United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, Pine Knot, KY, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1747 

Issued: February 3, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 30, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 11, 2016 merit decision 

and a June 9, 2016 nonmerit 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 merit decision of this case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a back 

injury causally related to the March 26, 2016 employment incident; and (2) whether OWCP 

properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 30, 2016 appellant, then a 44-year-old correctional officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that on March 26, 2016 he felt back pain while moving a 

food cart. He did not immediately stop work. 

Appellant submitted a March 28, 2016 urgent medical care note prepared by a healthcare 

provider whose signature is illegible, who noted that appellant was disabled from work. The 

provider noted that he could not participate in sports and would be reevaluated on April 4, 2016. 

The employing establishment submitted a letter of contraversion from Lieutenant A. 

Huberti, who indicated on March 26, 2016 that appellant reported having neck pain and that he 

was awaiting back surgery for six discs and two of the discs were herniated. Lt. Huberti noted 

that on March 27, 2016 appellant requested sick leave and reported that he injured his back and 

requested a Form CA-1. He indicated that appellant did not inform him that he sustained a work 

injury. 

In an April 6, 2016 letter, OWCP advised appellant to submit additional information 

including a comprehensive medical report from his treating physician which included a reasoned 

explanation as to how the specific work factors or incidents identified by appellant had 

contributed to his claimed injury. 

Appellant submitted an April 12, 2016 statement relating that on March 26, 2016 at 

approximately 2:30 p.m. he was pushing a food cart around the employing establishment facility 

and twisted several muscles in his lower back. He indicated that the staff did not have use of 

electric carts to transport food and, therefore, the food carts were pushed manually the entire 

length of the institution throughout the day. Appellant indicated that he experienced pain, 

muscle spasms, and a sprain of his low back affecting his mobility. He reported not being able to 

work the next day due to pain and sought medical attention. Appellant did not have additional 

injuries or symptoms in his low back area. 

In a May 11, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because he failed to 

establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection with the March 26, 2016 

employment incident. 

In a May 25, 2016 appeal request form, received on June 1, 2016, appellant requested 

reconsideration. 

In a June 9, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration because 

he neither raised substantive legal questions nor included relevant and pertinent new evidence 

and was therefore insufficient to warrant a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish 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 
3

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 are causally related to 

the 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 he 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 -- ISSUE 1 

It is undisputed that appellant pushed a food cart on March 26, 2016, as alleged. The 

Board finds, however, that there is no medical evidence of record sufficient to establish that 

appellant sustained a back injury causally related to the March 26, 2016 employment incident. 

In a letter dated April 6, 2016, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional evidence in 

support of his claim, specifically a comprehensive medical report from his treating physician 

which included a reasoned explanation as to how the specific work factors or incidents identified 

by appellant had contributed to his claimed injury. 

Appellant submitted a March 28, 2016 urgent medical care note prepared by a healthcare 

provider whose signature is illegible who noted that appellant was disabled from work and could 

not participate in sports. However, as this person’s signature is illegible, there is no indication 

who signed this report. The Board has held that medical reports lacking proper identification do 

not constitute probative medical evidence.5

 Therefore, this report is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

As noted, part of appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of rationalized 

medical opinion evidence, based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such 

a causal relationship between the employment incident and a diagnosed condition. The record 

contains no probative medical evidence. Because appellant has not submitted reasoned medical 

 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 R.M., 59 ECAB 690 (2008); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006). 
4

explaining how and why his low back condition was employment related, he has failed to meet 

his burden of proof. 

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.6

 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is 

medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there 

is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated 

employment factors. 

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that his condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by his employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship. Causal relationship must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.7

 Appellant failed to submit such evidence and OWCP, 

therefore, properly denied his claim for compensation. 

On appeal appellant disagrees with OWCP’s decision denying his claim for 

compensation. He explained the facts surrounding his claim noting that he injured his back 

while pushing heavy carts around the compound. Appellant asserted that he prepared the 

necessary paperwork and his physician sent in proof he was injured at work. As explained 

above, the record contains no medical evidence explaining how and why his low back condition 

was employment related and; therefore, he has not met his 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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Under section 8128(a) of FECA,8 OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for review 

on the merits. It must exercise this discretion in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 

section 10.606(b)(3) of the implementing federal regulations, which provides that a claimant may 

obtain review of the merits of his or his written application for reconsideration, including all 

supporting documents, sets forth arguments, and contain evidence that: 

“(i) Shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; 

or 

“(ii) Advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by [OWCP]; 

or 

 6 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

7

 See Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 

8

 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 
5

“(iii) Constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered 

by OWCP.”9

Section 10.608(b) provides that any application for review of the merits of the claim 

which does not meet at least one of the requirements listed in section 10.606(b) will be denied by 

OWCP without review of the merits of the claim.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim because he failed to provide sufficient medical evidence 

to establish that the diagnosed condition was causally related to the accepted March 26, 2016 

employment incident. Appellant requested reconsideration. 

The Board finds that appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered 

by OWCP, or provide relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP. 

Appellant’s reconsideration request consisted only of a checkmark on an appeal request 

form indicating that he wanted reconsideration. He did not offer any argument or submit any 

evidence in support of his request. Appellant suggested no reason for OWCP to reconsider the 

denial of his traumatic injury claim. Such a bare request is insufficient to warrant the reopening 

of his case.11

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his back 

injury was causally related to the March 26, 2016 employment incident. The Board further finds 

that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

10 Id. § 10.608(b). 

11 See L.B., Docket No. 14-2064 (issued February 3, 2015); J.A., Docket No. 14-1447 (issued October 21, 2014). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 9 and May 11, 2016 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: February 3, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board