United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.L., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

FLANDREAU INDIAN SCHOOL, 

Flandreau, SD, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1132 

Issued: November 1, 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 May 6, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 31, 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 over 

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a right hand injury 

causally related to the October 18, 2015 employment incident. 

On appeal, appellant contends that she sustained an employment-related right hand 

injury. 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that on appeal appellant submitted new evidence. The Board, however, 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 February 4, 2016 appellant, then a 61-year-old home living assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 18, 2015 she was bitten by an insect on the 

top of her right hand while checking student luggage at work. She had a small hole on the top of 

her hand that developed increasing redness and swelling. Appellant stopped work on 

October 19, 2015. 

By letter dated February 22, 2016, OWCP noted that no documentation had been 

received with appellant’s claim form. It noted that there was no medical evidence with a 

diagnosis resulting from the alleged incident. OWCP advised appellant as to the medical and 

factual evidence required to support her claim and gave her 30 days to provide this information. 

It also requested that the employing establishment provide information regarding whether 

appellant was performing her official work duties at the time of the claimed injury and submit 

medical evidence if she had been treated at its medical facility. 

In response to OWCP’s letter, appellant submitted a March 7, 2016 letter in which she 

described the October 18, 2015 incident. At the time of injury, she was picking up a female 

student’s duffle bag off the floor and checking inside the bag for disallowed items when she was 

bitten on her hand. Appellant noted a hole on the top of her hand. She tried unsuccessfully to 

locate what had bitten her hand. 

By decision dated March 31, 2016, OWCP accepted that the October 18, 2015 incident 

occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, because fact of injury was not 

established as no medical evidence had been submitted. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial 

evidence3 including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any 

specific condition or disability for work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.4

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established.5

 

There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. 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.6 

 

 3 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

 4 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

 5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005). 

 6 Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Edward C. Lawrence, 19 ECAB 442 (1968). 
3

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and 

generally can be established only by medical evidence.7 The evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, based upon a complete factual and 

medical background, showing a causal relationship between the claimed condition and the 

identified factors.8

 The belief of the claimant that a condition was caused or aggravated by the 

employment is insufficient to establish a causal relationship.9

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained a traumatic injury caused by the accepted October 18, 2015 employment incident. 

Appellant has submitted no medical evidence to establish that the accepted work incident caused 

or contributed to a diagnosed right hand condition. 

In a February 22, 2016 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim 

and requested additional factual and medical evidence. It afforded her 30 days to submit 

additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. The only evidence appellant submitted in 

response was a March 7, 2016 letter in which she described the accepted October 18, 2015 work 

incident. Appellant did not submit any medical evidence showing treatment or a diagnosis of a 

condition due to the accepted October 18, 2015 work incident. OWCP advised her in the 

February 22, 2016 letter that medical evidence was required to support her claim. Appellant did 

not submit the evidence requested by OWCP within the allotted time. As appellant has not 

submitted any medical evidence to support her allegation that she sustained a right hand injury 

related to the October 18, 2015 employment incident, she has failed to meet her burden of 

proof.10

On appeal, appellant contends that she sustained an employment-related right hand 

injury. OWCP denied her claim as she failed to submit any medical evidence. It is appellant’s 

burden to submit the evidence required including, a medical opinion containing a diagnosis 

causally related to the employment incident.11 Appellant did not satisfy her burden of proof. 

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. 

 

 7 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) 

(traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, respectively). 

 8 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545 (1994); see Walter D. Morehead, 31 ECAB 188 (1979). 

 9 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 389 (1994). 

10 See Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005). 

11 Id.
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a right 

hand injury causally related to the October 18, 2015 employment incident. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 31, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 1, 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