United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL ADVISORY CENTER,

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0112

Issued: April 10, 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 October 25, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from May 2 and August 17, 2016 merit 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has established an injury causally related to an accepted 

September 4, 2015 employment incident.

 

1 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its August 17, 2016 

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

decision. Therefore, the Board is precluded from considering this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 

C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 24, 2016 appellant, then a 65-year-old pharmacist, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that, on September 4, 2015, he injured his face and ribs when he tripped 

over wire under a desk and fell. He stopped work on the date of injury and returned to work the

next day. The employing establishment did not controvert the claim.

By letter dated March 28, 2016, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical evidence in support of his claim, including a detailed description of the alleged work 

incident and a comprehensive report from his attending physician addressing causal relationship 

between any diagnosed condition and the identified work incident. It afforded him 30 days to 

submit the requested information.

By decision dated May 2, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding

that he had not established that the September 4, 2015 employment incident occurred as alleged. 

OWCP noted that appellant had not responded to its March 28, 2016 request for additional 

evidence.

On May 19, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. In a May 16, 2016 narrative 

statement, he related that he tripped on a wire sticking out from his desk when he went to pick up 

a folder. Appellant fell and hit his chest and head. He received medical treatment on September 4, 

2015 and believed that it would be paid for by workers’ compensation. Appellant provided an 

unsigned statement from a witness who saw him fall.

By decision dated August 17, 2016, OWCP modified its May 2, 2016 decision to find that 

appellant had factually established the occurrence of the September 4, 2015 employment incident. 

However, the claim remained denied as he had not submitted any supporting medical evidence.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 is causally related to the 

employment injury.4 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.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 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003).

5 See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004).
3

time and place, and in the manner alleged.6 Second, the employee must submit medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

ANALYSIS

Appellant alleged that he sustained an injury to his ribs and head when he tripped over a 

wire under a desk and fell on September 4, 2015. He has established that the September 4, 2015 

incident occurred at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. The issue, consequently, is 

whether the medical evidence of record establishes that he sustained an injury as a result of this 

incident.

The Board finds that appellant has not established that the September 4, 2015 employment 

incident resulted in an injury. Causal relationship is a medical question that must be established 

by a probative medical opinion from a physician.8 OWCP, by letter dated March 28, 2016, 

informed him of the need to submit reasoned medical evidence from his physician describing the 

nature of his injury and its relationship to the September 4, 2015 work incident. Appellant, 

however, did not provide any supporting medical evidence. As noted, he has the burden of proof 

to submit sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate that the employment injury resulted in an 

injury.9 Appellant failed to submit any medical evidence in support of his claim and thus failed to 

meet his burden of proof.10

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established an injury causally related to an accepted 

September 4, 2015 employment incident.

 

6 See Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

7 See T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003).

8 See C.W., Docket No. 17-0399 (issued June 19, 2017).

9 See K.U., Docket No. 17-0798 (issued October 10, 2017).

10 See S.R., Docket No. 17-1087 (issued August 21, 2017).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 17 and May 2, 2016 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: April 10, 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