United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, Halsey, NE, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1809 

Issued: January 7, 2016 

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 1, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 17, 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 this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on May 26, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 28, 2015 appellant, then a 21-year-old biological technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that at approximately 9:30 a.m. on May 26, 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

2015 she was exposed to a pest repellent being sprayed in an adjacent field, field five, and while 

she was weeding in field six with five coworkers. She did not stop work. 

In letters dated June 8, 2015, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

support her claim and asked the employing establishment to describe her work duties and 

exposure. 

The five coworkers who were weeding in field six on May 26, 2015 provided statements. 

Each indicated that they were told spraying would be done in the adjacent field and if they 

smelled anything to leave. Each maintained that they did not smell anything and that the wind 

was blowing away from them. Jason Coffman, a coworker, advised that on May 26, 2015 he 

sprayed field five with Spotrete,2

 beginning at approximately 9:45 a.m. 

Richard Gilbert, nursery manager and appellant’s supervisor, provided a statement on 

June 16, 2015. He advised that appellant was weeding in field six with five other nursery 

employees at the time of the claimed exposure, which occurred for approximately 30 minutes 

and only once. Mr. Gilbert maintained that all standard operating procedures were followed, and 

noted that appellant did not report to the coworkers that she smelled anything and did not leave 

the field. He did note that it was possible that she was exposed to the fungicide. 

In a June 17, 2015 statement, appellant related that on May 26, 2015 as soon as she 

smelled the spraying from the adjacent field, she instantly got a headache and started to feel 

dizzy, and that, after lunch her eyes were itchy, that she felt nauseated, and the headache 

continued. She indicated that she worked the entire day, and awoke with a headache the next 

day, with sneezing, a scratchy throat, eye irritation, and occasional dizziness. When appellant 

went to work, she reported her symptoms to her supervisor. She began working in the office that 

day and did no outside work. Appellant related that on May 28, 2015 she felt fine until she 

reported to work, when a headache began, that she was nauseated after lunch, and had continued 

dizziness. She reported that on May 29, 2015 she again awakened with a headache, sneezing, 

and a scratchy throat, and that she and her supervisor went to see the doctor that day. Appellant 

maintained that all her symptoms were caused by exposure to Spotrete for approximately 30 

minutes on May 26, 2015 and that she continued to have headaches, sneezing, and a scratchy 

throat. She attached a diary of events and symptoms dated May 26 to June 1, 2015, when she 

stated that she was much better with no symptoms. 

In a May 29, 2015 report, Dr. Shawn S. Lawrence, a Board-certified family physician, 

noted appellant’s report that she was exposed to a fungicide at work on May 26, 2015 when an 

adjoining field was sprayed. She described appellant’s symptoms of immediate headache, 

dizziness, and slight nausea after eating. Dr. Lawrence noted a history of migraine headaches 

and significant allergies. Following physical examination, she diagnosed allergic rhinitis, 

chemical exposure, and migraine headache. Dr. Lawrence reported that appellant looked “ok” 

that day and opined that her symptoms were from untreated allergies and migraine headache. 

She prescribed symptomatic treatment. On June 22, 2015 Katrina White, a physician assistant 

and associate of Dr. Lawrence, advised that appellant could return to work on May 29, 2015. 

 2

 Spotrete is a turf fungicide animal repellant. 
3

By decision dated July 17, 2015, OWCP found that the claimed exposure was 

established, but denied the claim because the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that 

a medical condition was causally related to the work event. 

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 timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation period 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. Regardless of whether the asserted claim involves traumatic 

injury or occupational disease, an employee must satisfy this burden of proof.3

OWCP regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a 

specific event or incident or series of events or incidents within a single workday or shift.4

 To 

determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, OWCP 

must determine whether “fact of injury” is established. First, an employee has the burden of 

demonstrating the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in the manner alleged, by a 

preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish a causal 

relationship between the employment incident and the alleged disability and/or condition for 

which compensation is claimed. An employee may establish that the employment incident 

occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability and/or condition relates to the 

employment incident.5

OWCP regulations define the term “occupational disease or illness” as a condition 

produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”6

 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 diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. The medical 

opinion 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.7

 

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

5

 Supra note 3. 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

7 Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005). 
4

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.8 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 employee.9

 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

of employment nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS 

The Board initially notes that, although appellant filed an occupational disease claim, this 

case is for a traumatic injury. As noted above, OWCP regulations define a traumatic injury as a 

condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident or series of events or incidents 

within a single workday or shift.11 The exposure in the instant case occurred during a 30-minute 

period on one day, May 26, 2015. It is thus clearly a traumatic injury claim and the claim will be 

evaluated as such. 

OWCP accepted that appellant was exposed to a fungicide on May 26, 2015 while in the 

performance of duty. It denied her claim, however, because it found that she had not met her 

burden of proof to establish a causal relationship between the employment exposure and a 

medical condition. The Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to 

establish that appellant sustained an injury causally related to the May 26, 2015 employment 

exposure. 

The only medical report of record from a physician is the May 29, 2015 report in which 

Dr. Lawrence described the work exposure, appellant’s symptoms, and physical examination 

findings. Dr. Lawrence advised that appellant “seemed okay” that day and opined that her 

symptoms were from untreated allergies and migraine headache. Her associate, Ms. White, 

advised that appellant could return to work that day.12 

Dr. Lawrence’s report does not support that the employment exposure on May 26, 2015 

caused an injury. Thus, the medical evidence does not establish that appellant’s condition was 

causally related to the employment exposure. 

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

9 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

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

11 Supra note 4. 

12 A medical report may not be considered as probative medical evidence if there is no indication that the person 

completing the report qualifies as a “physician” as defined in section 8102(2) of FECA. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); see 

R.M., 59 ECAB 690 (2008). Reports from a physician assistant are not considered medical evidence as a physician 

assistant is not considered a physician under FECA. Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001). 
5

To support a claim for compensation, the physician should offer a medically sound 

explanation of how the claimed work event caused or aggravated the claimed condition.13 No 

physician did so in this case. Appellant, therefore, did not meet her burden of proof to establish 

an injury in the performance of duty on May 26, 2015.14

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 an injury in 

the performance of duty on May 26, 2015. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 17, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 7, 2016 

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 

 13 D.D., Docket No. 13-1517 (issued April 14, 2014). 

14 W.L., Docket No. 13-1727 (issued February 4, 2014).