United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, Tacoma, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0118 

Issued: March 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 25, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 17, 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 has met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a 

traumatic injury causally related to a February 22, 2016 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP after OWCP rendered its May 17, 2016 

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 lacks jurisdiction to review this additional evidence on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). 
2

On appeal, appellant contends that he did not receive OWCP’s denial of his claim. He 

requested payment of his medical bills. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 15, 2016 appellant, then a 50-year-old assistant field office director, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 22, 2016 he was involved in a 

motor vehicle accident while in route to the airport to pick up a fellow employee. The 

employing establishment is located at 1623 East J Street, Tacoma, Washington. Appellant 

indicated that the accident occurred at 2353 through 2382 NE Third Street, Renton, Washington. 

He was stopped at a traffic light when a vehicle struck his vehicle on the rear bumper. Appellant 

alleged injuries to his neck and lower back. The employing establishment indicated that he was 

in the performance of duty. 

In a letter dated April 15, 2016, OWCP requested that appellant provide additional 

information in support of his traumatic injury claim. It asked that he provide a physician’s report 

explaining how the employment incident caused or aggravated a medical condition. OWCP 

provided appellant with a questionnaire and allowed him 30 days to respond. Appellant did not 

respond within the time allotted. 

By decision dated May 17, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim 

finding that he failed to submit medical evidence to establish that he sustained a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

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

evidence,3 including that he or she is an “employee” within the meaning of FECA and that he or 

she filed the claim within the applicable time limitation.4

 The employee must also establish that 

he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged and that his disability for 

work, if any, was causally related to the employment injury.5

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 or she actually experienced the employment 

incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit 

sufficient medical evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

 3

 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007). 

4 R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008). 

5 Id.; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

6

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 
3

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.7

 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.8

 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.9

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained a traumatic injury causally related to the February 22, 2016 work incident. OWCP 

accepted that the motor vehicle accident occurred as alleged and the employing establishment 

had advised that appellant was in the performance of duty. However, appellant has not 

submitted any medical evidence to support that the work incident caused or aggravated a 

diagnosed medical condition. 

On April 15, 2016 OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical evidence needed to 

establish his claim and allowed him 30 days to respond. No further evidence was received. 

Consequently, there is no medical evidence of record supporting that the February 22, 2016 work 

incident caused or contributed to a diagnosed medical condition. As noted, part of appellant’s 

burden of proof includes the submission of medical evidence which establishes that the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.10

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 that he 

sustained a traumatic injury causally related to a February 22, 2016 employment incident. 

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

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

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

10 See supra note 6. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 17, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 2, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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