United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

LOGISTICS AGENCY, Fort Belvoir, VA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1407

Issued: February 13, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 14, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 23, 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 met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted January 22, 2019 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 28, 2019 appellant, then a 66-year-old distribution facilities specialist, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 22, 2019 he injured his head and back 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

when he slipped on ice on the ground and fell while in the performance of duty. He did not stop 

work. 

Appellant submitted a February 3, 2019 a state workers’ compensation medical form from

Dr. Harry Wallus, Board-certified in emergency medicine. Dr. Wallus indicated that appellant fell 

on January 22, 2019 and diagnosed a compression fracture. He checked a box marked “yes”

indicating that appellant’s condition was a result of the January 22, 2019 incident. In a treatment 

note of even date, Dr. Wallus noted that appellant initially presented to the emergency department 

on January 25, 2019 complaining of worsening low back pain after slipping and falling at work, 

landing on his sacrum and lumbar back. 

In a February 3, 2019 medical report, Dr. Devin Keefe, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, provided that appellant presented with acute lumbar back pain and tenderness in the 

lower spine over L4-5, as well as bowel dysfunction after a mechanical slip and fall. The same 

day, appellant underwent a computerized tomography (CT) scan of his abdomen and pelvis 

interpreted by Dr. Jonathon Lee, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist. Dr. Lee found a T12 

superior endplate compression fracture with 10 percent vertebral body height loss. Appellant also 

underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of his lumbar spine interpreted by Dr. Mark 

Giovannetti, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist. Dr. Giovannetti found a compression 

deformity along the superior endplate of T12 with approximately 10 percent loss of height of the 

body. Based on this information, Dr. Keefe diagnosed appellant with a T12 superior endplate 

compression fracture and noted that the injury was new based on a previous October 22, 2018 CT 

scan that did not reveal a fracture. In his discharge instructions, he explained that compression 

fractures of the spine were typically caused by a compressing force, such as an auto accident or a 

fall. 

In a development letter dated April 15, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that his claim 

initially appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work and that 

continuation of pay was not controverted by the employing establishment, and thus, limited 

expenses had, therefore, been authorized. However, a formal decision was now required. OWCP 

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 

any additional evidence. 

By decision dated May 23, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

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

claimed employment 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 

 

2

Id. 
3

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

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the 

claimant, 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 claimant.7 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition 

manifests itself during a period of employment, nor the belief that a disease or condition was 

caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal 

relationship.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

In support of his claim, appellant provided a February 3, 2019 state workers’ compensation 

medical form from Dr. Wallus wherein he noted that appellant fell on January 22, 2019 and 

diagnosed a compression fracture as a result. 

In a February 3, 2019 report, Dr. Keefe diagnosed a T12 superior endplate compression 

fracture based on a review of a CT scan of appellant’s abdomen and pelvis and an MRI scan of his 

lumbar spine, specifically noting that the findings were new in comparison to an October 22, 2018 

diagnostic study that revealed no positive findings.

 

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

7 H.B., Docket No. 18-0781 (issued September 5, 2018).

8 D.H., Docket No. 18-1410 (issued March 21, 2019).
4

As the medical evidence of record establishes a diagnosed condition, the case must 

be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal 

relationship. Following such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de 

novo decision.9 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 23, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion of the Board.

Issued: February 13, 2020

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

9 E.C., Docket No. 19-0854 (issued October 17, 2019).