United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG 

ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, 

Springfield, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1041

Issued: October 25, 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 April 24, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 19, 2017 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) and a March 29, 2018 nonmerit 

decision. 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to the accepted November 2, 2017 employment incident; and (2) whether OWCP 

properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§ 8128(a).

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 2, 2017 appellant, then a 27-year-old basic agent trainee, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he experienced tunnel vision, near syncope, shortness of 

breath, and numbness of the arms and chin while running during a training program. The 

employing establishment did not controvert the claim.

By development letter dated November 8, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional factual and medical information in support of his claim, including a report from his 

attending physician addressing causal relationship between any diagnosed condition and the 

identified work factor. It afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Appellant received treatment at an emergency department on November 2, 2017. A 

physician assistant noted that he had a history of an upper respiratory illness over the prior week. 

Appellant began experiencing weakness and dyspnea while running. At the end of three miles he 

was “breathing very heavy, had tingling in both hands, and was near syncopal.” The physician 

assistant diagnosed near syncope, an abnormal electrocardiogram (EKG), an acute upper 

respiratory infection, and orthostasis. Dr. Coleen Rickabaugh, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, reviewed and cosigned the report. She advised against strenuous activity pending 

evaluation by a cardiologist.

In a report dated November 8, 2017, Dr. Harish R. Chandra, a Board-certified internist, 

obtained a history of appellant nearly fainting while engaged in physical training at work, noting 

that his “work made him go to the [emergency department].” He had taken medication for a cold 

and suspected dehydration. Dr. Chandra diagnosed syncope and collapse. He found that the 

diagnosed conditions most likely resulted from dehydration due to his upper respiratory infection 

and the cold medication that he had taken for these symptoms. Dr. Chandra indicated that his EKG 

was slightly abnormal and recommended further testing, noting that appellant could not resume 

work “unless he can get unrestricted return to work clearance.” 

By decision dated December 19, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. 

It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to show that he sustained a diagnosed 

condition causally related to the accepted work incident.

Subsequent to its decision, OWCP again received the November 2, 2017 report from the 

emergency department. 

On March 21, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. He asserted that he was 

submitting a report from his attending physician with a diagnosis and a report from the medical 

staff at the employing establishment.

By decision dated March 29, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

as he had not raised an argument or submitted evidence sufficient to warrant reopening his case 

for further review of the merits under section 8128(a). 

On appeal appellant asserts that the emergency department physician diagnosed orthostasis 

and found that it was aggravated by his employment. He notes that he has submitted paperwork 
3

from a physician at the employing establishment correlating her findings. Appellant requests 

payment of his medical expenses.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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.3 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.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 he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time, place, and in the manner alleged.5 Second, the employee must submit medical evidence to 

establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

Causal relationship is a medical question that generally requires rationalized medical 

opinion evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must 

be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the specific employment factor(s).9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to the accepted November 2, 2017 employment incident. 

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

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

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

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

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

7 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 2006.

8

J.J., Docket No. 09-0027 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006).

9

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

OWCP accepted that the November 2, 2017 employment incident occurred as alleged. 

However, it denied the claim because appellant had not submitted sufficient medical evidence 

supporting that he sustained a medical diagnosis in connection with the claimed November 2, 2017 

employment injury. 

In an emergency department report dated November 2, 2017, a physician assistant 

discussed appellant’s history of dyspnea, weakness, shortness of breath, ringing in his hands, and 

near syncope during a training run. She noted that for the week prior he had suffered from an 

upper respiratory infection. The physician assistant diagnosed near syncope, an abnormal EKG, 

an acute upper respiratory infection, and osteostasis. Dr. Rickabaugh cosigned the report. She did 

not, however, address the cause of the diagnosed conditions. Medical evidence that does not offer 

an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of 

causal relationship.10 

On November 8, 2017 Dr. Chandra indicated that appellant had near syncope while 

performing physical training, noting that he had taken medication for a cold. He diagnosed 

syncope and collapse most likely due to dehydration from his upper respiratory infection and use 

of medication. Dr. Chandra also found that appellant had an abnormal EKG and recommended 

additional testing. He did not attribute a specific diagnosed condition to the accepted November 2, 

2017 work activity of running during a training program, and thus his opinion is insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Appellant has the burden of proof to submit rationalized medical evidence establishing that 

he sustained an injury causally related to the accepted November 2, 2017 employment incident.11 

He failed to submit such evidence and thus has not met his burden of proof.12

On appeal appellant requests payment of medical expenses. The Board notes that OWCP’s 

implementing regulations allow for authorization of medical treatment in emergency 

circumstances. While 20 C.F.R. § 10.300 explains that authorization of emergency medical 

treatment is usually provided by issuance of a Form CA-16, section 10.304 allows for authorization 

of emergency treatment, in the absence of a Form CA-16, in cases involving emergencies or 

unusual circumstances.13 While there was no Form CA-16 issued in this case, Dr. Chandra noted 

that “work made him go to the [emergency department].” Upon return of the case record, after 

such development deemed necessary, OWCP shall adjudicate whether his treatment on 

November 2, 2017 should be authorized due to an emergency or unusual circumstances.14

 

10 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

11 See D.T., docket No. 17-1734 (issued January 18, 2018).

12 See D.S., Docket No. 18-0061 (issued May 29, 2018).

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.304; N.B., Docket No. 15-0708 (issued July 15, 2015); K.J., Docket No. 13-271 (issued 

May 23, 2013).

14 See S.D., Docket No. 16-1394 (issued January 26, 2017).
5

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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award for 

or against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.15

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument that: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; 

or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.16

A request for reconsideration must also be received by OWCP within one year of the date 

of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.17 If OWCP chooses to grant reconsideration, it 

reopens and reviews the case on its merits.18 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one 

of the requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s timely request for reconsideration 

of the merits of his claim pursuant to section 8128(a). The underlying issue is whether he 

submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish an injury causally related to the accepted 

November 2, 2017 employment incident.

In support of his request for reconsideration, appellant did not contend that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law or advance a relevant legal argument not 

previously considered. He asserted that he was submitting a report from the medical staff at the 

employing establishment, but such medical evidence is not contained in the case record. Appellant 

resubmitted the November 2, 2017 emergency department report. Evidence which repeats or 

duplicates evidence already of record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for 

reopening a case.20

 

15 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010).

17 Id. at § 10.607(a).

18 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

19 Id. at § 10.608(b); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010).

20 See J.P., 58 ECAB 289 (2007); Richard Yadron, 57 ECAB 207 (2005).
6

The Board accordingly finds that appellant’s request for reconsideration did not meet any 

of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly 

denied merit review.21

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury 

causally related to the accepted November 2, 2017 employment incident. The Board further finds 

that OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 29, 2018 and December 19, 2017 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: October 25, 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

 

21 See R.C., Docket No. 17-1314 (issued November 3, 2017) (when an application for reconsideration does not meet 

at least one of the three requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b)(2), OWCP will deny the application for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits).