chemical exposure. The medical provider checked a 

box “yes” to indicate that the condition was caused or aggravated by work activity and noted that 

she could resume regular work on September 26, 2014. 

By letter dated March 2, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence of record was 

insufficient to support her claim. It requested that she provide a medical report containing a 

diagnosis with a physician’s explanation as to how employment activities caused or aggravated 

the diagnosed medical condition. 

In a March 30, 2015 OWCP questionnaire form, appellant indicated that she was exposed 

to unknown chemicals being sprayed on September 26, 2014, while she was trimming trees. She 

inhaled the chemicals which caused coughing, wheezing, and burning in her chest and eyes. 

Appellant reported not previously experiencing a similar reaction. 

On April 21, 2015 OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a traumatic injury finding that she 

failed to submit medical evidence establishing that a diagnosed condition was causally related to 

the work event. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking compensation under FECA has the burden of establishing the 

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

evidence,4 including that he or she is an “employee” within the meaning of FECA and that he or 

she filed his or her claim within the applicable time limitation.5

 The employee must also 

establish that he sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged and that his disability 

for work, if any, was causally related to the employment injury.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. 

 3

 OWCP adjudicated this as a claim for a traumatic injury as appellant attributed her condition to an event that 

happened within a single workday. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

4 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 57 (1968). 

5 R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008). 

6 Id.; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 
3

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must 

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

the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit evidence, in the 

form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

 

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 

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.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant’s duties included cutting and trimming trees and that 

chemicals were sprayed on or near those trees on September 26, 2014. The Board, however, 

finds that appellant failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish a causal relationship 

between these federal work factors and a diagnosed medical condition. 

The only medical evidence received by OWCP was the September 26, 2014 report, with 

an illegible provider’s signature. It may have been prepared by an attending physician but it is 

impossible to verify from the report itself. The Board has held that reports bearing illegible 

signatures cannot be considered probative medical evidence because they lack proper 

identification.9

 Therefore, the report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. Appellant has 

not provided any medical evidence from a physician who explains how appellant’s workplace 

exposure on September 26, 2014 caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. 

On appeal, a safety officer from the employing establishment asserts that appellant was 

injured when she had workplace chemical exposure on September 26, 2015. He requests that 

OWCP pay appellant’s medical bills. As explained, it is not disputed that the workplace events 

occurred. The claim is denied because appellant has not submitted medical evidence supporting 

that the exposure caused a diagnosed medical condition. 

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. 

 7 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

8 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 

9 Thomas L. Agee, 56 ECAB 465 (2005) (holding that a medical report may not be considered probative medical 

evidence unless it can be established that the person completing the report is a physician as defined in 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(2)). 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish an 

occupational disease while in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 21, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board