United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

JOINT AMBULATORY CARE CENTER, 

Pensacola, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0410

Issued: August 15, 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 December 18, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 19, 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. 

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury

causally related to the accepted February 13, 2017 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 16, 2017 appellant, then a 53-year-old supervisor supply technician, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on February 14, 2017, he injured his left knee 

while entering a government van.

An unsigned urgent care clinic report dated February 13, 2017 indicated that left knee 

x-rays were performed and gel medication was prescribed. 

By development letter dated February 27, 2017, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence 

needed to support his claim. Appellant was asked to complete an attached questionnaire explaining 

the circumstances of the claimed injury, and submit a physician’s statement that included a medical 

explanation as to how the reported work incident caused or aggravated a medical condition. 

OWCP afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

Appellant thereafter submitted a February 13, 2017 left knee x-ray that was negative for 

fracture or dislocation, minimal lateral and patellofemoral compartment degenerative changes, and 

suprapatellar effusion. 

Dr. James M. Heriot, an internist, completed a February 14, 2017 occupational health 

treatment note. He described appellant’s account that on February 13, 2017 he felt a pop behind 

his left knee when he stepped into a government van, after which he experienced sharp pain. Left 

knee examination demonstrated pain with motion. Dr. Heriot also reported that appellant had left 

knee pain several weeks before after playing soccer, but indicated that the symptoms were 

different. A knee brace was provided.

In a February 23, 2017 report, Dr. Lynn A. Olsen, a Board-certified family physician, 

indicated that appellant reported that he felt his left knee pop on February 13, 2017 while entering 

a vehicle and that he complained of continued left knee pain. Left knee exhibited tenderness to 

palpation, and crepitus and pain were elicited by motion. No effusion was present, and anterior 

and posterior drawer signs were negative. Dr. Olsen diagnosed left knee pain consistent with 

strain/sprain. She recommended physical therapy and limited activity. 

In his completed questionnaire, appellant indicated that, when he entered the government 

van on February 14, 2017, he heard his left knee pop, and that, when he completed his employment 

mission, he went to urgent care. He reported that he had left knee pain and limited mobility, noting 

that it hurt to stand or move a lot.

The employing establishment controverted the claim. 

By decision dated April 3, 2017, OWCP noted that on the claim form appellant indicated 

that the injury occurred on February 14, 2017 yet some medical evidence noted complaints of an 

injury on February 13, 2017. It found that, due to this discrepancy, the claim was denied because 

the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the injury occurred as alleged. 

On April 14, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. In an April 10, 2017 statement, he 

maintained that on February 14, 2017 he reported an injury that occurred on February 13, 2017. 

In an April 10, 2017 statement, K.L., safety officer, indicated that appellant reported that the injury 

occurred on February 13, 2017. J.A., an occupational health nurse, also reported that, when 
3

appellant came to occupational health on February 14, 2017, he reported that the injury occurred 

on February 13, 2017.

In a letter dated May 3, 2017, the employing establishment reiterated its challenge to the 

claim, noting that appellant also reported a left knee problem while playing soccer. 

By decision dated June 12, 2017, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim. It 

modified its prior decision to accept that the alleged incident occurred on February 13, 2017 as 

alleged. The claim remained denied, however, because the medical evidence of record did not 

contain a firm diagnosis of any condition resulting from the accepted incident. 

Appellant again requested reconsideration on July 24, 2017. 

In a June 9, 2017 treatment note, Dr. Olsen noted that appellant was doing much better 

after physical therapy, indicating that his only limitation was that he could not squat as effectively 

as before the injury. She noted decreased range of motion in squatting on physical examination. 

Dr. Olsen diagnosed left knee pain with good improvement. In a July 19, 2017 correspondence,

she noted that she was appellant’s primary care provider. Dr. Olsen indicated that, based on her 

examination and appellant’s response to treatment, she felt he had a very bad knee sprain with a 

minor tear in the meniscus. She opined that, based on his description of the incident, she believed 

it happened at his place of employment. Dr. Olsen recommended a left knee magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan for a definitive diagnosis. 

By decision dated October 19, 2017, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim, but

denied modification of the prior decisions. It noted that none of the medical evidence explained 

how the accepted employment incident caused or aggravated his claimed condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking compensation under FECA2 has the burden of proof to establish the 

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

evidence,3including that he or she is an employee of the United States within the meaning of 

FECA and that the claim was filed 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 disability 

from 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 

 

2

Id,

3

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

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

5

Id.; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 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. 20 

C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).
4

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 medical evidence to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.7 The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background, of reasonable medical certainty, and 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 the accepted employment incident is sufficient to establish 

causal relationship.9

ANALYSIS

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

accepted incident resulted in an employment injury. 

Appellant submitted a February 13, 2017 left knee x-ray, which was negative for any 

suspected medical conditions. This diagnostic report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim 

as it fails to contain evidence of a diagnosed condition and fails to offer any opinion regarding 

causal relationship.10

In her initial report on February 23, 2017, Dr. Olsen merely diagnosed left knee pain that 

was consistent with strain/sprain. In her treatment note dated June 9, 2017, she again diagnosed 

improved left knee pain. The Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom and not a 

compensable medical diagnosis.11 

Although Dr. Olsen opined on July 19, 2017 that she felt appellant had a very bad knee 

sprain with a minor tear in the meniscus, she recommended a left knee MRI scan for a definitive 

diagnosis. As Dr. Olsen did not provide a firm diagnosis of appellant’s left knee condition or a 

rationalized opinion explaining how the accepted employment incident would have caused or 

contributed to his left knee symptoms, her report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.

12

 

 

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

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 J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007); Paul E. Thams, 56 ECAB 503 (2005).

11 B.P., Docket No. 12-1345 (issued November 13, 2012); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 2008).

12 S.W., Docket 08-2538 (issued May 21, 2009).
5

Dr. Heriot also failed to provide a medical diagnosis. Rather, he merely described 

appellant’s account that on February 13, 2017 he felt a pop behind his left knee when he stepped 

into a government van, after which he experienced sharp pain. Left knee examination 

demonstrated pain with motion. The Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom and not 

a compensable medical diagnosis.13 Because Dr. Heriot failed to provide a medical diagnosis, his

opinion is of diminished probative value and insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the evidence of record does not contain evidence of a diagnosed medical condition 

causally related to the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that appellant 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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established a traumatic injury causally related to the 

accepted February 13, 2017 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 19, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 15, 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

 

13 Supra note 12.