United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

NAVAL STATION, Norfolk, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0068 

Issued: October 7, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 14, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 22, 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 her burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 9, 2014 appellant, then a 23-year-old third officer assigned to the USS Whitney, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that after a large staff embarkation of 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on the USS Whitney she sustained 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

mononucleosis. Appellant explained that she was initially diagnosed with strep throat, but that 

her condition worsened and she was diagnosed with mononucleosis. She first became aware of 

her claimed condition on May 2, 2014 and of its relationship to her employment on May 6, 2014. 

Appellant submitted a form report signed by Susan Gust, a registered nurse, dated 

May 12, 2014. Ms. Gust noted that appellant’s illness began with a sore throat, swollen tonsils, 

and some fatigue on May 2, 2014. She noted that tests were positive for mononucleosis, and that 

appellant had been taken off duty and referred to a physician for further care. Ms. Gust 

concluded that appellant had possibly experienced exposure on the ship. 

By letter dated May 27, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical evidence in support of her claim. It noted that appellant had submitted no medical 

evidence from a physician providing a medical diagnosis or an opinion as to how the diagnosed 

condition was caused by factors of appellant’s employment. 

In a statement dated May 28, 2014, appellant noted that she had boarded the USS 

Whitney on January 23, 2014 but was forced to depart the ship on May 9, 2014. She noted that 

NATO staff had embarked on her vessel in April 2014 and in May 2014 in Gaeta, Italy and 

Lisbon, Portugal. Appellant stated that she first noticed her symptoms on May 2, 2014 and that 

her exposure might have occurred due to improperly washed silverware or dishes. 

Appellant submitted a May 29, 2014 form report signed by Vivian Paskowski, a 

registered nurse. In this form report, Ms. Paskowski related that appellant had mononucleosis, 

that her liver function was being monitored, and that she continued to have fatigue and malaise. 

She also noted that appellant may have experienced exposure while at work on a ship. 

On June 3, 2014 appellant requested compensation for leave without pay (Form CA-7) 

from May 30 to June 14, 2014. 

By letter dated June 10, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that no action could be taken on 

her claim for compensation until it had accepted her claim for occupational disease. It noted that 

the evidence of record was insufficient to establish her claim and that medical evidence needed 

to be from a qualified physician rather than a nurse practitioner. 

Appellant submitted another form report signed by Ms. Paskowski on June 10, 2014 

wherein she related that appellant had been seen with improved symptoms. She was advised that 

she could return to light-duty work. 

On June 20, 2014 appellant returned to full-time regular duty with no restrictions. 

On June 24, 2014 appellant also requested compensation for leave without pay (Form 

CA-7) for the period June 15 to 22, 2014. 

By letter dated June 27, 2014, OWCP reiterated that it could take no action on her new 

claim for leave without pay until it had accepted her claim for occupational disease. It again 

requested medical evidence sufficient to establish her claim. OWCP asked appellant to provide 

relevant medical evidence from a qualified physician to support her claim for work-related injury 

and periods of disability. No additional information was received. 
3

By decision dated July 22, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It noted there was no 

medical evidence from a physician establishing that any medical condition was caused by factors 

of her federal employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.2 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.3

 

While injuries occurring to employees at their residences are not generally compensable, 

the Board notes that if an employee is required or expected to live in quarters or premises 

furnished or made available by his or her employer and is injured during the reasonable use or 

occupancy of such premises, such injuries have been held to have occurred in the performance of 

duty and to be compensable. This rule has been referred to as the “Bunkhouse rule.”4

To establish that an injury was sustained in an occupational disease claim, an employee 

must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the 

disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the employment factors 

identified by the employee were the proximate cause of the condition for which compensation is 

claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is 

causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.5 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that she sustained mononucleosis during her service on the USS 

Whitney when a large NATO contingent embarked her ship. She claimed that she might have 

been exposed to mononucleosis on the ship through dirty silverware or dishes at that time. She 

claimed disability from May 30 to June 22, 2014. The Board finds that she has failed to submit 

sufficient medical evidence from a qualified physician to establish a medical condition causally 

related to her employment. 

 2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278, 279 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

3 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313, 315 (1999). 

4 See Edmond B. Wagoner, 39 ECAB 758 (1988); see also Jimmy T. Vest, Docket No. 01-157 (issued 

October 25, 2001). 

5 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 
4

In support of her claim, appellant submitted three form reports signed by registered 

nurses, dated May 12 and 29, and June 10, 2014. Nurses do not qualify as physicians under 

FECA and, therefore, their reports do not qualify as probative medical evidence supportive of a 

claim for federal workers’ compensation.6

 Therefore, these reports do not constitute probative 

medical evidence establishing that appellant had been diagnosed with the claimed medical 

condition. Appellant has not established that she sustained an injury as she did not submit any 

medical evidence in support of her claim. 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to establish that her diagnosed condition 

resulted from employment factors. 

In a similar case, where an employee was serving aboard a ship and claimed to have 

contracted jaundice while being on the ship, the Board affirmed that even where claimants are 

required to live on ships, a claimant must first establish causal relationship through evidence that 

the illness was caused by conditions of the employment.7

 Here, appellant has failed to establish 

the connection between conditions of the employment and the mononucleosis. 

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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

 6 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); M.B., Docket No. 12-1695 (issued January 29, 2013). 

7 See John A. Squashie, 6 ECAB 363 (1953). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated July 22, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: October 7, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board