United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

MID-ATLANTIC, Norfolk, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1929

Issued: February 13, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 12, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 16, 2017 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on June 27, 2017, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The record provided the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its August 16, 2017 decision. 

The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its 

final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Therefore, evidence not before OWCP at the time of the August 16, 2017 

decision will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal. Id. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 10, 2017 appellant, then a 45-year-old rigger, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that he injured his mid-back in the performance of duty on June 27, 2017. 

The injury reportedly occurred at 9:00 a.m. on Pier 12 while he was attempting to untie a line to 

a yard (“YD”) crane.3 The cause of injury was described as “trying to untie [yard] crane to move 

from Pier 12 ... felt I pulled a muscle in back.” V.C., an agency reviewer, signed the Form CA-1 

on appellant’s behalf.4 She also acknowledged that he was in the performance of duty at the 

time, and that the injury was not the result of appellant’s willful misconduct. Additionally, V.C. 

indicated that her knowledge regarding the facts about the injury was in agreement with 

statements of the employee and/or witnesses. Appellant first received medical care on June 27, 

2017 but, according to V.C., the medical reports did not show that appellant was disabled for 

work. Lastly, she challenged appellant’s entitlement to continuation of pay (COP), noting that 

the condition may not have been the result of a work-related incident. V.C. further noted that no 

supporting medical documentation had been provided.

On June 27, 2017 appellant received treatment at the employing establishment’s health 

clinic. Dr. Laura C. Kellogg, a Board-certified family practitioner, checked a box marked “Yes” 

indicating an occupational injury related to federal employment. She noted that appellant could 

return to his permanent job on July 1, 2017 and indicated, in the “remarks/diagnosis” portion of 

the report, “Back strain -- no work until Saturday July 1, 2017. Rest, ice, heat, [prescription] 

medications as directed.”

5

In a June 30, 2017 report, Dr. Roderick R. MacKinnon, an attending Board-certified 

internist, noted that appellant had been under his care beginning June 30, 2017. He further 

advised that appellant would be able to return to work on July 10, 2017. 

In a July 11, 2017 development letter, OWCP indicated that the documentation received 

to date had been reviewed, and noted that it was insufficient to support appellant’s claim. First, 

it explained that the evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant actually experienced the 

incident or employment factor alleged to have caused injury. Additionally, OWCP explained 

that no diagnosis of any condition resulting from his injury had been provided. Lastly, it noted 

that the record was devoid of a physician’s opinion as to how appellant’s injury resulted in the 

condition which had been diagnosed. OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

evidence in support of his claim, including a physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation as to how the reported work incident caused or aggravated a medical condition. It

also requested that, within 30 days, appellant complete and return an attached questionnaire,

which posed various questions regarding the circumstances of the claimed June 27, 2017 

employment incident, and whether appellant had any similar disability or symptoms before the 

alleged injury. OWCP also advised that the employing establishment was controverting the 

claim, asserting that the condition may not be related to appellant’s work duties and that he did 

 

3 Appellant’s regular work hours were 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

4 Appellant’s immediate supervisor was identified as R.S. However, V.C. signed the Form CA-1 on behalf of 

both appellant and his immediate supervisor.

5 On the same dispensary permit form report, appellant’s supervisor, R.S., listed the date of injury as June 27, 

2017 and checked a box marked “Yes” indicating an occupational injury.
3

not have supporting medical documentation. It specifically requested that appellant respond to 

the employing establishment’s remarks.

The record does not indicate that OWCP received a response to its July 11, 2017 

development letter.

In an August 16, 2017 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a June 27, 2017 

employment-related back injury. It noted that appellant had established that he was a federal 

civilian employee who filed a timely claim, that the injury, accident, or employment factor 

occurred, and that a medical condition had been diagnosed in connection with the injury or 

event. OWCP further found, however, that appellant’s claim for a June 27, 2017 employment 

injury was denied because he failed to establish that his claimed injury occurred in the 

performance of duty.6 It noted that appellant had not responded to its development letter.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA7 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 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 and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 

causally related to the employment injury.8 These are the essential elements of each 

compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.9

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.10 Second, the employee must submit 

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

personal injury.11

 

6 OWCP noted that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the injury and/or medical condition arose during 

the course of employment and within the scope of compensable work factors. In addition, it also determined that 

appellant did not submit medical evidence establishing a medical condition causally related to the work injury or 

event.

