United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG 

ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1680 

Issued: July 24, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 29, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from merit decisions dated March 26 and 

June 17, 2014 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

 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant sustained an injury to his hands and feet in the 

performance of duty on August 16, 2011; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s 

request for a review of the written record as untimely under 5 U.S.C. § 8124. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 By order dated July 10, 2015, the Board denied appellant’s request for oral argument noting that the appeal 

could be adequately addressed in a decision based on the case record as submitted and that oral argument would not 

serve a useful purpose and only delay issuance of a decision. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 23, 2011 appellant, a 46-year-old drug enforcement agent, filed a claim for 

traumatic injury (Form CA-1), alleging that he developed an infection on his left hand and rashes 

on his hands and feet as a result of being bitten by an insect while engaged in a mission to 

eradicate marijuana in the jungles of Guam on August 16, 2011. 

Appellant submitted an August 22, 2011 report from a nurse practitioner and laboratory 

test results dated August 22, 2011. The nurse’s August 22, 2011 note related a history of fever 

and body chills for five days, and headache for two days. She noted that appellant’s fever, chills, 

headache, and vomiting had resolved, but that he still had skin lesions on the soles of his feet and 

palms of his hands. The nurse related that blood tests and an echocardiogram were performed. 

By letter to appellant dated February 12, 2014, OWCP advised that it required additional 

factual and medical evidence to determine whether he was eligible for compensation benefits. 

While it noted that his claim had been treated as a claim for minor injury and expenses up to 

$1,500.00 had been paid, as expenses now exceeded $1,500.00 additional evidence was 

necessary to substantiate the claim. OWCP asked appellant to submit a comprehensive medical 

report from his treating physician describing his symptoms and a medical opinion explaining the 

cause of any diagnosed condition. No response was received. 

By decision dated March 26, 2014, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant failed to 

provide medical evidence sufficient to establish that he sustained an injury to his hands and feet 

causally related to the accepted August 16, 2011 work incident. 

In a letter dated May 1, 2014, received by OWCP on May 20, 2014, appellant requested a 

review of the written record. 

By decision dated June 17, 2014, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

appellant’s request for a review of the written record finding that it was untimely filed. The 

Board, however, in its discretion, considered the request and determined that the case can equally 

well be addressed by requesting reconsideration. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden of establishing that 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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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 

                                                             3 Id. 

4 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 
3

compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.5

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a “fact of injury” has been established. 

First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the 

employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.6

 Second, the employee must 

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

employment incident caused a personal injury.7

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference that there is a causal relationship between the two.8

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. 

Neither, the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that his condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by his employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship.9 Causal relationship must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence and appellant failed to submit such evidence. 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

It is uncontested that appellant was engaged in a marijuana eradication mission in a jungle 

in Guam on August 16, 2011. The question of whether an employment incident caused a personal 

injury can only be established by probative medical evidence.10 Appellant has not submitted 

rationalized, probative medical evidence to establish that his work on the date of the August 16, 

2011 employment incident caused a personal injury. The weight of medical opinion is 

determined by the opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy and 

completeness of physician’s knowledge of the facts of the case, the medical history provided, the 

care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of stated 

conclusions.11 Appellant did not provide a report from a physician containing a medical 

diagnosis or a probative, rationalized opinion regarding whether the August 16, 2011 work 

incident caused a personal injury. He did not submit an explanation from a physician of how it 

                                                             5 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

6 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

7 Id. For a definition of the term “injury,” see 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

8 See Joe T. Williams, 44 ECAB 518, 521 (1993). 

9 Id.

10 Supra note 5. 

11 See Anna C. Leanza, 48 ECAB 115 (1996). 
4

was medically possible appellant would have sustained an infection in his left hand and rashes on 

his hands and feet while on a marijuana eradication mission in the jungle on August 16, 2011.12 

Appellant did not provide a report containing sufficient medical evidence demonstrating 

a causal connection between his August 16, 2011 work incident, his claimed left hand infection, 

and rashes on his hands and feet. The August 22, 2011 nurse’s report does not constitute 

medical evidence under section 8101(2). Healthcare providers such as nurses, acupuncturists, 

physician assistants, and physical therapists are not considered “physicians” under FECA, their 

reports and opinions do not constitute competent medical evidence to establish a medical 

condition, disability, or causal relationship.13 

OWCP advised appellant of the evidence required to establish his claim. However, 

appellant failed to submit such evidence. Causal relationship must be established by rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. Appellant did not provide a medical opinion which describes a 

medical diagnosis or explains the medical process through which appellant’s work on August 16, 

2011 would have caused the claimed injury. Accordingly, he did not establish that he sustained 

an injury to his hands and feet in the performance of duty. OWCP properly denied appellant’s 

claim for compensation. 

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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that a claimant for compensation not satisfied with 

a decision of the Secretary is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the date of the 

issuance of the decision, to a hearing on his claim before a representative of the Secretary.14 

Section 10.615 of the federal regulations implementing this section of FECA provides that a 

claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral hearing or a review of the written record.15 The 

request must be sent within 30 days (as determined by postmark or other carrier’s date marking) 

of the date of the decision for which a hearing is sought.16 A hearing is a review of an adverse 

decision by an OWCP hearing representative. Initially, the claimant can choose between two 

formats: an oral hearing or a review of the written record. In addition to the evidence of record, 

the claimant may submit new evidence to the hearing representative.17 A request for either an 

oral hearing or a review of the written record must be submitted, in writing, within 30 days of the 

                                                             12 See K.M., Docket No. 14-1691 (issued November 18, 2014). 

13 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see also G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007); Jerre R. Rinehart, 45 ECAB 518 (1994); Barbara J. 

Williams, 40 ECAB 649 (1989); Jan A. White, 34 ECAB 515 (1983). 

14 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1). 

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

16 Id. at § 10.616(a). 

17 Id. at § 10.615. 
5

date of the decision for which the hearing is sought.18 A claimant is not entitled to a hearing if 

the request is not made within 30 days of the date of the decision.19 OWCP has discretion, 

however, to grant or deny a request that is made after this 30-day period.20 In such a case, it will 

determine whether a discretionary hearing should be granted and, if not, will so advise the 

claimant with reasons.21

While a claimant may not be entitled to a hearing as a matter of right if the request is 

untimely, OWCP has the discretionary authority to grant the request and must properly exercise 

such discretion.22

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

By letter dated May 1, 2014 and received by OWCP on May 20, 2014, appellant 

requested a review of the written record. Because he did not request the review within 30 days 

of the March 26, 2014 decision, he was not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right under section 

8124(b)(1). OWCP exercised its discretion and determined that the issue raised could be 

resolved equally well through a request for reconsideration and the submission of additional 

evidence. The Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request 

for a review of the written record in its June 18, 2014 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to establish that he sustained an injury to his 

hands and feet in the performance of duty on August 16, 2011. The Board finds that OWCP did 

not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a review of the written record. 

                                                             18 Supra note 15. 

19 James Smith, 53 ECAB 188 (2001). 

20 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(b). 

21 Supra note 18. 

22 See Cora L. Falcon, 43 ECAB 915 (1992); Mary B. Moss; 40 ECAB 640 (1989); Rudolph Bermann, 26 ECAB 

354 (1975). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 17 and March 26, 2014 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: July 24, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board