United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, HILL 

AIR FORCE BASE, UT, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0401 

Issued: August 26, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 10, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of a July 10, 2014 Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision. 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 the case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established that she sustained an injury causally 

related to factors of her federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its July 10, 2014 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 on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 4, 2013 appellant, then a 60-year-old scheduler, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on September 11, 2012 she first became aware of her 

condition of pain and numbness in her hands and arms which she attributed to her employment 

on that date. She noted that she also started experiencing pain from an old on-the-job injury that 

happened in 1993. Appellant noted that she experienced pain and numbness in her hands and 

arms after door closures were installed at the employing establishment. She noted that she did 

not remember when the door closures were installed. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisor indicated that appellant reported her condition on August 28, 2012. There 

is no indication that appellant stopped work. 

OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence in support of appellant’s claim 

by letter dated October 23, 2013. It allowed 30 days for a response. No response was received. 

By decision dated December 30, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she failed to 

submit any medical evidence and failed to describe the employment duties which she felt caused 

or contributed to her medical condition. 

Appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP hearing representative 

on January 13, 2014. She submitted additional evidence following this request. On July 20, 

1993 appellant received treatment for a work-related crush injury to her left thumb at the 

employing establishment clinic. Dr. Christina Vokt, a physician Board-certified in physical 

medicine and rehabilitation and an employing establishment physician, examined appellant on 

July 3, 2008 and found she had ongoing hand and arm pain from 2001. She listed appellant’s 

employment duties as performing as a machinist for 18 years including repetitive, strenuous, 

vibratory manual hand work and in 2001 beginning work as a workload manager on a computer 

all day. Dr. Vokt diagnosed de Quervain’s tenosynovitis, and right index, middle, and ring, 

trigger fingers and carpal tunnel syndrome. She noted that appellant’s carpal tunnel syndrome 

was work related due to the aforementioned activities and noted these led to “chronic irritation, 

inflammation and compression of the structures of the carpal tunnel and symptoms.” Dr. Vokt 

also opined that appellant’s de Quervain’s tenosynovitis was from the same mechanism. She 

completed a form report on July 3, 2008 and notified appellant’s supervisor that she had a 

bilateral hand condition. On July 31, 2008 Dr. Vokt released appellant to return to full duty after 

disability due to a bilateral hand and wrist condition and again notified her supervisor of her 

condition. A note dated August 6, 2008 indicated that Dr. Vokt’s July 3, 2008 form report “has 

been investigated and found to be occupationally related.” 

Appellant submitted form reports dated April 26, August 28, September 11, and 23, 2012 

signed by a physician assistant with the employing establishment health clinic. The record 

contains an administrative note dated March 8, 2013 that a January 22, 2013 form was 

determined to be occupationally related. 

Dr. Douglas Fuller, a Board-certified family practitioner and employing establishment 

physician, completed notes dated August 28, September 11 and 25, December 13, 2012, and 

January 22, 2013. He noted that appellant had bilateral hand and wrist pain from a crush injury 

to the left hand and wrist on July 20, 1993 sustained while she was working as an aircraft 
3

mechanic as well as a July 8, 2008 claim for chronic pain in both hands and wrists.3 Dr. Fuller 

noted that appellant reported pain in her hands when opening doors and performing manual 

tasks, including typing and mouse use at work. He noted that appellant’s pain in her left hand 

likely corresponded with her reported work injury in 1993. Dr. Fuller diagnosed tenosynovitis of 

the hand and wrist which he related to her 2008 examination by Dr. Vokt. He also diagnosed 

osteoarthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the left thumb which he felt was related to her prior 

crush injury, and carpal tunnel syndrome.4

 Dr. Fuller noted that these conditions were work 

related. 

Appellant submitted a letter dated November 5, 2013 addressed to OWCP in which she 

noted that she was requesting that her old claims be reopened to receive medical attention. She 

noted that she had not sustained new injuries. 

By decision dated July 10, 2014, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

December 30, 2013 decision. The hearing representative found that appellant “has not claimed 

any specific injury which can be considered to determine if she established her claim.” Thus, 

appellant had not met the factual component. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”5 To establish that an injury 

was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant 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 

claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed or, noted 

differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

employment factors identified by the claimant.6

An employee’s statement that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is 

of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.7

 

Moreover, an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. The employee’s statement, 

however, must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and her subsequent 

course of action. An employee has not met her burden in establishing the occurrence of an injury 

when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of 

 3

 Dr. Fuller referenced OWCP claim number xxxxxx990. This claim is not associated with the claim on appeal. 

4

 Dr. Fuller referenced OWCP claim number xxxxxx308 in regard to appellant’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

This claim is not associated with the claim on appeal. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

6 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994). 

7 R.T., Docket No. 08-408 (issued December 16, 2008); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005). 
4

the claim. Circumstances such as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, 

continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury, and failure to obtain 

medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast doubt on an employee’s statement in 

determining whether a prima facie case has been established.8

ANALYSIS 

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

injury causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence from Dr. Fuller beginning in August 2012 

diagnosing tenosynovitis of the hand and wrist, osteoarthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the 

left thumb, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. She has, therefore, submitted sufficient 

medical evidence of conditions to meet the first element of an occupational disease claim, 

medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which 

compensation is claimed. 

Appellant asserted that her hands and wrists began to hurt after door closures were 

installed at the employing establishment. She noted that she did not recall when the door 

closures were installed. Appellant did not offer any information regarding when she was 

required to open the doors with closures, the number of times that she was required to open the 

doors with closures, or the weight of these doors.9

 The Board finds that appellant has not 

provided sufficient factual evidence to implicate an employment factor of operating doors with 

closures at the employing establishment such that she has established the second element of an 

occupational disease claim, a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have 

caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition. Furthermore, 

appellant submitted a statement dated November 5, 2013 asserting that she had not sustained 

additional injuries, but she was requesting that her old claims be reopened.10 As she has not 

provided a detailed factual statement describing her employment duties which she believed 

caused or contributed to her diagnosed hand and wrist conditions, appellant has failed to 

establish an occupational disease claim. 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted the necessary factual evidence to 

establish that she sustained an injury due to factors of her federal employment. As appellant has 

 8 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 

9

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803.3 (August 2012) (this section 

of the procedure manual provides that a claimant should describe the amount, volume, duration, as well as other 

aspects of the claimed work factors in an occupational disease claim). 

10 Appellant’s submitted form reports from a physician assistant. These reports are not considered medical 

evidence as physician assistants are not considered physicians as defined by FECA. Therefore they are of no 

probative value and do not constitute competent medical evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 

162 (2004); S.P., Docket No. 14-1879 (issued February 19, 2015). 
5

not established an employment incident or exposure alleged to have caused an injury, it is not 

necessary to consider any medical evidence.11

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 has not established that she sustained an injury causally 

related to factors of her federal employment.12

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 10, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.13

Issued: August 26, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 11 See Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006). 

12 Appellant contends on appeal that she was attempting to file claims for a recurrence of disability under OWCP 

File Nos. xxxxxx990 and xxxxxx308. Upon return of the case record, appellant may pursue these claims with 

OWCP. 

13 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015.