United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE,

San Antonio, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0726

Issued: September 26, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 23, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 21, 2022 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 21, 2022decision, 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a lower right extremity 

condition causally related to the accepted September 30, 2022 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 1, 2022 appellant, then a 53-year-old Federal Protective Service inspector, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 30, 2022 he sustained a 

right calf injury in the performance of duty. He explained that he sustained an injury when he 

stepped in to stop a physical altercation which occurred at an automotive service center while 

having his employing establishment vehicle serviced. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty , but 

indicated that he was injured by a third party. The form further indicated that he stopped work on 

September 30, 2022.

On September 30, 2022 appellant was treated in an emergency department by

Dr. Alexander Norinsky, a Board-certified emergency medicine osteopath. He underwent a lower 

extremity venous ultrasound performed by Dr. Allan Traux, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist. Appellant related right calf pain and edema. The doppler study was positive for deep 

vein thrombosis(DVT)with nonocclusive thrombus in the right popliteal vein, and fluid collection 

within the right calf. Findings also indicated a hematoma in the right calf or possibly complex 

Baker’s cyst or other etiology.

Appellant submitted a narrative statement dated October 1, 2022. He related that he was 

leaving the automotive service center when he saw two individuals fighting each other and heard

someone shout, “go get the cop.” After stepping in to separate the two individuals and shoving

the one of them backwards, appellant felt a “muscle cramp” tighten his right calf as he pushed off 

his right foot. The pain continued, and the area began to swell. Appellant reported the injury to 

his supervisor and drove himself to the hospital for further evaluation.

In a development letter dated October 11, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

needed to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to respond. 

In a completed development questionnaire dated October 25, 2022, appellant responded 

that he did not seek treatment for his lower right extremity prior to September 30, 2022, and further 

indicated that he only travelled twice by air in 2022. He also submitted itineraries for flights taken 

in March and July 2022. 

On October 4, 2022 appellant was seen in an emergency department by Dr. Peter J. 

Carlson, a Board-certified emergency medicine physician. Appellant related that he was stopping 

a physical altercation, and in pressing off of his right calf, he felt a cramp sensation. He continued

to have pain. Appellant was diagnosed with gastrocnemius muscle tear and nonocclusive 

thrombus.
3

By decision dated November 21, 2022, OWCP accepted that the September 30, 2022

employment incident occurred as alleged, and that a medical condition was diagnosed, and that 

appellant was in the performance of duty. However, it denied his claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between his diagnosed 

condition and the accepted September 30, 2022 employment incident.

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, 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

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. The first component is that 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. The second component is 

whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical 

evidence.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, 

3

Id.

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).

6 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L.,Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

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.
4

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

incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS

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

extremity condition causally related to the accepted September 30, 2022 employment incident.

Appellant submitted an emergency department note dated September 30, 2022 from

Dr. Norinsky, which indicated that appellant had undergone a lower right extremity venous 

ultrasound performed by Dr. Traux. The report indicated diagnoses of DVT with nonocclusive 

thrombus in the right popliteal vein; and fluid collection within the right calf; as well as hematoma 

in the right calf or possibly complex Baker’s cyst or other etiology. Dr. Norinsky, however, did 

not specifically address the cause of appellant’s conditions with a rationalized medical opinion

explaining how the employment incident would have physiologically caused the diagnosed 

conditions. The Board has held that medical evidence offering no opinion regarding the cause of 

an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 11 This report

is, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In an October 4, 2022 note, Dr. Carlson noted appellant’s diagnoses as gastrocnemius

muscle tear and nonocclusive thrombus. However, he again offered no opinion regarding causal 

relationship. As explained above, medical evidence offering no opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 12 This report is

also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted narrative statements in support of his claim. As noted above, 

causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to 

resolve the issue.13 A lay opinion regarding causal relationship does not constitute probative 

medical evidence.14 These statements are therefore insufficient to establish the claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed medical condition and the accepted September 30, 2022 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.

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 L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 See E.H., Docket No. 19-0365 (issued March 17, 2021). 
5

CONCLUSION

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

extremity condition causally related to the accepted September 30, 2022 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 21, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 26, 2023

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