United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.V., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Salem, OR, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0195

Issued: August 7, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 7, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 28, 2016 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

causally related to an accepted April 13, 2015 employment exposure.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 13, 2015 appellant, then a 49-year-old engineering equipment operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 13, 2015 he developed flu-like 

symptoms, including fever, chills, extreme headache, body ache, light headedness, joint ache, and 

weight loss, as a result of cleaning up roads after storm damage. He explained that he had 

unplugged culverts and had thrown rocks and limbs from the roadway. Appellant related that he 

developed flu-like symptoms that evening and was later admitted to a hospital where he stayed for 

six days. He noted that an emergency room doctor told him that he had Lyme disease. Appellant 

stopped work on April 17, 2015 and returned on May 4, 2015.

In an April 16, 2015 office visit note, Dr. Mahnaz Ahmad, Board-certified in geriatric and 

internal medicine, indicated that appellant had been sick since the prior Sunday and described 

symptoms of fever, positive chills, generalized body ache, nausea, and vomiting. He related that 

appellant “had a lot of pulled pork and felt sick afterwards.” Dr. Ahmad reviewed appellant’s 

history and provided physical examination findings. He noted abnormal laboratory test results. 

Dr. Ahmad opined that appellant had acute onset of gastroenteritis symptoms that could be 

bacterial or viral.

Appellant received treatment in the emergency room. In an April 17, 2015 hospital record,

Dr. Joseph A. Campbell, Board-certified in emergency medicine, related that approximately four 

days prior appellant was at work and experienced insatiable appetite, diffuse myalgia, soreness, 

chills, and headache. He noted that appellant’s primary care physician observed abnormal 

laboratory test results and advised that appellant should be evaluated at a hospital. Dr. Campbell 

reviewed appellant’s history and provided examination findings. He reported that he was 

concerned for possible central nervous system infection, more likely aseptic than bacterial. 

Appellant was admitted to the hospital. 

Dr. Christina Stratis, a Board-certified internist, reported in an April 17, 2015 hospital 

progress note that appellant presented at the emergency room for fever, myalgia, headaches, and 

abnormal laboratory test results by his primary care physician. She indicated that appellant owned 

a farm and worked long hours. Dr. Stratis reviewed appellant’s history and provided physical 

examination findings, including abnormal laboratory test results. 

In an April 18, 2015 hospital progress note, Dr. Amit Anil Barve, a Board-certified 

internist, reiterated appellant’s sudden onset of symptoms four days ago. He noted that appellant 

worked with animals on his farm and recently delivered a baby sheep. Dr. Barve provided 

examination findings and reviewed appellant’s recent laboratory test results. He indicated a 

principal problem of sepsis and differential diagnosis viral illness. The hospital records also 

included various diagnostic and laboratory test results. 
3

Dr. John Gregory Van Eaton, a Board-certified internist, also examined appellant on 

April 18, 2015. He indicated that further evaluation revealed abnormal laboratory findings, 

including elevated liver enzymes and bilirubin. Dr. Van Eaton explained that he was concerned 

about possible leptospirosis as etiology of appellant’s symptoms. He pointed out that appellant 

lived and worked on a farm and had significant contact with a variety of farm animals. 

Dr. Van Eaton recommended treatment with an infectious disease physician. 

In an April 20, 2015 report, Dr. Shane Onion Rogosin, a Board-certified internist 

specializing in hematology and medical oncology, noted that appellant was admitted to the hospital 

for abrupt onset illness and referred to hematology due to abnormal blood count findings. He 

evaluated appellant’s laboratory test results and explained that his hepatic abnormalities also raised 

the question of chronic liver disease. Dr. Rogosin opined that appellant’s abnormal blood count 

was “most likely reflective of an acute inflammatory process, possibly infection.” He 

recommended further testing to rule out the possibility of leukemia, lymphoma, or other infiltrative 

disorders. 

On April 21, 2015 appellant was discharged from the hospital. In a discharge summary 

report, Dr. Sun Jung Park, a Board-certified internist specializing in pulmonary disease and critical 

care, indicated that appellant had a possible viral illness and electrolyte abnormality. He reported 

that appellant worked long hours and owned a farm with horses, goats, sheep, donkeys, chickens, 

turkeys, dogs, and cats. Dr. Park related that a few days prior to the development of symptoms, 

appellant delivered a baby calf. He noted that approximately four days later appellant experienced

a high-grade fever, soreness, and chills. Dr. Park reviewed the medical treatment appellant 

received, including various diagnostic and lab test results. He reported that appellant had febrile 

illness with sepsis, clear organism and hyponatremia. Dr. Park recommended an infectious disease 

follow-up and discharged appellant with a prescription of doxycycline for his infection. 

