United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY, Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1334

Issued: December 4, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 31, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 12, 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 appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure

provides: “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. 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 additional evidence for the first time on 

appeal. Id.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

causally related to the accepted October 19, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 26, 2018 appellant, then a 32-year-old housing unit crew leader, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 19, 2018 she sustained injuries to her 

left knee, bilateral hips, lower abdomen, chest, and left shoulder when she was involved in a 

vehicular accident while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, the 

employing establishment checked the box marked “no” when asked whether appellant was injured 

in the performance of duty, and noted “car accident.” Appellant did not stop work. 

In a development letter dated October 31, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It informed her of the factual and medical evidence needed to establish 

her claim, and provided a questionnaire for her completion. Appellant was afforded 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated December 12, 2018, OWCP accepted that the alleged incident occurred 

in the performance of duty as alleged, but denied the claim finding that appellant had not submitted

evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the October 19, 2018 employment 

incident.

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related 

to the employment injury.5 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.6

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.7 First, 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

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

40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 K.K., Docket No. 19-1193 (issued October 21, 2019); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019). T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).
3

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.8 Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.9

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

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is 

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

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

factors. 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.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury causally related to the accepted October 19, 2018 employment incident.

The only evidence appellant submitted to the record was her completed Form CA-1. 

OWCP advised appellant in a development letter dated October 31, 2018 that further medical 

evidence was necessary to establish her claim. It also afforded her an opportunity to submit a 

narrative medical report from her physician, which included a diagnosis and an opinion regarding 

causal relationship.12 However, appellant did not respond. She has the burden of proof to submit 

rationalized medical evidence establishing that a diagnosed medical condition was causally related 

to the October 19, 2018 employment incident.13 Appellant has not submitted such evidence and 

thus the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof.

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.

 

8 C.L., Docket No. 18-1732 (issued April 2, 2019); D.S., Docket No. 17-1422 (issued November 9, 2017); Elaine 

Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 C.L., id.; B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 K.K., supra note 6; M.B., Docket No. 17-1999 (issued November 13, 2018).

11 K.K., id.; M.L., Docket No. 18-1605 (issued February 26, 2019).

12 See A.F., Docket No. 17-1374 (issued March 19, 2019).

13 P.D., Docket No. 19-0600 (issued August 12, 2019); see also R.C., Docket No. 18-1639 (issued 

February 26, 2019).
4

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury causally related to the accepted October 19, 2018 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 12, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 4, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board