United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Seattle, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1850 

Issued: January 9, 2017 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 19, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 17, 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 merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an injury or 

medical condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The record provided the Board includes evidence submitted after OWCP issued its August 17, 2016 decision. 

The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. 

Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review this additional evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 1, 2016 appellant, then a 52-year-old time and leave clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she injured her lower back on or about June 16, 2016. 

She attributed her lower back condition to using her office desk chair. 

Evidence submitted with the claim included an application for employment, a position 

description, a January 10, 2016 notification of personnel action, and a June 23, 2016 incident 

report, which noted that appellant had an ergonomic chair with lumbar support that she claimed 

no longer worked and had exchanged it for a different chair. 

In a July 14, 2016 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies in the claim and 

afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence. Appellant was asked to submit additional 

factual and medical evidence, including her responses to a development questionnaire. 

On July 27, 2016 appellant responded to OWCP’s development questionnaire. She 

indicated that she worked on the computer five days a week, eight hours a day and while sitting 

on a chair with limited stand and break time. Appellant stated that, from 2007 to June 16, 2016, 

she had a chair with no support curve. She further indicated that she was uncomfortable and in 

pain for two weeks until a new chair was ordered. No other evidence was submitted. 

By decision dated August 17, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

medical component of fact of injury had not been met as appellant had submitted no medical 

evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with the employment factors. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant 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 evidence, 

including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any specific 

condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.3

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (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 diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the identified employment factors.4

 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 

4 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). 
3

A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the implicated employment factors must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background.5 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be expressed in terms of a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining 

the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific 

employment factors.6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that she developed back pain for approximately two weeks as a result 

of sitting in her chair for eight hours a day while performing her work duties. She alleged her 

chair had no support curve. The evidence supports that appellant’s work duties primarily 

required computer work, for which she remained seated. However, appellant has failed to 

submit any medical evidence to establish a back condition. 

As there is no medical evidence explaining how sitting in a nonergonomic chair for two 

weeks caused or aggravated a medical condition involving her back, appellant has not met her 

burden of proof to establish her claim.7

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. 

 5 Id. 

6 Id. 

7 See K.G., Docket No. 15-1139 (issued September 28, 2016). 
4

CONCLUSION 

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

causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 17, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 9, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board