United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU 

OF THE CENSUS, Irving, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1315

Issued: May 5, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 30, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 4, 2021 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.

2

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the September 21, 2020 accepted employment incident. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the March4, 2021decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 19, 2021 appellant, then a 65-year-old communications clerical, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained a dog bite to her right thigh on 

September 21, 2020 when a dog ran from under a porch and attacked her as she was enumerating 

for the census while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on September 21, 2020. On 

the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s supervisor, A.P., 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.

In a development letter dated January 27, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

provided a development questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence.

On September 21, 2020 Dr. Rylan Brantl, a Board-certified family medicine specialist,

related that appellant was in North Dakota conducting official duties for the census when a dog bit 

her in the right lateral thigh. He diagnosed a dog bite of the right thigh and indicated that she had 

three small penetrating wounds from the incident. 

OWCP received a medical prescription note dated September 22, 2020 from Dr. Brantl

with appellant prescribed a series of rabies vaccines for her dog bite wounds of the right lateral 

thigh. 

A September 23, 2020 note from Lisa Swanson, a certified nurse practitioner, indicated

that appellant received an injection for her claimed injury. 

In a September 24, 2020 note, Radziwill Jaafar, a nurse practitioner, reported that she 

administered a rabies vaccine to appellant’s right deltoid area.

On September 28, 2020 London Herbert, a nurse practitioner, noted that appellant received 

a third rabies vaccine dose. 

By decision dated March 4, 2021, OWCP accepted that the September 21, 2020 

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied the claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical condition causally related to the accepted 

employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that appellant had not met the requirements 

to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

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 

3

Supra note 1.
3

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, it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established.7 

Generally, fact of injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with 

one another. 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 sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.9

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.10 The opinion of the physician must be based upon a complete 

factual and medical background, 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.11 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish penetrating wounds 

on her right thigh due to the accepted September 21, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP accepted that the dog bite incident of September 21, 2020 occurred as alleged. On 

the same date, appellant presented to Dr. Brantl who diagnosed a dog bite of the right lateral thigh 

sustained while performing her official duties as a federal employee and further noted that she had 

three penetrating dog bite wounds. In follow-up notes dated September 23, 24, and 28, 2020, she 

4 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). 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E.Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 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).

7 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

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

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

10 I.J., Docket No. 19-1343 (issued February 26, 2020); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 

238 (1996).

11 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issuedJune 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).
4

was treated with a series of rabies vaccines due to her diagnosed condition of dog bite and the 

noted penetrating wounds to her right thigh.

The record establishes that appellant submitted medical evidence from Dr. Brantl 

containing a dog bite diagnosis in connection with her claim.12 OWCP’s 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 e ven without a 

medical report.13 As the evidence of record establishes diagnosed visible injuries, the Board finds 

that she has met her burden of proof to establish dog bite wounds causally related to the accepted 

September 21, 2020 employment incident.14 Appellant, therefore, has established an injury in the 

performance of duty. The case will, therefore, be remanded for payment of medical expenses and 

any attendant disability.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish penetrating wounds 

on her right thigh. 

12 See S.A., Docket No. 20-1498 (issued March 11, 2021); A.H., Docket No. 20-0730 (issued October 27, 2020); 

B.C., Docket No. 20-0079 (issued October 16, 2020).

13 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6(a) 

(June 2011); Chapter 2.805.3(c) (January 2013). See alsoA.J., Docket No. 20-0484 (issued September 2, 2020).

14 See R.H., Docket No. 20-1684 (issued August 27, 2021).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 4, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: May 5, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board