Appellant sought follow-up treatment with Dr. Ahmad. In a narrative report dated 

April 23, 2015, he noted that appellant had been hospitalized the prior week for abnormal liver 

enzymes, hyperbilirubinemia, and thrombocytopenia. Dr. Ahmad indicated that because appellant 

worked on a farm and handled a variety of farm animals, he was prescribed doxycycline. He noted 

that since starting on doxycycline, appellant had resolution of fever, joint pain, and body ache. 

Dr. Ahmad reviewed appellant’s history and provided physical examination findings. He 

diagnosed headache and gastrointestinal infections. Dr. Ahmad remarked that the source of 

infection was unclear. 

On April 24, 2015 appellant visited a different hospital emergency room for treatment

because he continued to feel sick. In a hospital record dated April 24, 2015, Dr. Brandon Beckley, 

Board-certified in emergency medicine, related appellant’s complaints of fatigue and malaise and 

abnormal laboratory test results by his primary care physician. He diagnosed nonspecific elevation 

levels of transaminase or lactic acid dehydrogenase and other malaise and fatigue. In an April 25, 

2015 hospital record, Dr. Beckley reported that appellant’s Lyme screening laboratory test results 

were positive that morning. He indicated that appellant was contacted at home and advised to 

continue with doxycycline oral medication. Dr. Beckley noted that appellant lived and worked on 

a farm in a rural area. 
4

In a June 3, 2015 handwritten clinic form, Dr. Stacey Raffety, a naturopathic doctor,

indicated that on April 13, 2015 appellant went to work and experienced chills, fatigue, fever, and 

overall pain by the end of the day. Appellant noted that on the third day of being sick he pulled 

something off his neck that was crawling on him. Dr. Raffety reported that appellant lived on a 

farm and was exposed to feces. She reviewed appellant’s history and provided physical 

examination findings. Dr. Raffety discussed the standard of care with appellant and his wife. 

By development letter dated September 8, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that his claim 

had been initially accepted and handled administratively as a minor injury but was reopened for 

consideration because his medical bills exceeded $1,500.00. It requested additional medical 

evidence to establish a diagnosed medical condition as a result of alleged work exposure on 

April 13, 2015. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the additional information. 

Appellant provided several medical reports by Dr. Kai Li, a Board-certified internist. In 

examination notes dated August 25 and September 28, 2015, he reported that appellant had a 

recent history of Lyme disease with symptoms now resolved. Dr. Li reviewed appellant’s systems 

and provided physical examination findings. He diagnosed hyperlipidemia and Lyme disease. 

Dr. Li indicated that appellant was off work on the following dates: April 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 

23, and 27 through 30, 2016 for medical reasons. 

Dr. Raffety examined appellant again and in a September 29, 2015 report described the 

April 13, 2015 work incident. She discussed the medical treatment appellant received and 

explained that it was determined that he had a leptospirosis infection. Dr. Raffety explained that 

appellant continued to seek medical treatment because he still felt sick. She reported that his

western blot met the criteria for Lyme disease. Dr. Raffety prescribed another dose of antibiotics 

for two more months. She provided a June 2, 2015 Western Blog laboratory test result report, 

which showed a positive result for Lyme disease. 

Appellant resubmitted his various hospital records dated April 16 to 21, 2015 and

Dr. Ahmad’s April 23, 2015 narrative report. 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim in a decision dated October 14, 2015. It accepted that the 

April 13, 2015 incident of cleaning up roads after storm damage occurred as alleged and that there 

had been a medical diagnosis of Lyme disease. However, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because 

the medical evidence of record failed to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed 

condition and the accepted work exposure. It determined that none of appellant’s physicians 

opined on how any work activity on April 13, 2015 had caused or contributed to appellant’s 

diagnosed condition. 

On November 12, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s request, through counsel, for a 

telephone hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. 

Appellant resubmitted hospital records dated April 17 to 21, 2015. He also submitted 

reports dated November 8 and 9, 2015 by Dr. Francisco X. Soldevilla, a Board-certified 

neurosurgeon, for treatment for lumbar disc herniation. 

