United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, San Diego, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0152 

Issued: May 2, 2017 

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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 31, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 22, 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 an occupational 

disease causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted new evidence following the August 22, 2016 decision. However, 

since the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, the 

Board may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 

ECAB 126 (2005). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 6, 2016 appellant, then a 26-year-old transportation security officer, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained bilateral plantar fasciitis as a 

result of standing for long periods of time. She stopped work on July 6, 2016. The record does 

not indicate whether appellant returned to work. 

By letter dated July 19, 2016, OWCP advised appellant that no evidence had been 

submitted to establish her occupational disease claim. It requested that she submit additional 

medical evidence to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to factors of her 

employment. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested information. No 

additional evidence was received by OWCP. 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim in a decision dated August 22, 2016. It accepted that she 

engaged in employment duties as a security officer, but denied her claim because the medical 

evidence of record failed to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to the accepted 

employment factors. OWCP noted that appellant had failed to submit any medical evidence to 

support her claim. 

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 In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden requires 

submission of the following: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to 

have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical 

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

compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is 

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

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.6

 The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must be 

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

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

4 M.M., Docket No. 08-1510 (issued November 25, 2010); G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

5 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000). 

6 I.R., Docket No. 09-1229 (issued February 24, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007). 
3

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.7 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that she developed bilateral plantar fasciitis as a result of her 

employment as a transportation security officer. OWCP accepted that she engaged in 

employment duties as a security officer, but denied her claim because the medical evidence of 

record failed to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to the accepted factors of 

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

occupational disease causally related to her accepted employment duties. 

The evidence of record reveals that appellant submitted no medical evidence to establish 

her claim. The Board has found that a claimant generally cannot meet the burden of proof where 

there has been no medical evidence preferred.8

The Board finds, therefore, that OWCP properly denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim because she failed to submit medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between a 

diagnosed medical condition and her accepted employment duties. The mere fact that work 

activities may produce symptoms revelatory of an underlying condition does not raise an 

inference of an employment relation. Such a relationship must be shown by rationalized medical 

evidence of a causal relation based upon a specific and accurate history of employment 

conditions which are alleged to have caused or exacerbated a disabling condition.9

 Because the 

evidence of record does not contain such rationalized medical evidence, the Board finds that 

appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim. 

On appeal, appellant contends that she was present when her attending physician sent her 

medical records to the Department of Labor and that she had retained copies of the documents 

that were sent. The Board has reviewed the evidence of record, however, and notes that OWCP 

did not receive any medical evidence before it issued its decision on August 22, 2016. 

Accordingly, appellant failed to meet 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. §§ 10.606 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

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

occupational disease causally related to the accepted factors of her federal employment. 

 7

 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 

8 See A.C., Docket No. 11-2023 (issued April 20, 2012); Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005). 

9 Patricia J. Bolleter, 40 ECAB 373 (1988). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 22, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 2, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board