United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

SUSTAINMENT COMMAND,

Ansbach, Germany, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1384

Issued: October 25, 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 June 6, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 3, 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 that a right eye injury 

causally related to the accepted February 10, 2017 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 9, 2017 appellant, then a 58-year-old material handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 10, 2017 he sustained loss of vision in his right eye 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

when he was moving a storage cabinet which came off the pallet jack and it pinned him to the 

wall, causing him to hit his head.2 He stopped work and first received medical care on the date 

of injury. Appellant returned to work on February 27, 2017. In support of his claim, he 

submitted various medical bills.

By letter dated March 21, 2017, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to support his claim. Appellant was advised of the medical and factual evidence 

needed and was afforded 30 days to respond.

3

In a February 24, 2017 medical report, Dr. G. Gitsioudis, a treating physician, reported 

that appellant had his heart checked via a magnetic resonance imaging scan.4 He reported 

findings of normal-sized left hypertrophied ventricle with a slightly reduced systolic pump 

function without any regional heart wall abnormalities, normal-sized left and right atrium, and 

normal-sized residual lung volume. Dr. Gitsioudis further noted detection of atypical lategadolinium enhancement basal inferolateral. He found no indication for an exercised-induced 

coronary insufficiency and concluded that the medical findings were in accordance with 

appellant’s age and corresponded to a hypertensive cardiomyopathy.

In a March 21, 2017 medical report, Dr. Med A. Bergua, a treating physician, reported 

that appellant presented for a follow-up examination of primary optic atrophy in the right eye 

from a February 17, 2017 central retinal arterial occlusion. He noted no signs of 

neovascularizations when the intraocular tension was regulated. As such, Dr. Bergua could not 

offer measures which would improve the visual acuity apart from the regular ophthalmological 

controls.5

By decision dated May 3, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence of record failed to establish that his diagnosed eye condition was causally related to the 

accepted February 10, 2017 employment incident.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6has 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 

 

2 On the date of injury appellant was employed at an employing establishment facility in Germany. 

3 OWCP notified appellant that any medical reports submitted should be translated to English.

4 The medical credentials of the physicians in Germany could not be verified. 

5 The Board notes that the original medical reports were dictated in German and translated to English. 

6

Supra note 1.
3

employment injury.7 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.8

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.9 The second 

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

established only by medical evidence. 

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

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

opinion evidence supporting such causal relationship.10 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 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.11

ANALYSIS

OWCP accepted that the February 10, 2017 employment incident occurred as alleged.

The issue, therefore, is whether the medical evidence of record is sufficient to establish that the 

employment incident caused a right eye injury. 

The Board finds that appellant had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to support 

that his right eye condition was causally related to the accepted February 10, 2017 employment 

incident.

12

 

Dr. Gitsioudis’ February 24, 2017 medical report is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claims as the findings within the report are related to treatment and examination for a cardiac 

 

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

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

9 Elaine Pendleton, supra note 7.

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

11 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

12 See Robert Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004).
4

condition. As appellant has alleged a work-related right eye injury, this report is of no probative 

value pertaining to this February 10, 2017 employment incident.

13

The only other medical report submitted was Dr. Bergua’s March 21, 2017 report. While

Dr. Bergua provided a firm medical diagnosis of primary optic atrophy in the right eye, he failed 

to discuss appellant’s medical history or provide any opinion on the cause of injury. The Board 

has held that medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of limited probative value.14 Dr. Bergua made no mention of the 

February 10, 2017 employment incident and failed to provide any details pertaining to the 

incident alleged to have caused appellant’s injury. Without mention of the February 10, 2017 

employment incident, any findings made could not be related to his claim to establish causal 

relationship.15 The Board has held that a physician must provide a narrative description of the 

identified employment incident and a reasoned opinion on whether the employment incident 

described caused or contributed to the diagnosed medical condition.16 As Dr. Bergua failed to 

relate appellant’s right eye injury to the February 10, 2017 employment incident, his opinion is 

of limited probative value and insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.17 

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on 

the employee’s own belief of causal relation.18 Appellant’s honest belief that the February 10, 

2017 employment incident caused his medical injury, however, sincerely held, does not 

constitute the medical evidence necessary to establish causal relationship.19 

In the instant case, the record lacks rationalized medical evidence establishing causal 

relationship between the February 10, 2017 employment incident and his diagnosed right eye 

primary optic atrophy. 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. §§ 10.605 and 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a right eye 

injury causally related to the February 10, 2017 employment incident, as alleged. 

 

13 J.S., Docket No. 15-1618 (issued March 7, 2016).

14 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).

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

16 John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003).

17 Supra note 15.

18 D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).

19 See J.S., Docket No. 17-0507 (issued August 11, 2017).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’

decision dated May 3, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: October 25, 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