United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1653

Issued: March 12, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 21, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 8, 2018 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.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the August 8, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to evidence in the case record that was 

before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for 

the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this evidence for the 

first time on appeal. Id.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an October 5, 2017 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 2, 2017 appellant, then a 40-year-old department of defense civilian, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 5, 2017 he sustained a herniated L4-5 

disc while jogging and running sprints while in the performance of duty. A witness, J.R., verified 

that he was working out with appellant on October 5, 2017 when appellant felt sharp lower back 

pain. Appellant stopped work on November 15, 2017.

In support of his claim appellant submitted an October 25, 2017 magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan which noted findings of L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 disc protrusions. OWCP also 

received an October 26, 2017 receipt from Touchstone Imaging in the amount of $527.45, a signed 

statement of understanding conditions of assignment to deployment ready designation regarding 

GSB billets, and a business card for Dr. Randall F. Dryer, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. 

By development letter dated June 15, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that the only 

evidence received with his CA-1 form was the October 26, 2017 MRI scan, and the miscellaneous 

unrelated documents. It informed him that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish his 

claim and requested additional factual and medical evidence. Appellant was provided a 

questionnaire on which OWCP asked him to provide a description of his alleged injury and an 

explanation as to where he was and what he was doing at the time of his alleged injury. He was 

afforded 30 days to provide the necessary evidence.

In a separate letter dated June 15, 2018, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

provide additional information regarding the circumstances of appellant’s alleged October 5, 2017 

employment injury. It requested a copy of his position description and physical requirements of 

his position. OWCP also inquired if appellant was participating in an employee physical fitness 

plan (PFP). The employing establishment was also afforded 30 days to respond.

No response was received from appellant or the employing establishment.

By decision dated August 8, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim 

finding that he had not submitted factual evidence sufficient to establish that the October 5, 2017

employment incident occurred, as alleged. 

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 

 

3 Supra note 1.
3

disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 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 must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established.6 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.7 Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an October 5, 

2017 traumatic injury in the performance of duty, as alleged.

Appellant has not adequately describe the circumstances of his injury, including how 

jogging and running sprints was incidental to the performance of his employment duties, and how 

this activity caused his alleged condition. To establish that an injury occurred at the time, place,

and in the manner alleged, it is appellant’s burden to clearly describe the mechanism of injury.9 

However, appellant failed to do so. 

By development letter dated June 15, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant respond to its 

questionnaire and provide detailed information describing the alleged employment incident he 

believed contributed to his lumbar condition. However, appellant did not complete and return the 

questionnaire and there is no statement in the record from him describing the specific alleged 

employment-related incident.10 In addition, the record is devoid of medical evidence containing a 

history of injury or a medical diagnosis due to the alleged October 5, 2017 incident. 

The Board finds that the record lacks sufficient factual evidence to establish specific details 

of how the claimed injury occurred. 

 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

5 See C.R., Docket No. 18-1332 (issued February 13, 2019); S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007). 

6 See C.C., Docket No. 17-1722 (issued July 5, 2018); B.F., Docket No. 09-0060 (issued March 17, 2009).

7 D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005).

8 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008); D.G., 59 ECAB 734 (2008); Bonnie A. Contreras, 

supra note 4.

9

Id.

10 See D.C., Docket No. 18-0082 (issued July 12, 2018).
4

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 met his burden of proof to establish an October 5, 2017 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 8, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 12, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board