United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

San Luis, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1077

Issued: November 3, 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 July 13, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 28, 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 January 9, 2022 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 9, 2022 appellant, then a 30-year-oldcustoms and border protection agent,filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her knees, right elbow

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

and shoulder, and back when she was tackled by a coworker, who was assisting her with an arrest,

while in the performance of duty. She did not stop work.

In a May 25, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her 

claim. It advised her of the type of medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No evidence was received. 

By decision dated June 28, 2022, OWCP accepted that the January 9, 2022 employment 

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

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

accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that she had not met the requirements 

to establish an injury as defined by 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 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,

3

that 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, itfirstmust be determined whetherfact of injury has beenestablished. There

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

claimant 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 

2

Id.

3 F H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. 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).
3

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 incident 

identified by the employee.8

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted January 9, 2022 employment incident. 

OWCP, in its May 25, 2022 development letter, advised appellant of the type of medical 

evidence needed to establish her traumatic injury claim and afforded her 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. However, no medical evidence was received. 

As appellant has not submitted any medical evidence, she has not established a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted January 9, 2022 employment incident.

9

 Thus, 

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted January 9, 2022 employment incident. 

8 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).

9 C.L., Docket No. 20-0385 (issued August5, 2020).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 28, 2022 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 3, 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