Dr. Li continued to treat appellant. In a November 13, 2015 report, he related that appellant 

complained of Lyme disease as a work-related injury and discussed the medical treatment that 
5

appellant had received for his condition. Dr. Li indicated that appellant had recently been seen in 

the emergency room and admitted to the hospital for lower back and left leg pain. He reviewed 

appellant’s history and provided physical examination findings. Dr. Li diagnosed osteoarthritis, 

intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar canal stenosis L3-4 laminectomy and discectomy, lumbar 

radiculopathy, and Lyme disease. 

Appellant began to receive treatment from Dr. Chris Hatlestad, a family practitioner. In a 

March 23, 2016 narrative report, Dr. Hatlestad related appellant’s account that on April 13, 2015 

he developed initial onset of acute severe flu-like symptoms. Appellant indicated that he had been

working in a culvert, clearing brush and operating heavy equipment when he felt something on his 

neck. When he pulled an insect off of his neck, it looked like a tick. Dr. Hatlestad reviewed the 

medical treatment appellant received and noted that appellant had not been diagnosed with Lyme 

disease until three weeks after initial onset. He reviewed appellant’s history and provided physical 

examination findings, including laboratory test results. Dr. Hatlestad diagnosed sequelae of 

infectious and parasitic disease, chronic fatigue, headache, muscle cramp, and Lyme borreliosis. 

He advised that appellant had contracted this from work exposure and the recalled tick on your 

neck. Dr. Hatlestad indicated that there was no generally accepted scientific support for the 

Communicable Disease Control’s (CDC) opinion that a tick needed to be attached for 36 hours 

before transmission could occur. He advised that, following transmission, symptoms may occur 

within several days.

In May 4 and June 27, 2016 follow-up examination reports, Dr. Hatlestad reported overall 

improvement with most of appellant’s symptoms the last two weeks. He provided physical 

examination findings and noted that he reviewed appellant’s urine testing, which was positive for 

Lyme Borrelia. Dr. Hatlestad diagnosed lyme borreliosis, bartonella infection, insomnia, and 

chronic fatigue. He recommended that appellant continue medical treatment for at least three

months beyond resolution of appellant’s symptoms. Dr. Hatlestad provided March 19 and 

April 13, 2016 urine sample test results, which demonstrated the presence of targeted microbials 

that were the causative agent of Lyme disease and other tick-transmitted infections. 

Dr. Hatlestad treated appellant again and in a July 11, 2016 report provided a history of the 

April 13, 2015 work incident and the medical treatment appellant received. He reported that 

testing for Lyme disease and co-infections were positive for Borrelia burgdorferi, bartonella 

bacilliformis, and bartonella henselae. Dr. Hatlestad explained that appellant was very healthy 

prior to the above-described event and had no significant exposure to other infectious illnesses, 

sick persons, or animals with any similar symptoms prior to this event. He opined that the work 

exposure was the direct and proximate cause of the diagnosis. Dr. Hatlestad explained that there 

may be other causes for these medical problems, but one of the causes was clearly the activities of 

work described by appellant.

On July 14, 2016 a telephone hearing was held. Appellant testified regarding his 

employment duties as a heavy equipment operator for the employing establishment. He related 

that on April 13, 2015 he drove about 80 miles to one of the employing establishment’s remote 

areas of storm-damage. Appellant explained that he cleared roadways by throwing brush and limbs 

into a ditch and cleaned culverts with a shovel. He indicated that he began to experience flu-like 

symptoms and about two days into feeling sick he felt something on his neck and pulled it off. 

Appellant noted that he did not know if it was a tick or a spider. He reported that he was 
6

hospitalized a few days later but the doctors were not able to diagnose a medical condition. 

Appellant explained that he continued to feel sick so he sought additional medical treatment. He

indicated that he was admitted to a different hospital where they ran some laboratory test results 

and discovered that he had Lyme disease. Appellant reported that, after getting a medical 

diagnosis, he sought treatment from Dr. Hatlestad because he was known for treating Lyme 

disease. Counsel noted that due to appellant’s employment and his interaction with the outdoors 

there was a likelihood he may have been exposed to fleas, ticks, flies, and other insects and bites 

therefrom. Appellant noted that he knew of other coworkers who contracted Lyme disease while 

working. He stated that he did not believe that he got a tick bite at home because he had lived and 

worked there for most of his life and never seen a tick. 

