United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.W.,

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. SECRET SERVICE, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1027

Issued: November 18, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 13, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 1, 2019 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 diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted July 24, 2018 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 26, 2019 appellant, then a 41-year-old telecommunications specialist, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 24, 2018 he experienced stiffness in his 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

neck when the government-owned vehicle in which he was riding was rear-ended by another 

vehicle while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on July 25, 2018 and returned to work 

on July 30, 2018. 

In a September 30, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received 

no evidence in support of his claim. It advised him of the deficiencies of his claim and instructed 

him as to the factual and medical evidence necessary to establish his claim. OWCP provided 

appellant a questionnaire for completion and requested that he provide a narrative medical report 

from his physician, which contained a detailed description of findings and diagnoses, explaining 

how the reported incident caused or aggravated his medical condition. It afforded him 30 days to 

respond. No evidence was received. 

By decision dated November 1, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

finding that he had failed to submit medical evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with 

his injury. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury 

as defined under FECA. 

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation 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 first must be determined whether the fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. 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 evidence, in the 

form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

 

2

Id.

3

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); 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 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); see 5 U.S.C. § 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 

10.5(q).
3

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted July 24, 2018 employment incident.

In its September 30, 2019 development letter, OWCP noted that it had not received any 

medical evidence which established a diagnosed medical condition resulting from the July 24, 

2018 employment incident. It provided appellant 30 days to submit the requested medical 

evidence. It is appellant’s burden of proof to obtain and submit medical documentation containing 

a firm diagnosis causally related to the accepted employment incident. As appellant has not 

submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical condition causally 

related to the accepted July 24, 2018 employment incident, he has not met his burden of proof to 

establish his claim.7

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 diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted July 24, 2018 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 1, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 18, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

7 See M.O., Docket No. 19-1398 (issued August 13, 2020); J.T., Docket No. 18-1755 (issued April 4, 2019).