United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT

COMMAND, Fort Bliss, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0669

Issued: July 22, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 30, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 17, 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 his burden of proof to establish an umbilical hernia 

causally related to the accepted August 5, 2021 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 2, 2021 appellant, then a 36-year-old laborer, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on August 5, 2021 he developed sharp pain in his stomach while 

transitioning supplies from one facility to another while in the performance of duty. He explained 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

that he went to the doctor that same day, underwent diagnostic imaging, and was diagnosed with 

an umbilical hernia and referred for surgical repair. On the reverse side of the claim form E.C., an 

employing establishment supervisor, controverted the claim, contending that the injury was not 

reported within 30 days following the claimed injury. Appellant did not stop work.

A notification of personnel action, Standard Form (SF)-50, dated June 20, 2021 and an 

army position description dated August 11, 2017 were received with appellant’s claim. Appellant

also submitted an undated referral from Dr. Manuel Borrego, a family medicine practitioner,

requesting evaluation of his umbilical hernia.

In an ultrasound report signed August 6, 2021, Dr. Julieta Oneto, a diagnostic radiologist, 

found an abdominal wall defect in appellant’s right paraumbilical region with fat content 

protruding through a 1 centimeter (cm) muscular gap. She further noted an impression of a right 

paraumbilical fat-containing hernia and recommended surgical consultation.

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

of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish his

claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence.

In a November 30, 2021 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant 

explained that on June 21, 2021 he was referred for diagnostic imaging and on August 5, 2021 he 

underwent an ultrasound. He noted that a computerized tomography (CT) scan would be 

performed on December 6, 2021. Appellant related that he noticed symptoms around June 2021 

and was still scheduling appointments for treatment. He noted that findings were incomplete, but 

that he had been diagnosed with an umbilical hernia and would submit laboratory tests as he 

received them. Appellant explainedthat an exact date of injury could not be provided as it occurred

over time, and his symptoms only presented while performing job-related, labor-intensive duties. 

He alleged that the injury occurred when he was transferring a wide range of items between two 

facilities at which time he began to feel soreness in his stomach. Appellant related that he waited

to see if he had just a pulled muscle, but when his symptoms did not resolve, he began seeking 

medical treatment. He asserted that his doctor instructed him not to lift more than 50 pounds until 

after he underwent surgery.

By decision dated December 6, 2021, OWCP accepted that the August 5, 2021 

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that he 

had not established a causal relationship between his diagnosed condition and the accepted 

employment incident.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. Appellant was treated in the emergency room on 

December 11, 2021. Dr. Humera Chaudhary, a diagnostic radiologist, diagnosed a supraumbilical 

hernia without obstruction and noted that an ultrasound revealed an abdominal wall defect near 

midline in the supraumbilical region of the abdominal wall. A clinical summary of even date 

reiterated Dr. Chaudhary’s diagnosis. Discharge instructions and a referral from Dr. Heather 

Krause, an internist, also dated December 11, 2021, noted a diagnosis of supraumbilical hernia 

without obstruction.
3

Appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s December 6, 2021 decision in a letter 

dated December 20, 2021. He noted that he had submitted evidence from his December 11, 2021 

emergency room visit. Appellant also reiterated his argument that his injury was work related and 

caused by heavy lifting, which became noticeable when performing his job-related duties of 

transporting equipment from facility to facility via truck and pushing a cart and dolly to move 

equipment.

By decision dated March 17, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its December 6, 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 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,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 fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether 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.6 

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 7 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 

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 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).

5 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).

6 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).

7

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
4

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment incident 

identified by the claimant.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an umbilical 

hernia causally related to the accepted August 5, 2021 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted diagnostic reports, including an August 6, 2021

ultrasound report from Dr. Oneto and a December 11, 2021 ultrasound report from Dr.Chaudhary 

revealing an abdominal wall defect and a right paraumbilical hernia. The Board has held that 

diagnostic reports, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they 

do not provide an opinion as to whether the accepted employment incident caused a diagnosed 

condition.9 For this reason, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted discharge instructions and a clinical summary dated 

December 11, 2021 from an emergency room visit noting diagnoses of supraumbilical hernia and 

an abdominal wall defect, as well as a surgical referral from Dr. Krause. However, this evidence

did not address causal relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence which does not 

offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship. As such, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

10

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his 

umbilical hernia is causally related to the accepted August 5, 2021employment 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 an umbilical 

hernia causally related to the accepted August 5, 2021 employment incident.

8 A.S., Docket No. 19-1955 (issued April9, 2020);LeslieC. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

9 W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April10, 2020).

10 See D.Y., Docket No. 20-0112 (issued June25, 2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018);

D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 17, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 22, 2022

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