United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, El Centro, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0030

Issued: May 4, 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 October 3, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 29, 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.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its July 29, 2019 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 a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted May 20, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 3, 2019 appellant, then 45-year-old deportation officer, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 20, 2019 he injured his hand and wrist while in the 

performance of duty. He explained that a subject was resisting arrest and a takedown technique 

was applied to place him into handcuffs. As the subject was being restrained, appellant’s hand 

and wrist landed under the subject’s upper torso. Appellant did not stop work. 

OWCP received a May 28, 2019 billing statement for a May 22, 2019 x-ray examination 

of appellant’s wrist.

In a development letter dated June 27, 2019, OWCP advised appellant that it required

additional factual and medical evidence to establish his claim. It attached a questionnaire, 

requesting that he provide a detailed description of the employment incident believed to have 

contributed to his alleged injury, including a description of the exact medical condition he was 

claiming. OWCP also requested that appellant submit 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. 

Appellant did not submit additional evidence. 

By decision dated July 29, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

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

the accepted employment incident. 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 FECA3 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,4that 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 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4

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).
3

the employment injury.5 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.6

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.7

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted May 20, 2019 employment incident.

Appellant alleged that he sustained an injury to his hand and wrist when a detainee’s upper 

torso landed on his wrist as he was performing a takedown technique. OWCP accepted that the 

May 20, 2019 employment incident occurred as alleged. However, appellant did not submit 

medical evidence which diagnosed a hand or wrist condition and which offered an opinion 

regarding causal relationship. OWCP advised him in a development letter dated June 27, 2019 

that further medical evidence was necessary to establish his claim. It also afforded appellant an 

opportunity to submit a narrative medical report from his physician, which included a diagnosis 

and an opinion regarding causal relationship.8 Appellant only submitted a May 28, 2019 billing 

statement which is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. He has the burden of 

proof to submit rationalized medical evidence establishing that a diagnosed medical condition was 

causally related to the accepted employment incident.

9 Accordingly, as appellant failed to submit 

medical evidence identifying a medical condition in relation to the accepted May 20, 2019 

employment incident, he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.10

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.

 

5

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 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).

7 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) (traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, respectively).

8 See A.F., Docket No. 17-1374 (issued March 19, 2019).

9 See R.C., Docket No. 18-1639 (issued February 26, 2019).

10 See B.G., Docket No. 18-0784 (issued November 9, 2018).
4

CONCLUSION

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted May 20, 2019 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 29, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 4, 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