United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

Yellowstone National Park, WY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0599 

Issued: June 23, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 23, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 7, 2016 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

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury causally 

related to an accepted August 16, 2016 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted new evidence following the October 7, 2016 decision. However, since 

the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, the 

Board may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 

ECAB 126 (2005). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 23, 2016 appellant, then a 62-year-old visitor use assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 16, 2016 he strained tendons in his left hand, 

index finger, middle finger, and ring fingers as a result of squeezing a mule’s lead rope really 

hard while riding on horseback. He did not stop work. 

By letter dated August 31, 2016, OWCP advised appellant that no evidence was 

submitted to establish his claim. It requested that he respond to the attached questionnaire to 

establish that the August 16, 2016 incident occurred as alleged and provide additional medical 

evidence to establish that he sustained a diagnosed condition as a result of the alleged incident. 

Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested information. 

Appellant submitted a work restriction form dated September 21, 2016 from 

Dr. Richard N. Vinglas, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that appellant was 

released to full duty on September 21, 2016. 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim in a decision dated October 7, 2016. It accepted that the 

August 16, 2016 employment incident occurred as alleged, but denied his claim because the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to 

the accepted incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence4 including that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty and that any 

specific condition or disability for work for which he or she claims compensation is causally 

related to that employment injury.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.6

 

There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place, and in the manner alleged.7

 Second, the employee must submit evidence, 

generally only in the form of probative medical evidence, to establish that the employment 

incident caused a personal injury.8 An employee may establish that the employment incident 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

4

 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

5 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

6 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005). 

7 Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Edward C. Lawrence, 19 ECAB 442 (1968). 

8

 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 
3

occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability or condition relates to the 

employment incident.9

Whether an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty requires the 

submission of rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 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.11 The weight of the medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative 

value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed 

in support of the physician’s opinion.12

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he strained tendons in his left hand, index finger, middle finger, 

and ring fingers as a result of an August 16, 2016 work incident. OWCP accepted that the 

August 16, 2016 incident occurred as alleged, but denied his claim because of insufficient 

medical evidence to establish a medical diagnosis causally related to the accepted incident. The 

Board finds that appellant has not established that he sustained a traumatic injury on 

August 16, 2016. 

Appellant submitted a work restriction form dated September 21, 2016 from Dr. Vinglas 

who indicated that appellant was released to full duty on September 21, 2016. He did not, 

however, provide any medical diagnosis or opinion on the cause of appellant’s current 

symptoms. Accordingly, the Board finds that Dr. Vinglas’s opinion lacks probative value 

because he failed to provide a firm medical diagnosis or any explanation as to the cause of 

appellant’s alleged left hand injury.13

On appeal, appellant alleges that since OWCP’s last decision he had secured the missing 

information regarding fact of injury and diagnosis and had submitted new medical reports. The 

Board’s jurisdiction, however, is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued 

its final decision. Accordingly, it may not consider this new evidence for the first time on 

appeal.14 As noted above, to meet his burden of proof appellant must submit probative 

rationalized medical evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.15 Because appellant has not submitted such medical evidence, he has not met his burden 

of proof to establish his traumatic injury claim. 

 9 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); see also Roma A. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418 (2006). 

10 See J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007); Paul E. Thams, 56 ECAB 503 (2005). 

11I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 

12 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

13 Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 242 (2005); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

14 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005). 

15 Supra note 5. 
4

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 traumatic 

injury causally related to the accepted August 16, 2016 employment incident. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 7, 2016 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 23, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board