United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. 

EMBASSY, La Paz, Bolivia, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-347 

Issued: April 8, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 25, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 24, 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained an 

occupational disease in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 30, 2014 appellant, then a 57-year-old logistics management specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging that he sustained a viral infection of the digestive tract while 

on temporary duty in Bolivia. He alleged that he would not have contracted a viral infection had 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

he not been in Bolivia for work. Appellant related that he became aware of his condition and its 

relation to his federal employment on July 24, 2014. He stopped work on July 25, 2014 and 

returned to work on July 29, 2014. 

By letter dated August 7, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish his claim because no medical evidence was received. Appellant was also 

advised of the type of evidence needed to establish his claim. 

In response to an OWCP questionnaire, appellant advised that, while on temporary duty 

in La Paz, Bolivia, he was exposed to a viral infection as a result of the substandard living 

conditions of a third world country. He noted that he was in Bolivia from July 23 to 27, 2014 

and that he was hospitalized on July 25, 2014. In an undated letter, appellant noted that he was a 

federal employee who was required to travel on temporary duty to Bolivia. He stated that he 

contracted “some type of disease and was hospitalized” in Bolivia. Appellant advised that he 

had to pay for the treatment he received and wanted to be reimbursed. 

The record contains July 25 and 26, 2014 clinic records and diagnostic reports ordered by 

Dr. A. Casanovas.2

 In an October 24, 2014 OWCP memorandum, a Spanish translator advised 

that the medical evidence consisted of diagnostic testing, including electrocardiogram, blood test, 

fecal test, parasite test, electrolytes, and cardiac enzymes. She noted that there were positive 

findings for mucus in the fecal testing, high lymphocyte levels, aortic sclerosis, concentric 

hypertrophy, moderate pulmonary hypertension, and elevated blood sugar. The Spanish 

translator advised that appellant was prescribed antibiotics and noted that the medical reports did 

not address causal relationship to any particular diagnosis. 

By decision dated October 24, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim because evidence was insufficient to establish that he was diagnosed with a condition in 

connection with factors of his employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing by the weight 

of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence that his or her condition is causally related to 

factors of his or her federal employment. Where an employee is on a temporary-duty assignment 

away from his or her regular place of employment, he or she is covered by FECA 24 hours a day 

with respect to any injury that results from activities essential or incidental to his or her 

temporary assignment.3 

However, the fact that an employee is on a special mission or in travel status during the 

time a disabling condition manifests itself does not raise an inference that the condition is 

causally related to the incidents of the employment. A condition that occurs spontaneously 

 2

 These reports are in Spanish. There were also several diagnostic reports from Drs. Murillo and Ledezma. The 

full names and specialties of these physicians are not contained in the record. 

3 Y.H., Docket No. 09-1271 (issued January 5, 2010); Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006); Cherie Hutchings, 

39 ECAB 639 (1988). 
3

during a special mission or in travel status is not compensable. The medical evidence must 

establish a causal relationship between the condition and factors of employment.4 

Whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty begins with 

an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established.5

 To establish fact of injury in an 

occupational disease claim, an employee must submit: (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.6

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 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

 

The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its 

convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in 

support of the physician’s opinion.8

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed that he sustained a viral infection of the digestive tract while on 

temporary duty in La Paz, Bolivia. The evidence supports that he was in La Paz, Bolivia from 

July 23 to 27, 2014. However, the medical evidence is insufficient to establish that a medical 

condition was diagnosed in connection with factors of appellant’s employment. As explained 

above, the fact that an employee is on a special mission or in travel status during the time a 

disabling condition manifests itself does not raise an inference that the condition is causally 

related to the incidents of the employment.9

Appellant submitted several clinic records and diagnostic reports from his July 25, 2014 

hospital visit. A Spanish translator noted the findings contained in these reports. However, these 

reports did not address the cause of any particular condition or positive test finding. Appellant 

claimed a viral infection sustained during his temporary-duty assignment but there is no medical 

evidence supporting that he contracted any viral infection or other condition that was caused or 

aggravated by employment factors while he was on temporary duty. As noted, a condition that 

 4 Id. 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184, 188 (2007). 

6 R.R., Docket No. 08-2010 (issued April 3, 2009); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005). 

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

8

 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

9 Supra notes 3 and 4. 
4

occurs spontaneously during a special mission or in travel status is not compensable. The 

medical evidence must establish a causal relationship between the condition and factors of 

employment.10 The medical evidence does not establish a cause of appellant’s symptoms nor 

does it relate his symptoms to matters incidental to his trip to Bolivia. The Board has held that a 

medical report without an opinion as to causal relationship is of little probative value.11 

Therefore, the Board finds that appellant did not establish that a diagnosed medical 

condition resulted from factors of his federal employment while he was on temporary duty in 

Bolivia. 

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 10.607.12

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish that he sustained an occupational disease 

caused by factors of his employment. 

 10 Id. 

11 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 

12 Appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. However, the Board may only review the evidence that was 

before OWCP at the time that it issued its final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 24, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 8, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board