United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

DEFENSE AGENCIES, EDWARDS AIR 

FORCE BASE, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1677

Issued: December 27, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 1, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 10, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a right elbow and arm 

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

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 Appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal after OWCP rendered its May 10, 2017 decision. The 

Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. 

Therefore, this additional evidence cannot be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 30, 2017 appellant, then a 49-year-old store checker, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, while unloading and restocking cans onto shelves for four 

hours on December 15, 2016, she developed right lateral epicondylitis and myofascial tender 

points in her right arm. She did not stop work.

In an April 5, 2017 letter, OWCP advised appellant to submit additional information

including a comprehensive medical report from her treating physician providing a reasoned

explanation as to how the specific work factors or incidents identified by appellant had

contributed to her claimed injury. It allotted appellant 30 days to submit the requested 

evidence. No additional evidence was received.

In a May 10, 2017 decision, OWCP accepted that the December 15, 2016 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied the claim finding that appellant failed to 

submit medical evidence sufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related

to the accepted work incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has 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 of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that 

any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

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

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

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 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.5

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, 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 claimant.6

 

3

Supra note 1.

4 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

5

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

6

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
3

ANALYSIS

It is undisputed that on December 15, 2016 appellant was performing her store checker 

duties, which included unloading and restocking cans onto shelves for four hours. However, the 

Board finds that she has failed to submit medical evidence establishing that this work incident 

caused or aggravated a right elbow and arm injury.

In a letter dated April 5, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant submit a comprehensive 

report from her treating physician which included a reasoned explanation as to how the accepted 

work incident had caused her claimed injury. However, no medical evidence was submitted

prior to OWCP’s decision of May 10, 2017. Consequently, the Board finds that appellant did 

not meet her burden of proof by submitting medical evidence to OWCP establishing that her 

work duties caused or contributed to her diagnosed medical condition.

As noted, part of appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of rationalized

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

causal relationship between the employment incident and the diagnosed condition.7 The record

contains no medical evidence. Because appellant has not submitted reasoned medical evidence

explaining how and why her right elbow and right arm condition was employment related, she 

has not met her 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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish a right elbow 

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

 

7

See id.
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 10, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 27, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board