United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, MAMMOTH 

CAVE NATIONAL PARK,

Mammoth Cave, KY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1462

Issued: February 19, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 31, 2020, appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 16, 2020 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 Board notes that, following the July 16, 2020 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 14, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 20, 2020 appellant, then a 49-year-old small craft operator, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 14, 2020 he sustained a left arm strain when he pitched 

loose asphalt into the bed of a dump truck while in the performance of duty. He indicated that he 

felt a pull in his left bicep and, thereafter, experienced pain in his left arm throughout the night. 

Appellant stopped work on May 15, 2020.

In a June 1, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received no 

evidence in support of his traumatic injury claim. It advised him of the type of evidence necessary 

to establish his claim and requested a narrative medical report from his treating physician 

containing a detailed description of findings and a diagnosis, explaining how his work activities 

caused, contributed to, or aggravated his medical condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. 

By decision dated July 16, 2020, OWCP accepted that the May 14, 2020 employment 

incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that 

he had not submitted any medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the 

accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that appellant had not met the 

requirements to establish an injury as defined by 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 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 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

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

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. There 

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

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

time and place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment 

incident caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence.7 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.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 specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.9

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 14, 2020 employment incident. 

OWCP, in its June 1, 2020 development letter, notified appellant of the type of medical 

evidence needed to establish his traumatic injury claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. However, no medical evidence was received prior to OWCP’s July 16, 2020 

decision. 

As there is no medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosed medical condition 

causally related to the accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant

has not met his burden of proof. 

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 10.607.15.

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 14, 2020 employment incident.

 

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 16, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 19, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board