United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, Ashland, KY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0613

Issued: October 15, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 30, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 8, 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 the case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a pulmonary 

embolism causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 6, 2017 appellant, then a 37-year-old assistant food service administrator, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed a pulmonary embolism while 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

traveling to training for work. He first became aware of his claimed condition on April 3, 2017 

and realized that it was caused or aggravated by his federal employment on April 7, 2017. 

In an April 7, 2017 emergency department note, Dr. Solomon Woldetensay, a specialist in 

internal medicine, reported that appellant was evaluated for second episode of shortness of breath 

that started four days prior when he was in Denver, Colorado. Appellant reported that he initially 

thought his shortness of breath was due to the altitude change, but then he realized it was 

reminiscent of when he had a pulmonary embolism in 2009. He also reported that he drove to 

Florida frequently without stopping, but denied any leg swelling or calf pain. A computerized 

tomography angiography (CTA) scan showed bilateral pulmonary embolism. There was no 

evidence for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in his lower extremities. 

In a July 19, 2017 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

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

evidence required. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to provide the requested evidence. 

In response, OWCP received appellant’s November 1, 2017 statement, training 

authorization form, training welcome letter, list of attendees at the training course, training 

authorization form SF-182 for the period March 20 through 23, 2017 and April 3 through 6, 2017, 

and appellant’s flight itineraries for the listed periods.

In a September 5, 2017 letter, Dr. Kimberly Lucas Day, an internist, noted that appellant 

took two round-trip work-related flights to Denver, Colorado in March through April 2017 and 

developed a pulmonary embolus. She indicated that long flights (i.e., prolonged immobilization) 

were a known risk factor for development of emboli.

By decision dated December 8, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim. It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the claimed 

pulmonary embolism condition was employment related. 

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, that an injury was sustained while 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.3 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.4

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence 

 

2

Id.

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

4 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally 

related to the identified employment factors.5

While on temporary-duty assignment, an employee is covered by FECA 24 hours a day 

with respect to any injury that results from activities incidental to the temporary assignment. The 

fact that an employee was on a special mission or in travel status during the time the condition 

manifested itself does not raise an inference that the condition was causally related to the incidents 

of employment.6

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.7 Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on 

whether there is causal relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and the 

compensable employment factors.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that 

appellant’s pulmonary embolism was caused or aggravated by the accepted factors of his federal 

employment.

OWCP accepted that appellant was in the performance of duty while on flights to Colorado 

during March and April 2017. While it is accepted that appellant was in travel status and therefore 

in the performance of duty at the time of the alleged injury, it remains his burden of proof to 

establish causal relationship between his diagnosed condition and the accepted factor of 

employment.10 

In her September 5, 2017 report, Dr. Day reported an accurate history as she noted that 

appellant took two round-trip work-related flights to Denver, Colorado and back in March through 

April 2017. While she opined that appellant developed a pulmonary embolus from the flights and 

explained that long flights (i.e., prolonged immobilization) were a known risk factor for 

 

5 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

6 See A.F., Docket No. 14-1392 (issued October 21, 2014). 

7 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 

642 (2006).

8

J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006).

9

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); supra note 5.

10 Supra note 7. 
4

development of emboli, Dr. Day failed to explain how, in this specific case, two work-related 

flights physiologically resulted in the diagnosed pulmonary embolus condition.11 Thus, this report 

is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden.

The only other medical evidence of record, the April 7, 2017 emergency department report

from Dr. Woldetensay was also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. While the report 

provided a history of shortness of breath while appellant was in Denver, Colorado and an 

assessment of pulmonary embolism by CTA scan, it does not contain an opinion on causal 

relationship.12 Lacking a rationalized medical opinion regarding causal relationship, this report is 

of limited probative value.13

Accordingly, the record currently before the Board is devoid of any medical opinion, which 

is supported by sufficient rationale, explaining how the diagnosed pulmonary condition had been 

caused by appellant’s work-related air travel during the accepted time frame. 

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

employee’s own belief of causal relationship.

14

 Appellant’s honest belief that the factors of his 

federal employment caused his medical conditions, however sincerely held, does not constitute 

medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relationship.

15

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 pulmonary 

embolism causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

 

11 See N.C., Docket No. 15-1900 (issued March 7, 2016); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).

12 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004): Michael E. Smith, 50 

ECAB 313 (1990).

13 See supra note 9. 

14 G.E., Docket No. 17-1719 (issued February 6, 2018); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).

15 J.S., Docket No. 18-0477 (issued August 28, 2018). 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 8, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 15, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board