United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Menlo Park, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1446 

Issued: October 2, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 23, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a February 23, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant sustained a head injury in the performance of duty on 

August 19, 2014. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 12, 2015 appellant, a 63-year-old medical support assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim for benefits, alleging that she sustained a head injury when she bumped her head on 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

a shelf in a patient’s room on August 19, 2014. She indicated that she was taken by ambulance 

to an emergency room. Appellant stopped work on August 19, 2014 and returned to work on 

August 21, 2014. 

By letter to appellant dated January 20, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that it required 

additional factual and medical evidence to determine whether she was eligible for compensation 

benefits. It asked her to submit a comprehensive medical report from her treating physician 

describing her symptoms and a medical opinion explaining the cause of any diagnosed condition. 

In an August 19, 2014 report, received by OWCP on February 23, 2015, Dr. Khanh D. 

Nguyen, Board-certified in neurology, indicated that appellant was treated at the emergency 

room on August 19, 2014. The report stated that she was taken to the hospital by ambulance 

after sustaining a head injury at work. Dr. Nguyen related that appellant bumped the top of her 

head on a shelf and was experiencing pain which rated a three or four on a scale of one to ten. 

He diagnosed a closed head injury. 

By decision dated February 23, 2015, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant failed 

to provide medical evidence sufficient to establish that she sustained an injury causally related to 

the alleged employment incident. It noted that she had not submitted any medical evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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.3 These are the essential elements of each and every 

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

occupational disease.4

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 or she actually experienced 

the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.5

 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.6

                                                             2

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

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

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

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

6 Id. For a definition of the term “injury,” see 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(e)(e). 
3

In the case of William A. Couch,

7

 the Board held that, when adjudicating a claim, OWCP 

is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP 

before the final decision is issued. 

ANALYSIS 

The Board has reviewed this appeal and remands the case to OWCP to properly consider 

appellant’s request for reconsideration and all the evidence submitted prior to the issuance of the 

February 23, 2015 decision. In Couch8 the Board held that OWCP is obligated to consider all 

evidence submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP before the final decision is issued. 

While OWCP is not required to list every piece of evidence submitted to the record, the record is 

clear that it received the August 19, 2014 report from Dr. Nguyen on February 23, 2015. 

OWCP, however, incorrectly stated in its February 23, 2015 decision that it did not receive any 

medical evidence from appellant subsequent to mailing her its January 20, 2015 developmental 

letter. Accordingly, it appears that OWCP in its February 23, 2015 decision did not adequately 

or thoroughly review all of the medical evidence. 

The Board notes that, on appeal, appellant asserts that she only wants to have her 

ambulance bill paid. However, the issue of payment of emergency medical expenses was not 

decided by OWCP and it is therefore not before the Board.9 Appellant must raise the issue of 

payment of her ambulance bill for consideration by OWCP first. She would then have the right 

to appeal a decision on that issue, if necessary, to the Board. 

Following further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue an appropriate 

decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. The case is remanded for 

further review of the medical evidence. 

                                                             7

 41 ECAB 548 (1990). 

8 Id. 

9

 There are provisions for payment of certain emergency expenses on a case-by-case basis. 20 C.F.R. § 10.204; 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Authorizing Examination and Treatment, Chapter 

3.300(3)(a)(1)(3). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 23, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for further 

action consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: October 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board