United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.Y., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WALTER 

REED NATIONAL MILITARY MEDICAL 

CENTER, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, 

Bethesda, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0550

Issued: October 27, 2022

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 24, 2022 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 her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted July 1, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 1, 2021 appellant, then a 59-year-old medical clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on even date she sustained a right foot contusion when a support desk 

fell on her foot while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on July 1, 2021 and returned 

on July 6, 2021. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted records that were illegible.

OWCP received a position description for a medical support assistant and a notification of 

personnel action Standard Form 50 dated January 3, 2021 reflecting a general pay adjustment.

In a development letter dated September 27, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence required and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated October 28, 2021, OWCP accepted that the July 1, 2021 employment 

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

she had not submitted medical evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with the accepted 

employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to 

establish an injury as defined under FECA. 

On December 10, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. No additional evidence was 

received.

By decision dated January 24, 2022, OWCP denied modification of the October 28, 2021

decision.

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 period 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 

2

Id.

3

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).
3

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 if 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.6 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

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, 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 incident. 8 

Neither the mere fact that, a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.9

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted July 1, 2021 employment incident.

OWCP received records that were illegible and unsigned. There is no evidence that these 

documents are from a physician. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear an 

illegible signature lack proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical evidence 

as the author cannot be identified as a physician.10

As the medical evidence of record does not contain a medical report relating a diagnosed 

medical condition to the accepted July 1, 2021 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant 

has not met her burden of proof.

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 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M.,Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 T.M., Docket No. 19-0380 (issued June 26, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

S.S.,Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019).

9

J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April12, 2019).

10 See M.T., Docket No. 21-0783 (issued December 27, 2021); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988); see also 

BradfordL. Sullivan, 33 ECAB 1568 (1982) (a medical report may not be considered as probative medical evidence 

if there is no indication that the person completing the report qualifies as a “physician” as defined in FECA).
4

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 her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted July 1, 2021 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 24, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 27, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board