United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, HARTFORD POST 

OFFICE, Hartford, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0192

Issued: June 27, 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 November 24, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 16, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosis of

COVID-19.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 9, 2022 appellant, then a 59-year-old office automation clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 15, 2022 he did not feel well, and on April 16, 

2022 he tested positive for COVID-19, which he believed that he had contracted while in the 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged 

that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant stopped work on April 15, 2022

and returned to work on May 2, 2022. 

Accompanying the claim was a photograph of a COVID-19 home test. 

In a May 6, 2022 report, Dr. Allison Waggoner, an osteopathic physician specializing in 

family medicine, noted that appellant was seen via a telehealth visit on April 20, 2022 and was 

diagnosed with and treated for COVID-19. 

In development letters dated May 20 and 31, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

On June 17, 2022 OWCP explained to appellant that the COVID-19 home test submitted 

was insufficient because it was not monitored by a health care professional. 

By decision dated July 1, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosis of COVID-19. Therefore, the requirements had

not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

On July 25, 2022 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

By decision dated November 16, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

May 27, 2021 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,3that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and 

that any disability or specific 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 on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 5

2

Id.

3 C.B., Docket No. 21-1291 (issued April28, 2022); S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January29, 2020); T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); R.C., 

59 ECAB 427 (2008).

5 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

Under section 4016 of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 20216 any claim made 

for COVID-19 by or on behalf of a “covered employee” for benefits under FECA will be deemed 

to have an injury proximately caused by exposure to COVID-19 arising out of the nature of the 

covered employee’s employment. A “covered employee” is defined by ARPA as an employee 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8101(a) and employed in the federal service at any time during the period 

beginning on January 27, 2020 and ending on January 27, 2023. A “covered employee” prior to a 

diagnosis of COVID-19 must have carried out duties that required a physical interaction with at 

least one other person (a patient, member of the public, or a coworker); or was otherwise subject 

to a risk of exposure to COVID-19.7

Exposure to COVID-19 alone is not sufficient to establish a work-related medical 

condition. Manifestation of COVID-19 must occur within 21 days of the covered exposure. To 

establish a diagnosis of COVID-19, a claimant must submit the following: (1) a positive 

Polymerase Chain Reaction or Antigen COVID-19 test result; (2) a positive Antibody test result, 

together with contemporaneous medical evidence that the claimant had documented symptoms of 

and/or was treated for COVID-19 by a physician (a notice to quarantine is not sufficient if there 

was no evidence of illness); or (3) if no positive laboratory test is available, a COVID-19 diagnosis 

from a physician together with rationalized medical opinion supporting the diagnosis and an 

explanation as to why a positive laboratory test result is not available. Self-administered 

COVID-19 tests, also called “home tests,” “at-home tests,” or “over-the-counter tests” are 

insufficient to establish a diagnosis of COVID-19 under FECA unless the administration of the 

self-test is monitored by a medical professional and the results are verified through documentation 

submitted by such professional.8

ANALYSIS

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

COVID-19.

Appellant filed a claim on May 9, 2022 alleging that he had developed COVID-19 within 

21 days of his exposure while in the performance of duty.9 In support of his claim, he submitted 

a photograph of a home test for COVID-19. However, this case record does not indicate that the 

home test was monitored by a health care professional. As noted, OWCP’s guidance provides that 

a home test is insufficient to establish a diagnosis of COVID-19, unless the home test is monitored 

by a health care professional and the results are verified through documentation submitted by such 

6 Public Law 117-2 (March 11, 2021).

7 ARPA, id.; FECA Bulletin No. 21-09 (issued April 28, 2021).

8 FECA Bulletin Nos. 21-09 (issued April 28, 2021), 21-10 (issued August 17, 2021), and 22-06 (issued 

February16, 2022). FECA Bulletin No. 21-10 amended FECA Bulletin No. 21-09 in part to allow for a positive 

Antigen COVID-19 test result. FECA Bulletin No. 22-06 amended FECA Bulletin Nos. 21-09 and 21-10 to update 

COVID-19 claims processing guidelines relating to reinfection and home tests. 

9

Id.
4

professional.10 The Board, therefore,finds that the photograph of the home test is insufficient to 

establish a diagnosis of COVID-19.

Appellant also submitted a May 6, 2022 report, wherein Dr. Waggoner related that 

appellant was seen via a telehealth visit on April 20, 2022 and was diagnosed with and treated for 

COVID-19. As noted above, OWCP’s guidance requires that, if no positive laboratory test is 

available, appellant must submit a COVID-19 diagnosis from a physician together with 

rationalized medical opinion supporting the diagnosis and an explanation as to why a positive 

laboratory test result is not available.11 Dr. Waggoner did not provide a rationalized opinion 

supporting a diagnosis of COVID-19 and an explanation as to why a positive laboratory test result 

was not available. Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish a diagnosis of COVID-19.

As the evidence of record is insufficient to establish a diagnosis of COVID-19, 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 of proof to establish a diagnosis of 

COVID-19.

10 Id.

11 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 16, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 27, 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