United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.Q., claiming as widow of J.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

COMMAND STATION, Ponce, PR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-2139 

Issued: March 13, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 26, 2013 appellant, the employee’s widow, filed a timely appeal from a 

July 30, 2013 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 

denying her claim for survivor’s benefits. 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 the employee’s death was causally related to his accepted 

employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted new medical evidence. The Board has no jurisdiction to review new evidence 

on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 22, 1975 the employee, then a 43-year-old electrician, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on October 20, 1975 he injured his right arm, hand and shoulder after being 

struck by a high voltage line. OWCP accepted the claim for first degree burns to the right arm, 

second degree burns to the back and major depressive disorder. It paid the employee 

compensation for total disability beginning October 1975. 

The employee died on October 30, 2012. The death certificate provided the cause of 

death as a cerebrovascular accident (CVA), acute renal failure and hypertension. On 

December 13, 2012 appellant submitted a claim for death benefits.3 She listed the cause of death 

as a CVA, acute renal failure and hypertension. In an accompanying attending physician’s report 

dated December 3, 2012, Dr. Blas Anaya, an internist, related that he treated the employee for 

hypertension, diabetes mellitus and a CVA. He attributed the death to cardiorespiratory arrest as 

the result of renal failure. Dr. Anaya opined that pleural effusions and pulmonary congestion 

contributed to the employee’s death and arose because he was bedridden. In response to the 

question of whether death occurred due to the described injury of electric shock, he checked 

“yes” that the employee’s death was due to the work injury. Dr. Anaya related that the employee 

was healthy before his accident but subsequently experienced anxiety, depression and mental 

deterioration. He also failed to take his medication. 

By letter dated April 22, 2013, OWCP requested that appellant submit a comprehensive 

report from the employee’s attending physician addressing the causal relationship between his 

death and the accepted work injury. No report was received. 

By decision dated July 30, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim after finding that the 

evidence was insufficient to establish that the employee died as a result of his employment 

injury. 

On appeal appellant argues that the employee’s health worsened after the electric shock 

he received at work. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The United States shall pay compensation for the death of an employee resulting from 

personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.4 An appellant has the burden of 

proving by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence that the employee’s 

death was causally related to his or her federal employment. This burden includes the necessity 

of furnishing medical opinion evidence of a cause and effect relationship based on a proper 

factual and medical background.5 The opinion of the physician must be one of reasonable 

medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale.6 The mere showing that an 

 3

 Appellant submitted a copy of her marriage certificate. 

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

5 See Viola Stanko (Charles Stanko), 56 ECAB 436 (2005). 

6 See L.R. (E.R.), 58 ECAB 369 (2007); Jacqueline Brasch (Ronald Brasch), 52 ECAB 252 (2001). 
3

employee was receiving compensation for total disability at the time of death does not establish 

that the employee’s death was causally related to his or her federal employment.7

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on October 20, 1975 the employee sustained first degree burns to 

the right arm, second degree burns to the back and major depressive disorder as a result of an 

electric shock. It paid him compensation for total disability. 

After the employee’s death on October 30, 2012, appellant, his widow, filed a claim for 

death benefits. She submitted a death certificate which listed the cause of death as a CVA, acute 

renal failure and hypertension. 

In a December 3, 2012 attending physician’s form report, Dr. Anaya indicated that he had 

treated the employee for hypertension, diabetes mellitus and a CVA. He asserted that death 

arose due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to renal failure. Dr. Anaya found that the employee 

sustained pleural effusions and pulmonary congestion because he was bedridden and that these 

conditions contributed to death. He checked “yes” that the employee’s death was due to the 

work injury. Dr. Anaya asserted that he was healthy prior to his injury but afterwards sustained 

anxiety, depression and the deterioration of his mental faculties. His opinion, however, lacks 

sufficient rationale to explain how an electric shock in 1975 caused or contributed to the 

employee’s death in 2012. While Dr. Anaya asserted that the employee’s injury caused anxiety, 

depression and mental deterioration, he did not explain how this resulted in or contributed to the 

employee’s death from renal failure and cardiorespiratory insufficiency. Without providing a 

factual and medical background and a clear explanation regarding how the employment-related 

conditions of burns to the back and right arm and major depressive disorder caused or 

contributed to the employee’s death, his report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.8

On appeal appellant argues that the employee’s health deteriorated after his electric shock 

injury. She has the burden, however, to submit rationalized medical evidence showing that the 

employee’s death was causally related to his accepted employment injury.9 Appellant has not 

submitted a medical report from a physician who provides an accurate history of the employee’s 

work injury, addresses the cause of death on October 30, 2012 and explains with sound medical 

reasoning how the injury contributed to the death. Consequently, she has not met her 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 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

 7 See Susanne W. Underwood (Randall L. Underwood), 53 ECAB 139 (2001). 

8 See Lois E. Culver (Clair L. Culver), 53 ECAB 412 (2002). 

9 Jacqueline Brasch (Ronald Brasch), supra note 6. 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that the employee’s death was causally 

related to his accepted employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 30, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 13, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board