United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.O., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION,

U.S. BORDER PATROL, Pine Valley, CA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0562

Issued: November 15, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 8, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 8, 2021 merit decision 

and February 9, 2022 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 February 9, 2022 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

ISSUES

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

condition causally related to the accepted June 15, 2021 employment incident; and (2) whether 

OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 4, 2021 appellant, then a 43-year-old border patrol agent, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 15, 2021 he sustained a right knee injury during 

physical training in an employing establishment exercise facility. He explained that he had gone 

to the gym on June 15, 2021 for a physical fitness test as he had been on light-duty work following 

a March 22, 2021 right ankle sprain. Appellant noted that he had no right knee symptoms 

following the March 22, 2021 injury while on light-duty work.

In an August 23, 2021 report, Dr. Harbinder S. Chadha, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that on June 15, 2021 appellant experienced the onset of acute knee stiffness and 

pain during weight training at an employing establishment gym. He related appellant’s symptoms 

of pain in the superior portion of the patella radiating to the medial side. On examination of the 

right lower extremity, Dr. Chadha noted tenderness to palpation along the superior portion of the 

patella into the quadriceps tendon, mild effusion, medial joint line tenderness, a questionable 

McMurray’s sign, and 4+/5 quadriceps strength. He diagnosed chondromalacia of the right patella. 

Dr. Chadha opined that appellant’s persistent right knee pain and weakness were consistent with a 

quadriceps strain or medial meniscal tear. He explained that the forces involved in weightlifting 

and exercising were competent to cause a muscle strain or meniscal tear. Dr. Chadha ordered an 

imaging study to assess persistent atrophy and prescribed physical therapy. He returned appellant 

to full-duty work. In a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) Dr. Chadha indicated that 

appellant was able to perform his job without restrictions. 

In a September 22, 2021 report, Dr. Chadha noted that a September 2, 2021 magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right knee demonstrated a septated fluid signal intensity at 

the posterior medial aspect of the medial femoral condyle, likely indicating semimembranosus 

bursitis. He diagnosed patellar chondromalacia of the right knee with a semimembranosus 

strain/sprain. Dr. Chadha opined that it was “reasonable that while performing exercise maneuvers 

that require heavy weight the attachment of the muscle has been injured.” He noted that the 

diagnosed knee conditions were employment related as appellant’s physical conditioning program 

“resulted in a tear in the tendon due to heavy lifting.” Dr. Chadha returned appellant to full-duty

work. In an accompanying Form OWCP-5c, he indicated that appellant was able to perform his 

job without restrictions. 

In a development letter dated October 6, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary and 

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

OWCP received an August 23, 2021 report by Dr.Chadha prescribing physical therapy for 

patellar chondromalacia of the right knee. 
3

By decision dated December 8, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he had not established a right knee condition causally related to the accepted June 15, 

2021 employment incident. Consequently, it found that he had not met the requirements to 

establish an injury and/or a medical condition causally related to the accepted employment 

incident. 

On February 5, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. He described the weight training 

routine he had performed on the date of injury. Appellant also asserted that, during a January 12, 

2022 discussion, Dr. Chadha asserted that he had provided all information OWCP had requested. 

By decision dated February 9, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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,4that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and th at 

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

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. 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.7 Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to 

establish that 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. The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must 

3

Supra note 1; D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); L.C., Docket No. 19-0503 (issued February 7, 

2020); A.A., Docket No. 18-0031 (issued April5, 2018);Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984).

4 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).

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).

6P.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).

7 D.S., Docket No. 17-1422 (issued November 9, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); JohnJ. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
4

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 factors 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

In his August 23 and September 22, 2021 reports, Dr. Chadha recounted appellant’s 

medical history as given, noted detailed findings on physical examination, and diagnosed right 

patellar chondromalacia with a semimembranosus strain/sprain. He opined that the accepted 

June 15, 2021 employment incident caused the diagnosed conditions as the forces involved in 

weightlifting were sufficient to tear the tendon at the attachment point.

The Board finds that Dr. Chadha provided an affirmative opinion on causal relationship, 

based upon a complete and accurate history of injury as related by appellant. 10 While his reports 

are not sufficiently-rationalized to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish his claim, they are 

sufficient to require OWCP to further develop the medical evidence and the case record. 11

It is well established that, proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.12 It has an obligation to see that justice is done.13

On remand OWCP shall refer appellant, a statement of accepted facts, and the medical 

evidence of record to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine. Its referral physician shall 

provide a rationalized opinion as to whether the diagnosed conditions are causally related to the 

accepted employment incident. If the physician opines that the diagnosed conditions are not 

causally related, he or she must explain with rationale how or why his or her opinion differs from 

that of Dr. Chadha. Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, 

OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.14

9 D.R., Docket No. 22-0471 (issued June 27, 2022); M.E., Docket No. 22-0091 (issued May 6, 2022); 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).

10 D.R., id.; E.P., Docket No. 20-0898 (issued February 17, 2021); S.C., Docket No. 19-0920 (issued 

September 25, 2019).

11 D.V., Docket No. 21-0383 (issued October 4, 2021); K.S., Docket No. 19-0506 (issued July 23, 2019); H.T., 

Docket No. 18-0979 (issued February 4, 2019); D.W., Docket No. 17-1884 (issued November 8, 2018). John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 358-60 (1989).

12 D.R., supra note 9.

13 Id.; John J. Carlone, supra note 11.

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

CONCLUSION

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 8, 2021 and February 9, 2022 

decisions of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs are set aside and the case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: November 15, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board