United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1249

Issued: October 2, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 17, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a left foot injury 

causally related to the accepted December 15, 2016 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 19, 2016 appellant, then a 38-year-old sheet metal mechanic, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 15, 2016 he sustained a left ankle 

sprain when he was exiting an aircraft and climbing down the stairwell. He reported losing his 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

footing and falling, causing him to hang by his left foot which got caught in the steps. Appellant 

stopped work on December 16, 2016 and returned to work on December 19, 2016. 

In a December 15, 2016 St. Anthony Hospital diagnostic report, Dr. Chester Beam, a 

Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, reported that an x-ray of appellant’s left foot revealed 

unremarkable findings with no acute fractures and dislocation and tibial talar joint osteoarthritis. 

By letter dated December 29, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to support his claim. It noted that the medical evidence submitted failed 

to document any diagnosed condition which could be related to the accepted employment 

incident. OWCP advised appellant of the medical evidence needed and was afforded 30 days to 

respond. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a Notification of Personnel Action (Form SF50) and the official position description for a sheet metal mechanic. No other evidence was 

received.

By decision dated January 31, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish a traumatic injury. It found that the December 15, 2016 

incident occurred as alleged, but that the evidence of record failed to provide a firm medical 

diagnosis which could be reasonably attributed to the accepted employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish 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 or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.2 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or occupational disease.3

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an 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 which must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident which is alleged to have occurred.4 The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally can be 

established only by medical evidence. 

To establish a causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant 

disability claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized 

 

2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989).

3 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

4 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 2.
3

medical opinion evidence based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such 

a causal relationship.5 The opinion of the physician must be based on 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. 

This medical opinion must include an accurate history of the employee’s employment injury and 

must explain how the condition is related to the injury. The weight of medical evidence is 

determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis 

manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.6

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury causally related to the accepted December 15, 2016 incident.

7

 

Appellant has established that the December 15, 2016 employment incident occurred as 

alleged. The issue, therefore, is whether he submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish 

that the employment incident caused a left foot injury. 

The Board finds that the medical evidence is deficient on two grounds: first, it fails to 

provide a firm diagnosis. Second, there is no narrative opinion on causal relationship between a 

diagnosed condition and the employment incident.8

The only medical evidence submitted in support of appellant’s claim was a December 15, 

2016 St. Anthony Hospital diagnostic report. Dr. Beam’s report fails to establish a firm medical 

diagnosis and provides no support for an injury as the physician reported that an x-ray of the left 

foot revealed unremarkable examination findings.

9

 The physician merely interpreted diagnostic 

findings and did not describe, explain, or diagnose a compensable medical condition.

10

 The 

opinion of a physician supporting a firm medical diagnosis and causal relationship must rest on a 

complete factual and medical background supported by affirmative evidence, address the specific 

factual and medical evidence of record, and provide medical rationale explaining the nature of 

the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor of 

employment.11 While Dr. Beam’s report establishes that appellant sought treatment on the date 

of the accepted employment incident, the report does not constitute probative medical evidence 

 

5

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.110(a); John M. Tornello, 35 ECAB 234 (1983).

6

James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

7

See Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004).

8

Supra note 6. 

9

J.P., Docket No. 14-87 (issued March 14, 2014).

10 S.Y., Docket No. 11-1816 (issued March 16, 2012).

11 See Lee R. Haywood, 48 ECAB 145 (1996).
4

because he fails to provide a clear diagnosis and does not adequately explain the cause of any 

medical condition.

12

 

The Board notes that the underlying issue in this case was whether appellant sustained an

injury causally related to the accepted December 15, 2016 employment incident. That is a 

medical issue which must be addressed by relevant medical evidence.13 As such, the Form SF50 and the official position description for a sheet metal mechanic are irrelevant to his claim as 

OWCP accepted that the employment incident occurred as alleged.

The Board has held that the mere fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference of causal relation.14 An award of compensation may not 

be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on the employee’s own belief of causal

relation.15 In the instant case, appellant has established that the December 15, 2016 incident 

occurred as alleged. He has failed, however, to establish an injury causally related to the 

accepted December 15, 2016 employment incident. Thus, appellant has failed to meet his

burden of proof.

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.606 and 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish a left foot

injury causally related to the accepted December 15, 2016 employment incident.

 

12 Ceferino L. Gonzales, 32 ECAB 1591 (1981).

13 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004).

14 Daniel O. Vasquez, 57 ECAB 559 (2006).

15 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 31, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 2, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board