United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

V.L., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, SUBIC 

NAVAL BASE, Olongapo City, Philippines 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-270 

Issued: May 1, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 18, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 3, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which denied her 

occupational disease claim. 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 met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an 

injury causally related to factors of her employment as an electronics technician. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the October 3, 2013 merit decision. 

Since the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, 

the Board may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 

ECAB 126 (2005). Appellant may submit the evidence to OWCP with a request for reconsideration. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 15, 2013 appellant, then a 57-year-old electronics technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging that she sustained back pain and headaches as a result of 

radiation at the transmitter and communication sites. She described experiencing a stomachache, 

ulcer, poor eyesight and a cyst on her left breast when she was electrocuted at work. Appellant 

first became aware of her condition on March 10, 1986 and realized that it resulted from her 

employment on July 14, 1989. She stopped work on May 10, 1990. The employing 

establishment noted on the claim form that appellant had reported the condition to her supervisor 

on February 2, 1986.

Appellant submitted a handwritten illegible medical slip from Dr. Jose Alvin L. Agustin, 

an ophthalmologist, dated June 16, 2013.

By letter dated August 29, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish her claim. It requested that she respond to the questions on an 

attached questionnaire and provide additional medical evidence, which included a description of 

findings, test results and a diagnosis, that demonstrated that she sustained a diagnosed condition 

as a result of her federal employment. Appellant did not respond.

In a decision dated October 3, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that 

she was electrocuted as alleged but denied her claim finding insufficient medical evidence to 

establish that she sustained a firm medical condition causally related to her employment.

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

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

evidence3 including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any 

specific condition or disability for work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.4 In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden requires 

submission of the following: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to 

have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical 

evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which 

compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is 

causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.5

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.6

 The opinion of the 

 3 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

4 M.M., Docket No. 08-1510 (issued November 25, 2010); G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

5 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000). 

6 I.R., Docket No. 09-1229 (issued February 24, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007). 
3

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.7

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that she sustained back pain, headaches, stomachaches, ulcer, poor 

eyesight and a cyst on her left breast as a result of the duties she performed as an electronics 

technician. OWCP accepted that she was electrocuted in her employment but denied her claim 

finding insufficient medical evidence to establish that she sustained a diagnosed condition 

causally related to factors of her employment. The Board finds that appellant did not meet her 

burden of proof to establish that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty. 

The only medical evidence of record is a handwritten July 16, 2013 medical slip from 

Dr. Agustin. The report is largely illegible. The report does not provide any description of her 

employment duties, physical examination findings, a firm diagnosis of her condition, or a 

physician’s opinion on the causal relationship between her employment and any diagnosed 

condition. By letter dated August 29, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It requested additional factual and medical 

evidence to establish that she sustained a diagnosed condition as a result of her federal 

employment. No additional evidence was received. The Board finds that there is no rationalized 

medical opinion from a physician to establish that appellant sustained an injury causally related 

to factors of her employment. Appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish her 

occupational disease claim. 

On appeal, appellant described the duties she performed as an electronics technician and 

the symptoms for which she received medical treatment. As noted, OWCP has accepted that she 

performed the duties as described. Appellant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to 

establish that any of her claimed medical conditions arose as a result of her employment duties or 

exposures. The issue of causal relationship is a medical question that must be established by 

probative medical opinion from a physician.8 As the record contains no such medical evidence, 

the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim. 

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 that she 

sustained an injury causally related to factors of her employment. 

 7

 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 

8 W.W., Docket No. 09-1619 (issued June 2, 2010); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 3, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 1, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board