United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.L., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST 

SERVICE, Girdwood, AK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0767

Issued: March 10, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 26, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 9, 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.

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted January 22, 2017 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 24, 2017 appellant, then a 37-year-old law enforcement officer, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that at 2:55 p.m. on January 22, 2017, he was struck 

by a motor vehicle while conducting a traffic stop while in the performance of duty. He indicated 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

that his left knee had numbness and red coloration with soreness when walking. On the reverse 

side of the claim form, a supervisor noted that appellant and his vehicle were struck by another 

vehicle during a traffic stop, that several other incidents ensued, that no major injuries occurred,

and that state troopers investigated the incident, finding that appellant was not at fault.

In a development letter dated February 9, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish his claim. It noted that it had not received medical evidence 

with a diagnosis resulting from his injury. OWCP also requested additional factual information 

regarding the alleged injury. It afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested information.

In a report dated February 1, 2017, Dr. Charles Aarons, a family medicine specialist, noted 

that appellant injured his left knee on January 22, 2017 when he jumped to avoid a speeding truck 

during a traffic stop. Appellant reported that he had left knee bruising which had since cleared up, 

and that while his knee felt weak, it had not actually given out and that he was otherwise uninjured. 

Dr. Aarons advised that an x-ray of the left knee was normal.2 His Left knee examination 

demonstrated normal range of motion with no bruising. Dr. Aarons diagnosed left knee pain and 

ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of his left knee.

A February 7, 2017 MRI scan revealed normal major cartilaginous, ligamentous, osseous, 

and tendinous structures. An incidental note indicated that a significant amount of fluid was seen 

in the prepatellar bursa, probably representing prepatellar bursitis, and “perhaps related to trauma.”

In a statement dated February 26, 2017, appellant described the January 22, 2017 incident. 

He reported that while on duty that day, after conducting a traffic stop, he observed a truck heading 

directly toward him at a high rate of speed. Appellant reported that he jumped in order to avoid 

direct impact with the truck and was knocked back into the stopped vehicle, hitting his knees. 

Afterward, he checked his lower extremities and was surprised to find that he was not severely 

injured. Appellant indicated that his knees were bruised, primarily on his left, and that he pulled 

muscles in his upper legs and back. A crash investigation was conducted that day by an Alaska 

State Trooper.

By decision dated March 13, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that although 

the evidence of record established that the employment incident occurred as alleged, appellant had 

not submitted sufficient evidence to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the 

accepted January 22, 2017 employment incident. OWCP explained that “pain” was a symptom 

and not a diagnosis.

On January 18, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s March 13, 2017 

decision. In an accompanying letter dated January 9, 2017, he asserted that the evidence submitted 

established fact of injury. Appellant noted that a physician found severe bruising to the knee. He

further asserted that the fact that diagnostic testing was ordered, including a left knee MRI scan, 

 

2 The record includes a February 1, 2017 left knee x-ray report that revealed no arthritic, degenerative, or posttraumatic abnormalities, with no evidence of malignancy, infection, or acute post-traumatic change. Soft tissues were 

also normal.
3

was sufficient to establish fact of injury. Appellant also resubmitted Dr. Aaron’s February 1, 2017 

report and an image of his left knee.

By decision dated February 9, 2018, OWCP denied modification of its March 13, 2017 

decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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,3that 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.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 must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. First, 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. Second, the employee must submit sufficient 

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 opinion evidence.7 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is 

medical evidence that includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on whether there is a causal 

relationship between the employee’s diagnosed condition and 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

 

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 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).

6 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020).

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020). 

8 K.C., Docket No. 18-0529 (issued January 21, 2020). 

9 D.J., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020).
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted January 22, 2017 employment incident.

Dr. Aarons, in his February 1, 2017 report, only diagnosed left knee pain. The Board has

consistently held that pain is a description of a symptom and not, in itself, considered a firm 

medical diagnosis.10 Dr. Aarons’ description of left knee pain is, therefore, insufficient to establish 

that appellant sustained a diagnosed condition causally related to his employment incident.

11

 

Appellant also submitted a February 1, 2017 x-ray and a February 7, 2017 MRI scan of his 

left knee which revealed a significant amount of fluid in the prepatellar bursa, probably 

representing prepatellar bursitis, “perhaps related to trauma.” However, the Board has held that 

reports of diagnostic tests lack probative value as they fail to provide an opinion on causal 

relationship between his employment duties and the diagnosed conditions.12 Therefore, they are 

also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that he has not met his 

burden of proof to establish his 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 medical 

condition causally related to the accepted January 22, 2017 employment incident.

 

10 See M.L., Docket No. 18-0153 (issued January 22, 1980); B.P., Docket No. 12-1345 (issued November 13, 2012); 

C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008).

11 Id. Findings of pain or discomfort alone do not satisfy the medical aspect of the fact of injury medical 

determination. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803.4.a(6) 

(August 2012). 

12 K.S., Docket No. 18-1781 (issued April 8, 2019); G.S., Docket No. 18-1696 (issued March 26, 2019); J.M.,

Docket No. 17-1688 (issued December 13, 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 9, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 10, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board