United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.U., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATON SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0078

Issued: June 6, 2018

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 12, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 31, 2017 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 his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on June 1, 2017.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its July 31, 2017 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 is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 2, 2017 appellant, then a 43-year-old transportation security officer, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) for a strained ankle that allegedly occurred on June 1, 

2017 while in the performance of duty. He recounted that he was positioned on the advanced 

imaging technology (AIT) at lanes one and two when a passenger came through with an anomaly 

in his groin area. Appellant reportedly bent down to pat the passenger’s groin area, and as 

appellant stood up he strained his right ankle. He alleged that his ankle hurt badly as he stood on 

it. No additional information accompanied the claim form.

In a June 16, 2017 claim development letter, OWCP advised appellant additional evidence

was needed to establish his claim. It specifically noted that there was no diagnosis of any condition 

resulting from the alleged injury. OWCP also requested that appellant clarify whether he was 

claiming an occupational disease (Form CA-2) or a traumatic injury (Form CA-1). It afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the requested information.

OWCP subsequently received June 5, 2017 treatment notes from Dr. William R. Osborne 

Jr., a Board-certified internist, who examined appellant for “ankle pain.” The treatment notes did 

not include a history of injury or identify a date of injury. Dr. Osborne’s clinical assessment 

included “pain in right ankle and joints of right foot.”

3

 He referred appellant for an x-ray, and 

prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), diclofenac sodium.

4

 Dr. Osborne 

advised appellant to return in three days (72 hours) if he did not feel any better or if his symptoms 

worsened. In a separate note, he indicated that appellant was able to resume work on June 7, 2017 

without restriction(s).

In a June 29, 2017 statement, appellant clarified that he was claiming a traumatic injury. 

He noted that he strained his ankle while “patting a passenger down.” Appellant identified

Dr. Osborne as the physician he first consulted following the claimed injury. He also represented 

that he did not have any similar disability or symptoms prior to the claimed injury.

By decision dated July 31, 2017, OWCP accepted that the June 1, 2017 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim because he 

had not submitted any evidence “containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the injury 

and/or event(s).” OWCP explained that “pain” was a symptom, not a medical diagnosis. 

Consequently, it found that appellant failed to establish the medical component of fact of injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

 

3 Dr. Osborne also noted that appellant had athlete’s foot (tinea pedis of right foot) and a body mass index (BMI) 

of 34.0 - 34.9.

4 Dr. Osborne also prescribed an antifungal cream (ketoconazole) for appellant’s athlete’s foot.

5 See supra note 1.
3

evidence, including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any specific condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.6

To determine if an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact of 

injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The 

first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

allegedly occurred.7 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.8 An employee may establish that an injury occurred in the performance of duty as alleged, 

but fail to establish that the disability or specific condition for which compensation is being 

claimed is causally related to the injury.9

ANALYSIS

Appellant claimed to have injured his right ankle on June 1, 2017 while patting down a 

passenger. OWCP accepted that the June 1, 2017 employment incident occurred as alleged, but 

denied his claim because the evidence of record did not include a medical diagnosis in connection 

with the accepted employment incident. The Board finds that appellant failed to establish the 

medical component of fact of injury.

Dr. Osborne’s June 5, 2017 treatment notes did not include a specific history of injury or 

even identify a date of injury. He examined appellant for complaints of “ankle pain,” and provided 

an assessment of “pain in right ankle and joints of right foot.” As OWCP correctly noted in its 

July 31, 2017 decision, “pain” is a symptom, not a medical diagnosis.10 Accordingly,

Dr. Osborne’s finding of right ankle and/or foot pain is insufficient to satisfy appellant’s burden 

of proof with respect to satisfying the medical component of fact of injury.11 There is no evidence 

of record that establishes a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment 

incident. Consequently, appellant failed to establish that he sustained an injury in the performance 

of duty on June 1, 2017.

 

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). Causal relationship is a medical 

question that generally requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. Robert G. Morris, 48 

ECAB 238 (1996). A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the diagnosed condition 

and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a complete factual and medical background. Victor J. 

Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be expressed in terms of a 

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

relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific employment factor(s). Id.

7 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9 Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997).

10 Findings of pain or discomfort alone do not satisfy the medical aspect of the fact of injury medical determination.

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803.4a(6) (August 2012).

11 Id.; see Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340, 341 (2003).
4

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 met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on June 1, 2017.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 31, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 6, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board