United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, 

OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0269

Issued: August 8, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 9, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 20, 2021 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 October 20, 2021 decision, and on appeal, appellant submitted additional 

evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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 established a medical condition causally related to the 

accepted November 19, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 15, 2021 appellant, then a 57-year-old air conditioning equipment mechanic, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 19, 2020 he twisted his 

knee when stepping down off a ladder while in the performance of duty. He explained that this 

caused pain on the inside of his right knee. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s 

supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant stopped 

work on November 30, 2020.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted several personnel documents, including a 

Notice of Personnel Action (Form SF-50) indicating that he retired from the employing 

establishment on November 30, 2020. 

In a development letter dated March 4, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary and provided 

questions for his completion.3 OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. No further evidence 

was received.

By decision dated April 9, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the factual component of fact of injury had not been established. It noted that he did not 

provide the requested medical and factual evidence. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

Appellant subsequently submitted a May 24, 2021 report from Dr. Kevin Paley, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, relating that appellant experienced a sudden onset of pain and 

swelling in appellant’s right knee when stepping off a ladder at work on November 19, 2020 and 

that his symptoms had progressively worsened. Dr. Paley noted that appellant had no knee 

problems prior to the date of injury. His examination of the right knee revealed mild effusion, 

tenderness to palpation on the medial joint line, normal painful active range of motion, and a 

positive medial McMurray’s test. Dr. Paley indicated that x-rays of the right knee demonstrated 

no abnormalities. He diagnosed complex tear of the right medial meniscus and recommended a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

On October 8, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated October 20, 2021, OWCP modified the April 9, 2021 decision, finding 

that the evidence of record established the factual and medical components of fact of injury. The 

claim remained denied, however, as the evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal 

3 The Board notes that the development questionnaire provided by OWCP did not contain any questions.
3

relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the accepted November 19, 2020 

employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 period of FECA,5that 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.6 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.7

To determine whether an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.8 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.9

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

condition and an employment incident is 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 specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.11

4

Supra note 1.

5

S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

7

S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); DeloresC. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 R.K., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued April10, 2020); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April6, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 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).

11 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

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted November 19, 2020 employment incident.

In a May 24, 2021 medical report, Dr. Paley related that appellant developed sudden pain 

and swelling in his right knee after stepping off a ladder at work on November 19, 2020. He 

diagnosed a complex tear of the right medial meniscus. Although Dr. Paley suggested a workrelated cause for appellant’s right knee condition in his report, he did not provide a rationalized 

medical opinion relating the specific diagnosed condition to the November 19, 2020 employment 

incident. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal 

relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how an employment activity could 

have caused or aggravated a medical condition.12 Therefore, this report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s traumatic injury claim.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his medical

condition is causally related to the accepted November 19, 2020 employment incident, the Board 

finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

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 medical

condition causally related to the accepted November 19, 2020 employment incident.

12 Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 20, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 8, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board