United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

Fort Drum, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1463 

Issued: October 13, 2015 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 29, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a March 2, 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 over 

the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on January 20, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 21, 2015 appellant then a 57-year-old construction control inspector, filed a 

traumatic injury claim, Form CA-1, alleging that on January 20, 2015, while in the performance 

of duty, she sustained a low back injury when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The 

other driver was cited. Appellant stopped work on January 20, 2015. 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

By letter dated January 26, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to establish her claim, particularly requesting that she submit a physician’s reasoned 

opinion addressing the relationship of her claimed condition and specific employment factors. 

Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Craig Schiff, an osteopath Board-certified in 

emergency medicine, dated January 20, 2015. Dr. Schiff noted that appellant was the driver of a 

car involved in an accident. He noted that she had prior knee surgery. Dr. Schiff opined that 

appellant did not sustain a traumatic injury. He did not provide a diagnosis and released her to 

work. 

Appellant submitted a January 20, 2015 emergency room report where she was treated by 

Dr. Schiff post motor vehicle accident where she had reported low back pain radiating down her 

left leg. Dr. Schiff noted that appellant was ambulatory at the scene, she was not ejected from 

the car, and did not experience a loss of consciousness. He indicated that her history was 

significant for three previous knee surgeries and arthritis. Dr. Schiff diagnosed pain currently at 

the level of 8 out of 10 on a pain scale. He noted that appellant was released with a neck collar 

and was discharged from his care. 

Also submitted was an employing establishment accident report dated January 21, 2015 

which noted that appellant was traveling to the barracks to work on locks when she was involved 

in an automobile accident. The supervisor noted that the accident occurred within appellant’s 

scope of duty. Appellant described that a car shot across in front of the traffic and she struck the 

left rear. In a public works accident report dated January 20, 2015, appellant’s supervisor noted 

that appellant was on her way to work and was involved in a motor vehicle accident and injured 

her low back. He noted that she was placed in a neck brace and taken by ambulance to the 

hospital. Also submitted was a military police report dated January 20, 2015 which noted that on 

the same day appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and the car sustained disabling 

damage. The law enforcement officer noted that appellant reported low back pain and was 

transported to the hospital where she was treated and released. A statement by Jason Welch, 

traffic management and collision investigator, dated January 20, 2015, noted that appellant 

reported lower back pain and her injury was classified as minor. Appellant was transferred to the 

emergency room and treated for her injuries and released. Mr. Welch provided a collision scene 

photograph log. 

In a March 2, 2015 decision, OWCP denied the claim as the evidence was insufficient to 

establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection with the claimed event or work 

factors as described. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing 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 

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 is causally related to the 
3

employment injury. 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.2

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. 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that she actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.3

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant.4

ANALYSIS 

It is not disputed that on January 20, 2015 appellant was involved in an employmentrelated motor vehicle accident when a car cut in front of her and she was not able to stop and 

collided into the rear of the car. However, she has not submitted sufficient medical evidence to 

support that an injury was causally related to the January 20, 2015 employment incident. 

On January 26, 2015 OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical evidence needed to 

establish her claim. Appellant did not submit a rationalized medical report from an attending 

physician addressing how specific employment factors may have caused or aggravated her 

claimed condition. 

Appellant submitted an attending physician’s report from Dr. Schiff dated January 20, 

2015, who noted that appellant was the driver of a car involved in an accident, and noted no 

traumatic injury. Dr. Schiff diagnosed “evaluation post motor vehicle accident.” He indicated 

that appellant’s condition was not caused or aggravated by an employment activity. In a 

January 20, 2015 emergency room report, Dr. Schiff noted that she was post motor vehicle 

accident and reported low back pain that radiated down her left leg. He noted that appellant was 

released with a neck collar. These reports provide no support that the January 20, 2015 motor 

vehicle accident caused or aggravated a particular medical condition.5

 Instead, Dr. Schiff 

specifically indicated that the incident did not cause a traumatic injury. Consequently these 

reports are of no probative value and do not establish appellant’s traumatic injury claim. 

 2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

3

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

4 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

5 See A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006) (medical evidence which does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 
4

The record contains no other medical evidence addressing the incident in question. 

Because appellant has not submitted medical evidence explaining how the January 20, 2015 

work incident caused or aggravated a diagnosed medical condition, she has not met her burden of 

proof. 

On appeal, appellant contends that he never received OWCP’s January 26, 2015 letter or 

the March 2, 2015 decision. The record supports that OWCP’s January 26, 2015 information 

letter and the March 2, 2015 decision were sent to appellant at the last known address and does 

not indicate that it was returned as undeliverable. Under the “mailbox rule,” it is presumed, 

absent evidence to the contrary, that a notice mailed to an individual in the ordinary course of 

business was received by that individual.6

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 traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty. 

 6 A.C. Clyburn, 47 ECAB 153 (1995). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 2, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 13, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board