United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU, Philadelphia, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1136

Issued: January 14, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 July 16, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 7, 2021 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted September 6, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 9, 2020 appellant, then a 46-year-old miscellaneous clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 6, 2020 she sustained a laceration to her left 

hand requiring six stitches when she was attacked by a dog while in the performance of duty. She 

indicated that she was affixing a form on an interviewee’s door when a dog suddenly pushed the 

door open and attacked her. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s supervisor, N.M., 

acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty and certified that his 

knowledge of the injury comported with the information provided by appellant. 

Appellant submitted an incident report dated September 6, 2020. It indicated that on that 

date she was going “door to door for her job ... and was bitten by a dog.”

In an urgent care return to work form dated September 6, 2020, Rachel Davis, a certified 

physician assistant, indicated that appellant may return to modified-duty work. 

In a development letter dated September 16, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to 

establish her claim and attached a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the requested evidence. 

In a September 6, 2020 urgent care and visit summary report, Ms. Davis noted that 

appellant was bitten by a dog on her left hand at a house that she was surveying for work. On 

physical examination of the left hand she observed a laceration on the inferior heel of hand, open 

and bleeding. Ms. Davis assessed “dog bite of hand.”

In a summary report dated September 10, 2020, Dawn L. Bruni, a nurse practitioner, noted 

that appellant was evaluated for a follow up after a dog bite on Sunday. 

In a September 14, 2020 urgent care report, Ms. Bruni indicated that appellant was seen 

for removal of sutures that were placed following a dog bite on the left hand. She reported that 

the wound was healing well with minimal erythema and tenderness. 

By decision dated October 29, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that the 

September 6, 2020 employment incident occurred, as alleged, but denied the claim finding that the 

evidence of record did not include medical evidence containing a diagnosis from a qualified 

physician in connection with the accepted employment incident.

On November 19, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on March 22, 2021 at 

which appellant’s representative cited to OWCP’s procedure manual and contended that OWCP 

should accept the claim for a dog bite injury to the left hand. He also asserted that appellant 

developed an infection as a result of the September 6, 2020 dog bite injury. 
3

In an April 14, 2021 letter, Dr. Katelyn Atwater, a Board-certified internist, indicated to 

counsel that secondary thrombocytosis “can be” an inflammatory response “not necessarily due to 

a dog bite, but could be related.” She also noted that appellant’s secondary thrombocytosis had

resolved.

OWCP received a laboratory report dated October 12, 2020, which indicated the presence 

of thrombocytosis. 

By decision dated June 7, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative modified the October 29, 

2020 decision to find that appellant had established a medical diagnosis of thrombocytosis in

connection with the September 6, 2020 employment incident, but denied the claim, finding that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship. 

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 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

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

performance of duty, OWCP must first determine whether fact of injury has been established. 7 

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 and place, and in the manner alleged.8 Second, the employee must submit evidence, in the 

form of probative medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.9

3

Id.

4

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989). 

5

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April25, 2019); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., 

Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007).

8 D.S., Docket No. 17-1422 (issued November 9, 2017); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

9 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); JohnJ. Carlone, 41 ECAB 

354 (1989).
4

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

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 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 factor(s)

identified by the employee.11 The weight of the medical evidence is determined by its reliability, 

its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical 

rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.12

Pursuant to OWCP’s procedures, no development of a claim is necessary where the 

condition reported is a minor one which can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person (e.g., 

burn, laceration, insect sting, or animal bite).13 No medical report is required to establish a minor 

condition such as a laceration.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a laceration on her 

left hand causally related to the accepted September 6, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP procedures provide that if a condition reported is a minor one, such as a burn, 

laceration, insect sting, or animal bite, which can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person, 

a case may be accepted without a medical report and no development of the case need be 

undertaken, if the injury was witnessed or reported promptly, and no dispute exists as to the 

occurrence of an injury; and no time was lost from work due to disability.15 This section of 

OWCP’s procedures further states that, in cases of serious injury (motor vehicle accident, 

stabbings, shootings, etc.) if the employing establishment does not dispute the facts of the case, 

and there are no questionable circumstances, the case may be accepted for a minor condition, such 

as laceration, without a medical report, while simultaneously developing the case for other more 

serious conditions. This is true even if there is lost time due to such a serious injury.16

Appellant noted on her claim form that she suffered a laceration to her left hand, which 

required six stitches, following a dog bite injury. The Board finds that the description of the 

condition, a dog bite to her left hand and resultant laceration, and history of injury, is the type of 

10 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020);A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 

2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

11 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 

ECAB 345 (1989).

12 James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

13 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.800.6(a) (June 2011).

14 Id.; see B.H., Docket No. 20-1048 (issued September 15, 2021) (the Board accepted a laceration above a 

claimant’s left eye as causally related to the accepted employment incident).

15 Supra note 13.

16 Id. 
5

minor condition identifiable on visual inspection by a lay person for which OWCP’s procedures 

allows the acceptance of a claim without a medical report from a qualified physician.17 The 

signature of N.M., appellant’s supervisor, on the September 9, 2020 Form CA-1acknowledged

appellant’s statement that she sustained a dog bite to her left hand while in the performance of 

duty. Appellant promptly received medical treatment at an urgent care facility and the 

September 6, 2020 report from Ms. Davis noted a laceration on appellant’s left hand, which 

required stitches, following a dog bite. As the evidence of record establishes diagnosed visible 

injuries, the Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a laceration to her 

left hand causally related to the accepted September 6, 2020 employment incident.18 The case 

will, therefore, be remanded for payment of medical expenses and any attendant disability.

The Board further finds, however, that appellant has not established the additional 

condition of thrombocyclosis causally related to the September 6, 2020 employment injury. In an 

April 14, 2021 letter, Dr. Atwater explained that thrombocytosis “can be” an inflammatory 

response “not necessarily due to a dog bite.” The Board finds that her opinion is speculative in 

nature. Dr. Atwater did not definitively opine that appellant developed thrombocyclosis as a result 

of appellant’s September 6, 2020 employment injury, but merely noted that the condition “can be”

a response to a dog bite.19 The Board has held that medical opinions that are speculative or 

equivocal in character are of diminished probative value.20 The Board finds, therefore, that this 

evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of proof to establish additional medical 

conditions as causally related to the accepted employment injury.

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 met her burden of proof to establish a left hand laceration 

causally related to the accepted September 6, 2020 employment incident. The Board further finds, 

however, that she has not met her burden of proof to establish additional medical conditions as 

causally related to the accepted September 6, 2020 employment injury.

17 Id.; see A.C., Docket No. 20-0703 (issued December 22, 2020) (the Board accepted an open leg wound due to a 

dog bite as causally related to the accepted employment incident).

18 T.C., Docket No. 21-0513 (issued September 14, 2021) (the Board accepted a left finger contusion as causally 

related to the accepted employment incident); see also B.C., Docket No. 20-0498 (issued August 27, 2020) (the Board 

accepted a lumbar contusion as causally related to the accepted employment incident).

19 R.Q., Docket No. 20-0585 (issued September 10, 2021); P.D., Docket No. 18-1461 (issued July 2, 2019); C.M., 

Docket No. 19-0264 (issued December 19, 2019).

20 D.B., Docket No. 18-1359 (issued May 14, 2019); Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 7, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Issued: January 14, 2022

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