United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, U.S. 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Yuma, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0276

Issued: September 19, 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 14, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 3, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a left knee condition 

causally related to the accepted December 15, 2020 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 30, 2020 appellant, then a 48-year-old hydrologic technician, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 15, 2020 he injured his left knee 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

when he slipped on the floor of a boat, twisting his knee while in the performance of duty. He did 

not stop work.

In a development letter dated January 19, 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.

In a January 21, 2021 response, appellant related that he initially felt slight discomfort after 

the incident and, that, while his knee swelling improved, he had loststrength and range of motion. 

He reported that he notified his supervisor on December 16, 2020 the day after the employment 

incident. Appellant also noted that he had no prior injuries. In a witness statement of even date, 

L.A., appellant’s coworker, indicated that appellant was operating a boat while they collected

water samples on the date of injury. She further explained that after he walked to the front of the 

boat, she looked away and when looking back, recalled him complaining about knee pain.

In a medical report dated February 10, 2021, Dr. Gregory Peare, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted that appellant twisted and felt a pop in his knee on December 15, 2020 

while operating a boat. He related that, following the employment incident, appellant experienced 

ongoing pain, swelling, and tenderness, and that he denied any previous knee injuries. Dr. Peare 

diagnosed a left knee injury and ordered a magnetic imaging resonance (MRI) scan of the impacted

area. In a return to work note of even date, he advised that appellant could return to work with 

restrictions of no heavy lifting or deep squatting. 

By decision dated March 1, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted December 15, 2020 employment incident. It concluded, 

therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On March 5, 2021 appellant requested a review of the written record before a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

In an undated statement, appellant contended that Dr. Peare provided a valid medical 

diagnosis of a medial meniscus tear.

By decision dated June 21, 2021, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review affirmed 

OWCP’s March 1, 2021 decision. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence. A medical report dated June 14, 2021, from

Dr. Peare, related that appellant experienced intermittent popping and catching of the knee when 

performing physical activities such as twisting and turning. He reviewed an MRI scan of the left 

knee and diagnosed an acute medial meniscus tear. Dr. Peare opined that the employment incident

“certainly could cause this type of injury.”

On July 1, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration.

In a statement dated June 24, 2021, appellant contended that the evidence he provided was 

sufficient to establish causal relationship and that he submitted new evidence substantiating

Dr. Peare’s medical diagnosis.
3

By decision dated July 12, 2021, OWCP modified its prior decision, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was sufficient to establish a diagnosed medical condition. However, 

it denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had not established a left knee condition causally related 

to the accepted December 15, 2020 employment incident.

On September 20, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted an addendum

report dated June 14, 2021 from Dr. Peare, who opined that the December 15, 2020 employment 

incident “likely caused” a left knee condition. 

By decision November 3, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its July 12, 2021 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA2 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,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 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 whether 

appellant 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. 6

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.

7

 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the 

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

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

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

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

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

5 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).

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

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
4

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment fac tors 

identified by the claimant.

8

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted December 15, 2020 employment incident. 

In a medical report dated June 14, 2021, Dr. Peare concluded that the mechanism of injury 

of appellant stepping into a boat and twisting his left knee “certainly could cause this type of 

injury”. In an addendum report, he opined that the employment incident “likely caused” the 

condition. The Board has held that, while the opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship 

need not be one of absolute medical certainty, it must not be speculative or equivocal. 9 The opinion 

should be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty. 10 Dr. Peare’s reports, 

therefore, are insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of proof. 

The remaining medical evidence of record consists of Dr. Peare’s February 10, 2021 

medical reportwherein he diagnosed a left knee injury and provided work restrictions. This report, 

however, does not offer an opinion on whether the accepted employment incident was causally 

related to appellant’s left knee condition. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not 

offer an opinion regarding the cause of employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue 

of causal relationship.11 As such, Dr. Peare’s report is also insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a left knee condition causally 

related to the accepted December 15, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant 

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 proof to establish a left knee 

condition causally related to the accepted December 15, 2020 employment incident. 

8 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

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

9 L.S., Docket No. 18-1494 (issued April12, 2019); Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001).

10 Id. 

11 M.E., Docket No. 18-0940 (issued June 11, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 3, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 19, 2022

Washington, D.C.

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