In an August 10, 2016 statement, R.A., appellant’s supervisor, indicated that he reviewed 

the July 14, 2016 hearing transcript and believed that what appellant had said was true. He 

believed that appellant got bit by a tick while clearing culvert and taking debris off logging roads 

on April 13, 2015. R.A. reported that as a heavy equipment operator for the employing 

establishment appellant performed much manual labor outside. He indicated that the employing 

establishment was finding more and more Lyme disease conditions in the State.

Appellant provided a November 16, 2015 report by Dr. Courtney Day, a naturopathic 

doctor. Dr. Day reviewed appellant’s laboratory test results and diagnosed positive Lyme disease 

serology, fatigue, muscle pain and weakness, headache, peripheral neuralgia, lightheadedness, and 

sleep difficulties. 

Appellant resubmitted Dr. Ahmad’s April 16 and 23, 2015 reports and hospital records 

dated April 17 to 21 and April 24, 2015, including diagnostic testing and laboratory test results. 

By decision dated September 28, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

October 14, 2015 decision. She found that the medical evidence of record failed to establish that 

appellant’s diagnosed condition was causally related to the accepted April 13, 2015 employment 

incident. The hearing representative noted the inconsistency in the factual evidence as to when 

appellant discovered the insect on his neck, and whether it was a tick or a spider. She determined 

that the reports of Dr. Hatlestad lacked medical rationale to establish that the accepted April 13, 

2015 employment incident caused appellant’s Lyme disease. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

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

evidence4including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any 

specific condition or disability from work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.5

 

3 Supra note 2.

4

J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

5 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).
7

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.6 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 and place, and in the manner alleged.7 Second, the employee must submit evidence, generally 

only in the form of probative medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused 

a personal injury.8 An employee may establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged,

but fail to show that his or her disability or condition relates to the employment incident.9

Whether an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty requires the 

submission of rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, 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.11 The weight of the 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.12

ANALYSIS

OWCP accepted that appellant performed work clearing a roadway and cleaning culverts 

on April 13, 2015 and that he had been diagnosed with Lyme disease, but it denied appellant’s 

claim because the medical evidence failed to establish causal relationship between the accepted 

incident and appellant’s medical condition. The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden 

of proof to establish that his diagnosed Lyme disease was due to an insect bite during his accepted 

April 13, 2015 work activity.

Dr. Ahmad initially treated appellant on April 16, 2015. In office visit notes dated April 16 

and 23, 2015, he related that appellant experienced symptoms of fever, positive chills, generalized 

body ache, nausea, and vomiting since the prior Sunday. Dr. Ahmad noted that appellant worked 

on a farm and handled a variety of farm animals. He provided examination findings and indicated 

that appellant had abnormal laboratory test results. Dr. Ahmad diagnosed headache and 

gastrointestinal infections and reported that the source of infection was unclear. The Board notes 

that Dr. Ahmad did not provide any specific medical diagnosis, other than the generalized 

assessment of headache and gastrointestinal infections. The Board finds, therefore, that his 

 

6 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).

7 Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Edward C. Lawrence, 19 ECAB 442 (1968).

8 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

9 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); see also Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418 (2006).

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

11 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005).

12 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).
8

opinion lacked probative value because he failed to provide a firm, medical diagnosis, or any 

explanation as to the cause of appellant’s symptoms.13 Likewise, the hospital records dated 

April 17 to 21, 2015 by various physicians, including Drs. Campbell, Stratis, Barve, Eaton, 

Rogosin, and Park, also failed to establish causal relationship because none of the physicians 

provided a firm, definitive medical diagnosis or opinion on the cause of appellant’s condition.

14

Appellant was first diagnosed with Lyme disease by Dr. Beckley in an April 25, 2015 

hospital record. Dr. Beckley reported that appellant had a positive screening for Lyme disease and 

noted that appellant lived and worked on a farm in a rural area. Although Dr. Beckley diagnosed 

a medical condition and described that appellant lived and worked in a farm, he did not opine as 

to whether appellant’s work exposure on April 13, 2015 caused or contributed to appellant’s 

diagnosed condition. The Board has held that medical evidence which does not offer any opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship.15 Similarly, Drs. Raffety, Li, and Day indicated in reports dated June 3 to 

November 16, 2015 that appellant tested positive for Lyme disease and lived on a farm. They also 

related that he lived and worked on a farm with contact with several animals and that he pulled 

something off his neck that was crawling on him. None of the physicians, however, provided an 

opinion on where or how appellant contracted Lyme disease.