7 See supra note 2.

8 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). A traumatic injury refers to an injury 

caused by a specific event or incident or series of incidents occurring within a single workday or work shift whereas an 

occupational disease refers to an injury produced by employment factors which occur or are present over a period 

longer than a single workday or work shift. 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5 (q), (ee); Brady L. Fowler, 44 ECAB 343, 351 (1992).

10 Julie B. Hawkins, 38 ECAB 393 (1987).

11 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
4

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 claimant.12

ANALYSIS

On July 10, 2017 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging a work-related injury to 

his mid-back on June 27, 2017. The incident reportedly occurred on premises at Pier 12 at 9:00 

a.m. The Form CA-1 described the cause of injury as “trying to untie [yard] crane to move from 

Pier 12 ... felt I pulled a muscle in back.” The employing establishment did not question the 

circumstances of the claimed June 27, 2017 employment incident, nor did it dispute that 

appellant was in the performance of duty at the time of his alleged injury. However, it 

challenged entitlement to COP, noting that the condition may not be the result of a work-related 

incident because no supporting medical documentation had been provided. 

In an August 16, 2017 decision, OWCP found that appellant established both components 

of fact of injury, but it denied his traumatic injury claim because he failed to establish that his 

injury occurred in the performance of duty.13 As noted, the employing establishment did not 

challenge whether appellant was in the performance of duty at the time of his alleged injury, and 

there is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise.

OWCP accepted that appellant established the factual component of fact of injury with 

respect to his claim for a mid-back injury on June 27, 2017.14 The Board finds that he

established the occurrence of an employment incident on June 27, 2017 in the form of attempting 

to untie a yard crane. However, appellant’s claim for injury is denied because he failed to 

establish the medical component of fact of injury. He did not submit any medical evidence 

establishing that the employment incident caused a personal injury.15

In a June 27, 2017 dispensary permit report, Dr. Kellogg noted that appellant could return 

to his permanent job on July 1, 2017 and indicated, in the “remarks/diagnosis” portion of the 

report, “Back strain -- no work until Saturday July 1, 2017....” Although Dr. Kellogg diagnosed 

 

12 See I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

13 FECA provides for the payment of compensation for the disability or death of an employee resulting from 

personal injury sustained “while in the performance of his duty.” 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). In order to be covered, an 

injury must occur at a time when the employee may reasonably be said to be engaged in his master’s business, at a 

place when he may reasonably be expected to be in connection with his employment, and while he was reasonably 

fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto. Roma A. MortensonKindschi, 57 ECAB 418 (2006).

14 See supra note 10.

15 See supra note 11. The Board notes that its basis for denying appellant’s claimed June 27, 2017 employment 

injury differs from that of OWCP. The Board is denying appellant’s claim because he failed to establish the medical 

component of fact of injury, whereas OWCP denied his claim for failure to establish that the claimed injury occurred 

in the performance of duty. See supra note 8.
5

back strain, she did not relate this specific diagnosis to the employment factor established by 

appellant, i.e., attempting to untie a crane and falling on June 27, 2017.16 

In a June 30, 2017 report, Dr. MacKinnon noted that appellant had been under his care 

since June 30, 2017, and indicated that he could return to work on July 10, 2017. He did not 

describe the June 27, 2017 employment incident, but diagnosed a back strain. 

OWCP previously advised appellant of the deficiencies in the above-noted evidence and 

afforded him an opportunity to submit additional medical evidence to support his claim for an 

employment-related back condition. However, appellant did not avail himself of that 

opportunity in a timely fashion. For these reasons, he has not met his burden of proof to 

establish an injury causally related to the accepted June 27, 2017 employment incident.

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 met his burden of proof to establish that he was in the 

performance of duty as alleged, but has not established an injury causally related to the accepted 

June 27, 2017 employment incident.

 

16 On the same report appellant’s supervisor listed the date of injury as June 27, 2017. However, Dr. Kellogg did 

not list a date of injury or provide any description of the June 27, 2017 employment incident.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 16, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed as modified.

Issued: February 13, 2018

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