United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU, Bethesda, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0336

Issued: September 1, 2021

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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 11, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 8, 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted October 1, 2020 employment incident. 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 8, 2020 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 20, 2020 appellant, then a 55-year-old miscellaneous clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 1, 2020, he was bitten by two dogs while he 

was walking from an enumeration case residence while in the performance of duty. He noted that 

the bites broke his skin on his left thigh and right ankle. Appellant stopped work on October 1, 

2020 and returned to work on October 2, 2020. On the reverse side of the claim form, the 

employing establishment acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a bill for an emergency visit to the hospital. 

In a development letter dated November 2, 2020, OWCP advised appellant that additional 

factual and medical evidence was necessary to establish his claim as no diagnosis of any condition 

resulting from his injury had been received. It requested that appellant submit a narrative medical 

report from his attending physician, which includes the physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation as to how the reported employment incident caused or aggravated the claimed injury. 

It afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In response, appellant resubmitted a bill for an emergency visit to the hospital. He also 

submitted a pharmacy receipt dated October 3, 2020 and a bill for an outpatient appointment on 

October 1, 2020.

By decision dated December 8, 2020, OWCP accepted that the October 1, 2020 

employment incident occurred, as alleged, but denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had not 

submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with his accepted 

employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met 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 period 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

Id.

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 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); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it must first be determined whether a 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, place, and in the manner alleged. Second component is whether the employment incident 

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

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence supporting such causal relationship.8 Causal relationship is a medical issue, and 

the medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. 9 

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 employee.10 

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted October 1, 2020 employment incident. 

As noted above, to establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any 

attendant disability claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit 

rationalized medical opinion evidence supporting such causal relationship.11 Causal relationship 

is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized 

medical evidence.12 The evidence submitted in support of appellant’s claim consists only of 

medical bills and a pharmacy receipt. Although they indicate that he sought treatment on the date 

of injury, the actual medical reports were not found in the case record. The Board has held that 

lay individuals are not competent to render a medical opinion.13 Therefore, this evidence is of no 

probative value and insufficient to establish the claim. 

 

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

J.L., Docket No. 18-0698 (issued November 5, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

465 (2005).

9 L.D., Docket No. 17-1581 (issued January 23, 2018); JacquelineM. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

10 L.D., id.;see also Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45ECAB 365 (1994).

11 Supra note 8.

12 Supra note 9.

13 E.H., Docket No. 19-0365 (issued March17, 2021); Z.S.,Docket No. 16-1745 (issued May 18, 2017).
4

As there is no medical evidence of record establishing causal relationship between a 

medical condition and the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not 

me 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. 

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted October 1, 2020 employment incident. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 8, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 1, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board