Dr. Hatlestad began to treat appellant on March 23, 2016. In a narrative report, he 

described that on April 13, 2015 appellant worked in a culvert, clearing brush and operating heavy 

equipment and pulled an insect off of his neck, which looked like a tick. Dr. Hatlestad related that 

appellant developed flu-like symptoms later that day. He reviewed appellant’s history and 

provided physical examination findings, including laboratory test results. Dr. Hatlestad diagnosed 

sequelae of infectious and parasitic disease, chronic fatigue, headache, muscle cramp, and Lyme 

borreliosis. He found that appellant contracted this condition from work exposure and the tick on 

his neck. In a July 11, 2016 narrative report, Dr. Hatlestad noted that appellant was healthy prior 

to the above-described event and had no significant exposure to other infectious illnesses, sick 

persons, or animals prior to the work event. He opined that “the facts of injury are the direct and 

proximate cause of the diagnosis ... cited above.” 

The Board notes that Dr. Hatlestad provided a history of injury in July 2016 which does

not correlate with the history of injury appellant provided on his May 13, 2015 claim form, or to

Dr. Rafferty, in June 2015 just after his Lyme disease diagnosis, or to appellant’s hearing 

testimony. Appellant did not note pulling an insect off of his neck on his claim form. He first 

related a history of pulling an insect off of his neck to Dr. Raffety. In her June 3, 2015 report,

Dr. Raffety related that this happened on the third day that appellant was sick. At his OWCP 

hearing appellant testified that he found either a tick or a spider on his body two days after his 

symptoms first developed. However, Dr. Hatlestad related that appellant developed flu-like 

symptoms on the same day that he recalled the tick on his neck. Medical evidence submitted to 

 

13 Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 242 (2005); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

14 Id.

15 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); A.D., 

58 ECAB 149 (2006).
9

support a claim for compensation should reflect a correct history, and the physician should offer a 

medically sound explanation of how the claimed work event caused or aggravated the claimed 

condition.16

A rationalized medical opinion establishing causal relationship is particularly needed in 

this case where the evidence of record has demonstrated that appellant lived on a farm and had

close contact with a variety of animals, including being involved with the delivery of a baby calf 

a few days prior to the symptoms. Dr. Hatlestad’s reports failed to adequately explain how he 

could be sure that appellant’s Lyme disease was due to his workplace exposure of cleaning roads

on April 13, 2015, and not due to other factors such as to exposure to ticks on his farm. These 

reports, therefore, are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.17

The remaining medical reports such as Dr. Azer’s May 7, 2015 report and Dr. Soldevilla’s 

November 8 and 9, 2015 reports also fail to establish appellant’s traumatic injury claim as they 

describe left shoulder and lumbar injuries, which are not relevant to appellant’s current traumatic 

injury claim relating to his Lyme disease condition.

Because the medical evidence submitted by appellant does not establish that the accepted 

April 13, 2015 work exposure caused or contributed to his Lyme disease, appellant has not met his 

burden of proof.

18

On appeal counsel alleged that the OWCP decision assumed facts not in evidence. He 

asserted that exposure and causation were clearly proven and that there was no contradictory 

evidence. However as previously noted, the alleged history of injury was inconsistent as to when 

and where appellant noticed the insect on his neck.

19

 Appellant’s testimony also indicated that he 

was unsure whether the insect was in fact a tick, or a spider. The history of injury therefore was 

inconsistent.

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 a traumatic 

injury causally related to an accepted April 13, 2015 employment exposure.

 

16 P.L., Docket No. 16-1445 (issued January 12, 2017). 

17 See K.M., Docket No. 13-0827 (issued November 25, 2013); Frederick H. Coward Jr., 41 ECAB 843 (1990). 

18 See B.S., Docket No. 16-1122 (issued October 17, 2016).

19 See Quetraila W. Langford, Docket No. 98-0899 (November 19, 1999). Appellant did not meet her burden of 

proof as she provided an inconsistent history as to when she sustained the alleged insect bite. 
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 28, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.20

Issued: August 7, 2018

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

20 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in his decision, but was no longer a member of the Board effective 

December 11, 2017.