United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

H.L., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU 

OF RECLAMATION, Socorro, NM, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1887 

Issued: February 4, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 14, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury causally 

related to a June 30, 2015 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant submitted new evidence with his appeal. The Board, however, has no jurisdiction to review evidence 

on appeal which was not before OWCP at the time of its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 1, 2015 appellant, then a 55-year-old engineering equipment operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 30, 2015 he sustained a fibular fracture 

as a result of climbing down a fuel truck and stepping on a fuel hose. 

By letter dated July 15, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the evidence necessary to 

establish his claim. It noted that he had not submitted medical evidence which included a report 

from a physician providing a diagnosis of a medical condition, and an explanation as to how the 

diagnosed condition was causally related to the alleged incident. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit additional evidence and to respond to its inquiries. No additional evidence was 

received. 

By decision dated August 17, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation. 

It found that he had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish a diagnosis of any 

condition related to the June 30, 2015 employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 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; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that any 

disability and/or specific conditions for which compensation is claimed are causally related to 

the employment injury.4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty it must first be determined whether a fact of injury has been established.6 

First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually 

experienced the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.7

 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

 3 Supra note 1. 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364, 366 (2006). 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184, 188 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153, 157 (1989). 

6 B.F., Docket No. 09-60 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 4. 

7 D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137, 140 (2005). 

8 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008); D.G., 59 ECAB 734, 737 (2008); Bonnie A. Contreras, 

supra note 4. 
3

ANALYSIS 

On July 1, 2015 appellant filed a claim alleging that he sustained a fibular fracture as a 

result of an incident at work on June 30, 2015. OWCP accepted that the incident occurred as 

alleged. By decision dated August 17, 2015, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had not 

established a diagnosed condition connected to the June 30, 2015 incident. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish a claim for a 

June 30, 2015 work-related injury because he did not submit any medical evidence from a 

physician establishing a firm medical diagnosis. OWCP sent appellant a development letter 

dated July 15, 2015, outlining his burden of proof with regard to medical evidence, and afforded 

him 30 days to submit such evidence. However, no evidence was received within that time 

frame. As such, appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish an injury causally related 

to a June 30, 2015 employment incident. 

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 his burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to a June 30, 2015 employment incident. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated August 17, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: February 4, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board