United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.L., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

YAKAMA NATION TRIBAL FORESTRY, 

Toppenish, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-14 

Issued: March 10, 2015 

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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 2, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of the September 9, 2014 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 merit decision of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof in establishing that he 

sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 30, 2013 appellant then a 46-year-old forestry wildland firefighter, filed a CA-1, 

notice of traumatic injury, alleging that, on July 29, 2013, he hyperextended his left knee while 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

extinguishing a fire and walking on deep ash, rocks, and unstable ground. He did not stop work. 

In a statement on the CA-1, Arnold Eyle noted that when he met up with appellant he was told 

that appellant hyperextended his left knee. 

In an August 1, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant to submit additional information 

including a comprehensive medical report from his treating physician which included a reasoned 

explanation as to how the specific work factors or incidents identified by appellant had 

contributed to his claimed injury. It requested the employing establishment submit any treatment 

notes if appellant was treated by an agency medical facility. No additional evidence was 

received. 

In a September 9, 2014 decision, OWCP denied the claim on the grounds that appellant 

did not submit medical evidence establishing that a medical condition was diagnosed in 

connection with the claimed event or work factors. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing 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 

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. These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or occupational disease.2

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 actually experienced the employment incident at 

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

evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.3

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, 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.4

 2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

3

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

4 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
3

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that, on July 29, 2013, he hyperextended his left knee while 

extinguishing a fire and walking on deep ash, rocks, and unstable ground. The Board finds that 

there is no dispute that the incident occurred on July 29, 2013 as alleged. 

The Board finds, however, that there is no medical evidence submitted to establish that 

appellant sustained a left knee injury causally related to his employment duties. In a letter dated 

August 1, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional evidence in support of his 

claim, specifically a comprehensive medical report from his treating physician which included a 

reasoned explanation as to how the specific work factors or incidents identified by appellant had 

caused his claimed injury. However, no medical evidence was submitted prior to the OWCP 

decision of September 9, 2014. 

As noted, part of appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of rationalized 

medical opinion evidence, based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such 

a causal relationship between the employment incident and the diagnosed condition. The record 

contains no medical evidence. Because appellant has not submitted reasoned medical evidence 

explaining how and why his left knee condition was employment related, he has not met his 

burden of proof. 

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.5 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is 

medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there 

is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated 

employment factors. 

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, or speculation. 

Neither the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor 

the belief that his condition was caused, precipitated, or aggravated by his employment is 

sufficient to establish causal relationship. Causal relationships must be established by 

rationalized medical opinion evidence.6 Appellant failed to submit such evidence, and OWCP 

therefore properly denied his claim for compensation. 

On appeal appellant disagrees with OWCP’s decision denying his claim for 

compensation. He explained the facts surrounding his claim noting that he received medical 

treatment at the base camp and a local hospital. As noted above, part of appellant’s burden of 

proof includes the submission of rationalized medical opinion evidence, supporting a causal 

relationship between the employment incident and the diagnosed condition. 

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

 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

6

 See Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that his 

claimed condition was causally related to his employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 9, 2014 decision of Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 10, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board