United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.E., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, 

Chula Vista, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0560 

Issued: June 2, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 3, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a January 11, 2016 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 to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 27, 2015 appellant, then a 32-year-old border patrol agent, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that, on that date, he first became aware that his vomiting, 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

nausea, and shortness of breath were an adverse reaction to an environmental condition. He 

claimed that he experienced symptoms when he was laying on bunk bed under a ventilation 

exhaust fan. 

By correspondence dated August 21, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish his occupational disease claim. Appellant was advised as 

to the medical and factual evidence required and afforded 30 days to provide this information. 

Additional evidence was received by OWCP in support of appellant’s occupational 

disease claim. In a July 27, 2015 report, Dr. Hector Ramirez, a family practitioner, noted a 

history of dyspnea and reported no evidence of acute cardiopulmonary disease. A July 27, 2015 

emergency physician’s record noted appellant’s chief complaint as shortness of breath, provided 

examination findings, noted a past history of asthma, and diagnosed shortness of breath and 

acute exacerbation of asthma.2

In an August 20, 2015 statement, appellant related that while on a temporary-duty 

assignment in Texas on July 27, 2015, he experienced shortness of breath and nausea at 

approximately 1:00 a.m. He was laying on the top bunk bed directly under a ventilation exhaust 

fan. Appellant stated that he had a prior instance of shortness of breath in 2014 when he was 

detailed to McAllen, Texas. He related that these were the only times he experienced these 

symptoms. 

A July 27, 2015 authorization for examination and treatment (Form CA-16) was 

completed by Erik Finkeinburg, an employing establishment official. Mr. Finkeinburg noted an 

injury date of July 27, 2015 and listed nausea and shortness of breath as the injury or disease. He 

approved treatment for the effects of the listed conditions. On the second page of this form, Part 

B -- Attending Physician’s Report, dated July 29, 2015 a diagnosis of shortness of breath was 

noted. Appellant was released to return to work on July 29, 2015.3

By decision dated January 11, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, as he had failed to 

establish fact of injury. Specifically, it found that it was unclear what employment factors 

caused his condition. OWCP also found that appellant failed to submit medical evidence 

containing a diagnosis in connection with an employment injury or incident. 

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 condition is causally related to factors 

of his federal employment. Where an employee is on a temporary-duty assignment away from 

his regular place of employment, he is covered by FECA 24 hours a day with respect to any 

injury that results from activities essential or incidental to his temporary assignment.4

 2

 The provider’s signature on the form is illegible. 

3

 The signature on the form was illegible. (RD 8/21/2015) 

4 Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006); Cherie Hutchings, 39 ECAB 639 (1988). 
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 

during a special mission or in travel status is not compensable.5 The medical evidence must 

establish a causal relationship between the condition and factors of employment.6 Causal 

relationship is a medical question that can generally be resolved only by rationalized medical 

opinion evidence. Such opinion of the physician must be one of reasonable medical certainty 

and must be supported by medical reasoning explaining the nature of the relationship between 

the diagnosed condition and the employment.7

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed an occupational disease claim alleging that his nausea, vomiting, and 

shortness of breath were employment related. He explained that while on temporary duty in 

Texas he experienced these symptoms when he lay on the top bunk of a bed, directly under a 

ventilation fan. OWCP denied his claim as it found that the factual evidence was insufficient to 

identify an employment factor. It also found the medical evidence insufficient to establish a 

medical condition causally related to identified employment factors. The issue on appeal is 

whether appellant has established that he sustained an occupational disease in the performance of 

duty. The Board finds he has failed to meet his burden of proof. 

The evidence establishes that appellant was on temporary-duty status when he 

experienced nausea and shortness of breath. However a spontaneous occurrence of a medical 

condition is not compensable, even if it occurs during a temporary-duty assignment.8 Appellant 

has not submitted the necessary medical evidence to establish that he sustained a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to his temporary-duty assignment. Dr. Ramirez offered no 

opinion regarding causal relationship of a diagnosed condition. Lacking an opinion regarding 

causal relationship, his report is of no probative value.9

 The other medical report of record bore 

an illegible signature, and no opinion regarding causal relationship. Medical reports lacking 

proper identification do not constitute probative medical evidence.10 There is simply no medical 

evidence of record that discusses the medical cause of appellant’s alleged condition. Appellant 

has therefore failed to meet his burden of proof.11 An award of compensation may not be based 

on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of causal relation.12

 5 Y.H., Docket No. 09-1271 (issued January 5, 2010). 

6 Id.

7 Id. 

8 Id.

9 J.G., Docket No. 15-1468 (issued October 7, 2015). 

10 R.M., 59 ECAB 690 (2008). 

11 Id. 

12 S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008). 
4

The Board notes that the record contains a July 27, 2015 Form CA-16 noting a July 27, 

2015 injury date. The form was signed by Mr. Finkeinburg authorizing medical treatment. 

Where the employing establishment authorizes treatment of a job-related injury by providing the 

employee a properly executed CA-16 form,13 OWCP is under contractual obligation to pay for 

the medical expenses.14

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 failed to meet his burden of proof to establish an 

occupational disease in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated January 11, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: June 2, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 13 See Val D. Wynn, 40 ECAB 666 (1989); see also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, 

Authorizing Examination and Treatment, Chapter 3.300.3(a)(3) (February 2012). 

14 5 U.S.C. § 8103; 20 C.F.R. § 10.304. See L.B., Docket No. 10-469 (issued June 2, 2010); see also Federal 

(FECA) Procedure Manual, id.