United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, FEDERAL

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Fort Dix, NJ, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0105

Issued: July 18, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 30, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 1, 2021 merit decision 

and an October 25, 2021 nonmerit 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 25, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to the 

Board. 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted April 16, 2021 employment incident; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly determined that he had abandoned his request for an oral hearing.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 19, 2021 appellant, then a 45-year-old maintenance worker supervisor, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that at 8:00 a.m. on April 16, 2021 he sustained a left 

leg injury when stepping down after stacking 94-pound bags of cement while in the performance 

of duty. He indicated that he stepped on top of a cement bag to place another cement bag on top. 

When appellant placed a third bag of cement, he stepped back down onto the floor and immediately 

felt sharp pain over the top of his left leg, the back of his left leg, and the left side of his groin area. 

His whole leg started to go numb and, by 11:00 a.m., he could not feel anything. On the reverse 

side of the claim form appellant’s supervisor, N.F., acknowledged that appellant was injured in the 

performance of duty. Appellant stopped work on April 19, 2021.

3

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an April 16, 2021 work restriction note bearing 

an illegible signature, which diagnosed leg, hip, and groin pain status post injury and indicated that 

appellant was unable to work.

In a work restriction form dated April 19, 2021, Dr. Fotios Tjoumakaris, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed left hip femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and checked a box 

indicating that the injury was causally related to the April 16, 2021 employment incident. 

Dr. Tjoumakaris advised that appellant should perform sedentary-duty work and should not lift or 

push below waist level on the left side.

On April 23, 2021 the employing establishment offered appellant modified-duty work in 

line with the April 19, 2021 work restrictions. In an April 26, 2021 memorandum to OWCP, the

employing establishment indicated that appellant had refused the job offer. The employing 

establishment requested an immediate suitability determination.

In an April 27, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It advised him of the type of evidence required and provided a questionnaire for his 

completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Appellant subsequently submitted a statement signed on April 26, 2021, indicating that he 

had accepted the employing establishment’s job offer.

In response to OWCP’s questionnaire, appellant submitted a statement dated May 3, 2021 

relating his history of treatment. He indicated that he had not sustained any other injuries between 

3 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx038. Appellant has a prior accepted claim for a torn 

labrum in the left hip and lumbar strain under OWCP File No. xxxxxx576. OWCP has administratively combined 

these claims, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx038 designated as the master file.
3

the date of injury and the date he reported the injury and stated that he did not know whether his 

claimed injury was related to his previous injury.

By decision dated June 1, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that he had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with 

the accepted April 16, 2021 employment incident. Consequently, it found that he had not met the 

requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence.

On June 15, 2021 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

In a September 10, 2021 letter, OWCP’s hearing representative notified appellant that his 

oral hearing was scheduled for October 14, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). He 

was instructed to “call the toll-free number listed below and when prompted, enter the pass code 

(also listed below).” The hearing representative mailed the notice to appellant’s last known 

address of record. Appellant did not appear for the hearing and no request for postponement of 

the hearing was made.

By decision dated October 25, 2021, OWCP determined that appellant had abandoned his 

request for an oral hearing, as he had received written notification of the hearing 30 days in 

advance, but failed to appear. It further noted that there was no indication in the record that 

appellant had contacted the Branch of Hearings and Review either prior to or subsequent to the

scheduled hearing to explain his failure to appear.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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,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 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 

4

Supra note 1.

5 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).

6 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).

7 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).
4

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 and place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment 

incident caused a personal injury.

8

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 9 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 the specific employment incident 

identified by the claimant.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In a work restriction form dated April 19, 2021, Dr. Tjoumakaris diagnosed left hip FAI 

and checked a box indicating that the injury was causally related to the April 16, 2021 employment 

incident. The Board finds that evidence of record establishes a diagnosis of left hip FAI in 

connection with the April 16, 2021 employment incident.

The Board further finds, however, that the case is not in posture for decision with regard 

to whether the diagnosed medical conditions are causally related to the accepted April 16, 2021

employment incident. As the medical evidence of record establishes diagnosed medical 

conditions, the case must be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to 

the issue of causal relationship.11 Following this and other such further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.12

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted April 16, 2021 employment incident. The Board further 

finds, however that the case is not in posture for decision with regard to whether the diagnosed

medical condition is causally related to the accepted April 16, 2021 employment incident. 

8 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).

9

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).

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

11 See F.D., 21-1045 (issued December 22, 2021).

12 In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot. 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 1, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs set aside, and the October 25, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside as moot. The case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: July 18, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board