United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.B., JR, Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, H. 

JOHN HEINZ III VETERANS 

ADMINISTRATION, Pittsburgh, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0444 

Issued: May 5, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 20, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 18, 2016 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an occupational 

disease in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 22, 2016 appellant, then a 63-year-old housekeeping aid, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed light-headedness on 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

September 9, 2016 due to fumes in the environment. He first realized his condition was caused 

or aggravated by his federal employment on September 15, 2016. 

In a letter dated October 12, 2016, OWCP requested additional factual and medical 

evidence in support of appellant’s claim. It noted that the evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that appellant actually experienced the employment factors alleged to have caused 

injury and that no diagnosis of any condition resulting from appellant’s employment had been 

provided. OWCP requested that appellant complete an attached questionnaire identifying the 

particulars of the claimed exposure, to include where the exposure occurred, the manner of the 

exposure, when the exposure occurred, the identity of the substance to which he had exposure, 

and the names of any others who may have had exposure. OWCP afforded 30 days for a 

response. No response was received from appellant. 

 The employing establishment responded to OWCP’s request for information and 

provided appellant’s position description. Appellant’s supervisor indicated that appellant 

normally cleans administrative areas and patient care walk-in areas. On September 14, 2016 he 

asked appellant to help a coworker with parts of the patient care floors and emphasized that 

appellant was not to work in the biohazardous waste areas. Appellant reported he was dizzy and 

light-headed within a half an hour after beginning tasks on the patient care floor, and sought 

medical treatment via ambulance. Appellant’s supervisor also noted that appellant was provided 

with N-95 masks, that he was not exposed to biohazardous trash or waste. 

By decision dated November 18, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim finding that he had failed to establish the factual component of fact of injury as he 

provided no details of his alleged work exposure, such as the location and source of his exposure, 

how he was exposed, and the dates and length of each exposure. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

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

evidence, including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United States” within the 

meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time limitation period 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.2 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.3

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”4 To establish that an injury 

was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant must 

 2 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994). 

3 P.W., Docket No. 10-2402 (issued August 5, 2011); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 
3

submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have 

caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical 

evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which 

compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the employment factors 

identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which compensation is 

claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is 

causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.5

 

Appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of a detailed description of the 

employment factors or conditions which he believes caused or adversely affected a condition for 

which compensation is claimed.6

ANALYSIS 

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

occupational disease causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

Appellant filed an occupational disease claim alleging that on September 9, 2015 he 

developed light-headedness due to exposure to fumes while cleaning in the performance of his 

federal job duties. He did not submit any additional factual evidence in support of his 

occupational disease claim. Appellant did not respond to OWCP’s request for additional 

description of his employment exposures. As noted, appellant has the burden of proof to submit 

a detailed description of the employment factors or conditions that he believes caused or 

adversely affected the condition or conditions for which he claims compensation.7 The Board 

finds that he failed to respond to OWCP’s request that he describe in greater detail the work 

factors alleged to have caused or contributed to light headedness or further specify and describe 

his claimed fume exposure at specific times and places. 

Consequently, the Board finds that appellant has failed to sufficiently identify 

employment activities alleged to have caused or contributed to his claimed conditions to meet his 

burden of proof.8 As appellant has not established an employment factor or exposure alleged to 

have caused an injury, it is unnecessary to consider the medical evidence with respect to causal 

relationship.9

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. 

 5 See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005). 

6 Lori A. Facey, 55 ECAB 217 (2004); J.C., Docket No. 16-1663 (issued January 18, 2017); P.G., Docket No. 15-

1345 (issued August 23, 2016). 

7 See id.; see also J.D., Docket No. 12-0073 (issued May 10, 2012); Penelope C. Owens, 54 ECAB 684 (2003). 

8 J.C., supra note 6; R.Z., Docket No. 13-1911 (issued September 15, 2014). 

9 See id.; Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006). 
4

CONCLUSION 

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

occupational disease in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 18, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 5, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board