United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0382

Issued: January 3, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 12, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from August 16 and November 5, 

2018 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the 

Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

 

1 Appellant timely requested oral argument before the Board. By order dated December 4, 2019, the Board 

exercised its discretion and denied the request as the matter could be adequately addressed based on a review of the 

case record. Order Denying Oral Argument, Docket No. 19-0382 (issued December 4, 2019).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP following the November 5, 2018 decision.

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 his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on May 2, 2018, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 3, 2018 appellant, then a 46-year-old line sergeant, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on May 2, 2018 he experienced left knee pain when he stepped on 

uneven ground as he was jogging during physical fitness training while in the performance of duty. 

He related that he stopped jogging and applied ice to his knee. Appellant did not stop work. S.B., 

his supervisor, acknowledged on the claim form that appellant was in the performance of duty at 

the time of the alleged injury. 

In a report dated May 17, 2018, Dr. Debra K. Spatz, an osteopath, evaluated appellant for 

pain in his left knee that had occurred when “he was running for physical training and stepped on 

uneven ground and his knee buckled and he had to limp back to the office.” On examination she 

found grade 1 effusion and pain. Dr. Spatz diagnosed pain of the left knee medial compartment 

with a positive McMurray’s sign and to rule out a medial meniscus tear.

In a development letter dated June 28, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It requested that he submit additional factual and medical evidence and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

Thereafter, OWCP received a May 2, 2018 incident record form from the employing 

establishment. Appellant reported that, on that date, he was jogging as part of authorized physical 

fitness training “when he stepped on uneven ground and his left knee buckled causing pain to his 

left knee.” He went on to explain that he could no longer jog and returned to the office to apply 

ice to his knee and complete a traumatic injury claim form.

A June 19, 2018 computerized tomography (CT) scan of appellant’s left knee revealed a 

radial tear in the body of the medial meniscus. 

In a progress report dated June 25, 2018, Dr. Spatz indicated that appellant had sustained 

an employment injury to his left knee when his knee buckled while he was jogging in May as part 

of physical training. She diagnosed a left knee torn meniscus and recommended surgery.

By decision dated August 16, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

found that he had failed to establish that the May 2, 2018 employment incident occurred as alleged, 

noting that he had not responded to its request for additional factual and medical evidence. OWCP 

further found that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that he had 

sustained a diagnosed medical condition due to the employment incident, noting that appellant had 

sustained prior employment injuries to his left knee. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements 

had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On August 24, 2018 appellant requested a review of the written record before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 
3

OWCP subsequently received a supplemental incident report dated May 7, 2018, wherein 

S.B. related that appellant had emailed him on May 2, 2018 advising that he had injured his left 

knee when he had stepped on uneven ground while jogging during physical fitness training. S.B. 

asserted that he did not see appellant limping on May 2, 2018, but that the following week he had 

a “significant and obvious limp.” Appellant told S.B. that he was still having difficulties “from 

the injury of the previous week.”

By decision dated November 5, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

August 16, 2018 decision. The hearing representative found that appellant had not factually 

established the occurrence of the alleged May 2, 2018 employment incident and additionally found 

that the medical evidence failed to explain how any condition was caused by the claimed 

employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 period of FECA,5that 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.6 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.7

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components, which must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component to be established is that the employee actually experienced the employment incident 

which is alleged to have occurred.8 The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury.9

An injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact that 

an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, but the employee’s statements must 

be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her subsequent course of 

 

4 Supra note 2.

5 See R.B., Docket No. 18-1327 (issued December 31, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 

ECAB 153 (1989).

6 Y.K., Docket No. 18-0806 (issued December 19, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 R.E., Docket No. 17-0547 (issued November 13, 2018; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 D.C., Docket No. 18-1664 (issued April 1, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
4

action.10 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish the occurrence of an 

injury when there are inconsistencies in the evidence that cast serious doubt upon the validity of 

the claim. Such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, 

continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury, and failure to obtain 

medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast sufficient doubt on an employee’s 

statements in determining whether a prima facie case has been established. An employee’s 

statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of great 

probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established that the May 2, 2018 employment incident 

occurred, as alleged.

In his May 3, 2018 traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1), appellant related that he had 

sustained left knee pain on May 2, 2018 when he stepped on uneven ground while jogging during 

physical fitness training. He immediately notified his supervisor of the incident and completed an 

incident report for the employing establishment on May 2, 2018 detailing the mechanism of injury. 

Appellant related that he stopped jogging and returned to his office to apply ice to his knee and 

complete a traumatic injury claim form. The medical reports of record provided a consistent 

history of him injuring his knee when he stepped on uneven ground while jogging. Furthermore, 

the employing establishment acknowledged on the reverse side of the claim form that appellant 

was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant’s supervisor, S.B., indicated that he had emailed 

him on May 2, 2018 advising that he had injured his left knee when stepping on uneven ground 

while jogging as part of his physical fitness training. 

As noted above, the Board has held that a claimant’s statement that an injury occurred as a 

given time, place, and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted 

by strong or persuasive evidence.12 The Board finds that, given the consistency and specificity of 

appellant’s description of the May 2, 2018 employment incident and the lack of contradictory 

evidence, he has established that the May 2, 2018 incident occurred as alleged.

The question therefore becomes whether the May 2, 2018 accepted employment incident 

resulted in an injury to his left knee. 

On May 17, 2018 Dr. Spatz obtained a history of appellant experiencing left knee pain after 

he stepped on uneven ground while running during physical training. She diagnosed left knee 

medial compartment pain and to rule out a medial meniscal tear. While Dr. Spatz provided a 

history of the May 2, 2018 employment incident, she failed to provide a firm diagnosis or address 

causation. The Board has held that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical diagnosis.13 

 

10 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019).

11 See M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007).

12 T.J., Docket No. 17-0831 (issued November 7, 2017); D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007).

13 R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019).
5

Lacking a firm diagnosis and reasoned medical opinion regarding causal relationship, Dr. Spatz’

report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.14

In a June 25, 2018 report, Dr. Spatz advised that appellant had sustained an employment 

injury to his left knee while jogging in May 2018 while participating in physical training. She 

diagnosed a tear of the left meniscus. While Dr. Spatz indicated that appellant had experienced an 

employment injury, she failed to provide any rationale for her opinion or directly relate the left 

meniscal tear to the May 2018 employment incident. The Board has held that a medical report is 

of limited probative value on a given medical issue if it contains a medical opinion which is 

unsupported by medical rationale.15

Appellant has the burden of proof to submit rationalized medical evidence establishing that 

he sustained a left knee injury causally related to the accepted May 2, 2018 employment incident.16 

He failed to submit such evidence and thus did not meet his burden of proof.17

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has established an injury in the performance of duty on 

May 2, 2018, as alleged. The Board further finds, however, that appellant has not established an 

injury causally related to the accepted May 2, 2018 employment incident.

 

14 T.G., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued November 25, 2019).

15 See L.S., Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019).

16 See D.T., Docket No. 17-1734 (issued January 18, 2018).

17 See D.S., Docket No. 18-0061 (issued May 29, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 5 and August 16, 2018 decisions of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed as modified. 

Issued: January 3, 2020

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board