United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, INDIANA 

DUNES NATIONAL PARK, Porter, IN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0847

Issued: October 17, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 4, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 6, 2023 merit decision and 

a June 1, 2023 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

ISSUES

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 3, 2022 employment incident; and 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the June 1, 2023 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

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his 

claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 22, 2022 appellant, then a 31-year-old park ranger, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 3, 2022 he sustained injury to his lungs and airways 

when he was exposed to smoke while in the performance of duty. He indicated that in the process 

of executing a search warrant, he had to run into a burning residential home twice in order to rescue 

multiple cats and dogs and inhaled a “great deal” of smoke as a result. On the reverse side of the 

claim form, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of 

duty.

In a development letter dated January 4, 2023, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

in his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish the 

claim and provided a factual questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days 

to respond. No response was received.

By decision dated February 6, 2023, OWCP found that the December 3, 2022 incident had 

occurred as alleged, but denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted 

employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA.

On May 27, 2023 appellant requested reconsideration. OWCP received a medical bill 

dated March 30, 2023 from a medical provider in the amount of $2,089.00.

By decision dated June 1, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of his claim.

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, that 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 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

3

Supra note 1.

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 B.H., Docket No. 20-0777 (issued October 21, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There are two components 

involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the employee actually 

experienced the employment incident that allegedly occurred at the time and place, and in the 

manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the employment injury must be based on a complete factual 

and medical background.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be expressed in terms of a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s employment injury.9 

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, 

nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or 

incident is sufficient to establish causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 3, 2022 employment incident. 

Appellant has not submitted any medical evidence in support of his claim. As noted above, 

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

elements of his or her claim.

11

 It is appellant’s burden of proof to obtain and submit medical 

documentation containing a firm diagnosis causally related to the accepted employment incident.12

As the evidence of record does not include a medical report, from a physician, relating a 

medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted December 3, 2022 employment incident, the 

Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.

6 K.M., Docket No. 23-0451 (issued September 25, 2023); H.M.,Docket No. 22-0343 (issued June 28, 2022);

T.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August 11, 2020); M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); JohnJ. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

7 R.P., Docket No. 21-1189 (issued July 29, 2022); E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

8 R.P., id.; F.A., Docket No. 20-1652 (issued May 21, 2021); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

9

Id.

10 T.M., Docket No. 22-0220 (issued July 29, 2022); S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019); see also

J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April 12, 2019).

11 Supra note 4. 

12 J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28, 2020); R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020).
4

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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128 of FECA vests OWCP with a discretionary authority to determine whether it 

will review an award for or against compensation, either under its own authority or on application 

by a claimant.13

Section 10.608(b) of OWCP’s regulations provide that a timely request for reconsideration 

may be granted if OWCP determines that the claimant has presented evidence and/or argument 

that meet at least one of the standards described in section 10.606(b)(3).14 This section provides 

that the request for reconsideration must be submitted in writing and set forth arguments and 

contain evidence that: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of 

law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes 

relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP. 15 Section 10.608(b) 

provides that, when a request for reconsideration is timely, but fails to meet at least one of these 

three requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening the case 

for a review on the merits.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

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

Appellant did not offer any argument in support of his request for reconsideration. The 

Board finds that appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific 

point of law, or advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. 

Consequently, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of his claim based on either 

the first or second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

The Board further finds that appellant has not provided relevant and pertinent new evidence 

not previously considered by OWCP. The underlying issue in this case was whether he has met 

his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted 

December 3, 2022 employment incident. On reconsideration OWCP only received a medical bill

from a medical provider. This bill did not provide a medical diagnosis or an opinion regarding 

13 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.608(a).

15 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019).

16 Id. at § 10.608(b); J.B., Docket No. 20-0145 (issued September 8, 2020); Y.K., Docket No. 18-1167 (issued 

April 2, 2020).
5

causal relationship. On reconsideration, appellant therefore did not submit relevant and pertinent 

new evidence regarding the underlying issues.17

Therefore, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of his claim based on the 

third above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.

CONCLUSION

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 3, 2022 employment incident. The 

Board further finds that OWCP properly denied his request for reconsideration of the merits of his 

claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 6 and June 1, 2023 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: October 17, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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

17 See S.L., Docket No. 21-0201 (issued June 10, 2022); P.C., Docket No. 18-1703 (issued March 22, 2019).