United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FINANCIAL &

BUSINESS OPERATIONS LOGISTICS 

DIVISION, Alexandria, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0326

Issued: August 15, 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 December 29, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 15, 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 his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted September 24, 2021 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 15, 2021decision, OWCP received additional evidence. Appellant 

also submitted additional evidence on appeal to the Board. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 29, 2021 appellant, then a 56-year-old motor vehicle operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 24, 202 he sustained injuries to 

the head, arm, and lower back when he tripped over an engine cover during a school bus inspection 

while in the performance of duty. 

Appellant submitted a position description dated October 4, 2021.

In a development letter dated October 12, 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. No 

response was received.

By decision dated November 15, 2021, OWCP accepted that the September 24, 2021 

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

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

the accepted employment incident. Thus, appellant had not met the requirements to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact 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 period of FECA,3that 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 if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.6 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

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

3

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

153 (1989).

4

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 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).

6 B.P., Docket No. 16-1549 (issued January 18, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
3

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.8

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition causally related to the accepted September 24, 2021 employment incident.

Appellant did not submit any medical evidence in support of his claim.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence from a qualified physician 

establishing a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted September 24, 2021 

employment incident, the Board finds that he has not met his 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 met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted September 24, 2021 employment incident.

8 M.O., Docket No. 19-1398 (issued August13, 2020); J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April12, 2019).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 15, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 15, 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