United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

_________________________________________

A.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

FORT BLISS, TX, Employer 

_________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-128 

Issued: February 27, 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 October 22, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 31, 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 has met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 16, 2014 appellant, then a 61-year-old histopathology technician, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on April 4, 2014 she sustained an injury in the performance 

of duty. She alleged that, as she was preparing to park her car and report for work, a car cut 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Although appellant submitted new medical reports after the issuance of OWCP’s decision, the Board lacks 

jurisdiction to review new evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
2

across lanes and cut her off causing her to hit the front passenger side of the other vehicle. 

Appellant alleged that she experienced body aches, stomach pain, and headaches. Her supervisor 

indicated that she was in the performance of duty when the incident occurred. 

By letter dated June 27, 2014, OWCP notified appellant that the evidence was 

insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of evidence needed to establish her 

claim, particularly asking that she provide a physician’s opinion as to how the work incident 

caused a diagnosed medical condition. 

By decision dated July 31, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the medical 

evidence was insufficient to establish that a condition had been diagnosed in connection with the 

work incident. 

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,3

 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.4

 The employee must also 

establish that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged and that her disability 

for work, if any, was causally related to the employment injury.5

 

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. 

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 medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. 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.7

ANALYSIS 

On April 4, 2014 appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident as she was about to 

park her car and report for work. OWCP accepted that she was in the performance of duty and 

the evidence of record supports that the claimed work incident occurred as alleged. Therefore, 

the Board finds that the first component of fact of injury is established. However, there is no 

 3

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

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

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

6

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

7 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
3

medical evidence to establish that the work-related incident on April 4, 2014 caused a diagnosed 

condition. 

There was no medical evidence submitted to OWCP before the issuance of the July 31, 

2014 decision. As noted, part of a claimant’s burden of proof includes the submission of medical 

evidence establishing that the employment incident caused an injury. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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 a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on April 4, 2014. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 31, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 27, 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