United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

H.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, Big Spring, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0181 

Issued: February 17, 2016 

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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 10, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 26, 2015 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 met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on June 17, 2014. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the October 26, 2015 OWCP decision, appellant submitted new 

evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its 

final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2  

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 17, 2014 appellant, a 51-year-old nurse, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that she sustained injuries to her left wrist, left middle finger, and upper back on 

that date while in the performance of duty. She stated that she was injured as a result of slipping 

and falling on a waxed floor as she was walking out of an office. 

Appellant submitted a medical bill dated June 17, 2014 and a June 19, 2014 e-mail 

message from Kristie Barnes, a registered nurse, who updated appellant on the details of her 

claim and requested additional information in support of it. 

In an August 20, 2015 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim 

and afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. Appellant 

did not respond. 

By decision dated October 26, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because the 

medical evidence submitted failed to establish a medical diagnosis causally related to the 

employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden to establish 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 injury4 was sustained in the performance of duty, as alleged, 

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally 

related to the employment injury.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. 

A fact of injury determination is based on two elements. 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 sufficient evidence, 

generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused 

a personal injury. An employee may establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged, 

but fail to show that her condition relates to the employment incident.6

 

                                                             3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4

 OWCP regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or 

series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such condition must be caused by external force, 

including stress or strain, which is identifiable as to time and place of occurrence and member or function of the 

body affected. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

5 See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). See also Steven S. Saleh, 55 ECAB 169 (2003); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 

1143 (1989). 

6 Id. See Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404 (1997); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 
3  

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

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 

OWCP has accepted that the employment incident of June 17, 2014 occurred at the time, 

place, and in the manner alleged. The issue is whether appellant sustained an injury as a result of 

the accepted incident. The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to 

establish that she sustained an injury causally related to the June 17, 2014 employment incident. 

Appellant has not submitted any medical evidence supporting that the June 17, 2014 work 

incident caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. 

Appellant submitted a medical bill dated June 17, 2014 in support of her claim. 

However, the medical bill is from a healthcare provider whose identity cannot be discerned. 

Appellant also submitted a June 19, 2014 e-mail message from Ms. Barnes, a registered nurse, 

who updated appellant on the details of her claim and requested additional information in support 

of it. This also does not constitute competent medical evidence as registered nurses are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA.8 As noted, causal relationship is a medical issue 

that must be addressed by medical evidence.9

 

Consequently, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof as she has 

not submitted competent medical evidence addressing how the accepted June 17, 2014 work 

incident caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. 

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 has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty on June 17, 2014. 

                                                             7 Id. See Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

8

 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). See Sean O’Connell, 56 ECAB 195 (2004) (reports by registered nurses, nurse 

practitioners, and physician assistants are not considered medical evidence as these persons are not considered 

physicians under FECA). 

9 See supra note 7. 
4  

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 26, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 17, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board