United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

BUREAU OF ENGRAVING, Washington DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1609

Issued: March 7, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 20, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 26, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a left foot condition 

causally related to the accepted November 14, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 20, 2017 appellant, then a 43-year-old offset pressman, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on November 14, 2017, he injured his left foot while in 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

the performance of duty. He reported that, while walking down steps on a catwalk, he felt pain in 

his left foot which increased throughout the day.

On November 18, 2017 appellant sought treatment from Dr. Taira C. Everett, Boardcertified in internal medicine, and Dr. Peter Su, a Board-certified family practitioner. Neither 

physician found a stress fracture based on x-rays.

On November 18, 2017 Dr. Scott W. Nutter, Board-certified in podiatric medicine and 

surgery, reported that on November 14, 2017 appellant had developed left foot pain while coming 

down a catwalk from the eight-foot press. By the end of the day, he could not walk. Dr. Nutter

found mild edema in appellant’s left forefoot with the maximum pain near his second metatarsal. 

He noted that appellant wore steel-toed shoes. Dr. Nutter diagnosed sprained forefoot and possible 

metatarsal stress fracture. On November 28 and December 8, 2017 he diagnosed sprained left 

forefoot and possible stress fracture. Dr. Nutter attributed appellant’s condition to stepping down 

steps/catwalk. He indicated by checking a box marked “yes” that he believed that appellant’s 

condition was caused or aggravated by his employment activity. 

In a report dated November 22, 2017, Dr. Richard Chang, a family practitioner, examined 

appellant and diagnosed pain in the left foot.

By development letter of February 23, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the medical and factual evidence 

necessary and provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP afforded 30 days for the 

submission of additional evidence. On March 22, 2018 appellant requested an extension of time

to comply with this request.

By decision dated March 28, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

finding that he had not established fact of injury as he failed to respond to the questionnaire and 

explain how the November 14, 2017 employment incident occurred. It further found that he had 

not provided medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the 

November 14, 2017 employment incident.

On May 1, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the March 28, 2018 decision and

provided additional evidence. On November 20, 2017 Dr. Nutter examined appellant due to a 

November 14, 2017 left foot injury at work. He reported that appellant was coming down from a 

catwalk off a press and felt immediate pain in his left foot. Dr. Nutter diagnosed sprained forefoot 

and possible metatarsal stress fracture. During an examination on February 8, 2018 appellant 

reported no further left foot pain and Dr. Nutter found no edema on examination.

Also on May 1, 2018 appellant submitted a completed OWCP development questionnaire.

He noted that, while descending from the upper catwalk steps, he felt pain in his left foot which 

increased throughout the day. Thereafter, appellant was unable to work for three days. He noted 

that he had previously been diagnosed with gout in his left toe and cellulitis.

By decision dated July 26, 2018, OWCP modified the March 28, 2018 decision to find fact 

of injury, but denied the claim based on a lack of medical evidence establishing causal relationship

between his accepted November 14, 2017 employment incident and his diagnosed left foot 

conditions.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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,

3

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.4 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.5

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

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.7 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 incident.

8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that his left foot 

condition is causally related to the accepted November 14, 2017 employment incident.

Appellant sought treatment on November 18, 2017 from Dr. Nutter who diagnosed left 

forefoot sprain. He completed form reports and checked a box marked “yes” indicating that the 

condition was caused or aggravated by the employment. The Board has held that an opinion 

 

2

Id.

3 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 A.D., Docket No. 17-1855 (issued February 26, 2018); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

6 A.D., id.; T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

7

J.P., Docket No. 18-1165 (issued January 15, 2019).

8 A.D., supra note 5; I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
4

consisting only of a checkmark notation supporting causation, without supporting medical 

rationale, is of limited probative value and insufficient to establish causal relationship.9 

There is no other medical evidence of record supporting causal relationship between 

appellant’s left foot condition and his November 14, 2017 employment incident. Neither Dr. Su 

nor Dr. Everett provided an opinion as to whether appellant’s left foot condition was causally 

related to the accepted employment incident. The Board has held that 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 These reports are, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim. It is further noted that Dr. Chang only diagnosed foot pain. 

The Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical 

diagnosis.11 Without a clear diagnosis, Dr. Chang’s report is of limited probative value in 

establishing appellant’s traumatic injury claim.12

As appellant has not submitted sufficiently rationalized medical evidence to support his 

allegation that he sustained an injury causally related to the accepted November 14, 2017 

employment incident, he has not met his burden of proof to establish a claim.

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 not met his burden of proof to establish a left foot 

condition causally related to the accepted November 14, 2017 employment incident.

 

9 K.R., Docket No. 18-1388 (issued January 9, 2019).

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

11 See K.V., Docket No. 18-0723 (issued November 9, 2018); B.P., Docket No. 12-1345 (issued November 13, 

2012); C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 2008).

12 E.K., Docket No. 18-0091 (issued April 6. 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 26, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 7, 2019

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