United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, McALESTER 

ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT, McAlester, OK, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0553

Issued: July 6, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 24, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 25, 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, on appeal, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules 

of Procedure provides: “The Boards 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 has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted September 11, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 12, 2020 appellant, then a 27-year-old explosives operator, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 11, 2020 he sustained a herniated disc from 

L1 to S1 and a fracture of the back at L5 when lifting unweighted boxes of pellets from the floor 

level to palletize them, approximately 192 times that shift, while in the performance of duty. On 

the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment contended that appellant was not 

injured in the performance of duty, noting that, while appellant reported that his back hurt, he did 

not indicate when or how he had injured his back. Appellant did not stop work. 

In a mishap report dated September 11, 2020, the employing establishment reported that 

appellant was working overtime during the nightshift on September 11, 2020 after five consecutive 

days of work. Appellant reported to C.W., an employing establishment team lead that, during his 

September 11, 2020 operational shift, his back was hurting and he may have to go to the hospital. 

On Monday, September 14, 2020 he called-in to work to report that he went to the hospital after 

injuring discs in his back. Appellant’s supervisor, J.M., was not available to take his statement, so 

appellant reported the incident to J.L., the night shift quarter manager. 

In a December 22, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested

additional information from the employing establishment, including comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of appellant’s allegations. It afforded both 

parties 30 days to respond.

In an undated response, appellant further described the September 11, 2020 employment 

incident. He related that on that date he was working overtime on the nightshift busting pellets 

into trays, dividing them into boxes until full, placing a lid on top, and then stacking six or seven 

boxes on top of each other to create rows. Appellant reported performing this task approximately 

192 times that night. He explained that, during most of the process, he stayed in a bent position at 

the waist as everything was on floor level, causing him to lift the unknown weight from each box 

off the floor. Appellant noted that he could feel pain increasing throughout the night, but pushed 

through it, and his coworkers expressed concern because he was favoring one side and moving 

more slowly. He informed his team lead C.W., that he may need to go to the emergency room,

but would wait and see if there was improvement. Appellant also notified his building supervisor, 

J.M., who informed appellant that he would not write a report, but if he called out on the following 

Monday, he would explain why appellant was unable to report for duty. He reported that, on his 

way home, the pain became unbearable causing him to seek emergency medical treatment. 

In a mishap report dated September 14, 2020, C.W. reported that, on September 12, 2020 

at approximately 4:00 a.m., appellant informed him that his back was hurting and he was 

considering going to the hospital. He told appellant that he needed to talk to his supervisor, J.M., 
3

so this incident could be recorded. C.W. then informed J.M. of the incident and noted that 

appellant never stated if he was injured at work. 

In a September 28, 2020 statement, J.M., an employing establishment supervisor, reported 

that on the morning of September 12, 2020 appellant notified him that his back was bothering him 

from his 12-hour nightshift after volunteering to work at his building because he was shorthanded. 

Appellant reported that he was not going to see a physician and would try taking acetaminophen

and a hot shower first. J.M. informed appellant that he would have to prepare an incident report if 

anything changed. He noted that appellant was on leave for two weeks following the incident and 

later found out that appellant had to go to the emergency room following his shift. 

In a September 29, 2020 statement, D.C., a coworker, reported that appellant was not 

complaining of any pain when appellant arrived for his shift. He noted that it was not until their 

last run that appellant could not bend at the waist and he instructed appellant to sit down since he 

was unable to lid the boxes.

In a September 29, 2020 statement, T.M., a coworker, reported that on September 11, 2020 

appellant complained of back pain after his first break, which continued to worsen. Appellant 

called him the following day and informed him that he went to the emergency room. 

In a September 29, 2020 statement, M.N., a coworker, reported that on September 11, 2020 

appellant complained of back pain, but stated that he would be “ok.” The following day, appellant 

called and informed him that he went to the emergency room. 

By letter dated January 12, 2021, the employing establishment responded to OWCP’s 

development questionnaire. It concurred with appellant’s statements pertaining to the 

September 11, 2020 employment incident and acknowledged that appellant was injured in the 

performance of duty. 

By decision dated January 25, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical condition in connection 

with the accepted September 11, 2020 employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the 

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

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,4that 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 

3

Id.

4 E.K., Docket No. 22-1130 (issued December 30, 2022); F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020);

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
4

employment injury.5 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.6

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. First, 

the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the 

employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury. 7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 8 The opinion of 

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

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

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment incident 

identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted September 11, 2020 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted additional factual evidence; however, he did 

not submit any medical evidence.

10

 As there is no medical evidence of record to establish a 

diagnosed medical condition in connection with the accepted September 11, 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.

5

S.H., Docket No. 22-0391 (issued June 29, 2022); 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). 

6 E.H., Docket No. 22-0401 (issued June 29, 2022); P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020);

K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

7 H.M., Docket No.22-0343 (issued June 28, 2022); T.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August 11, 2020);

K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

8

S.M., Docket No. 22-0075 (issued May 6, 2022); S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020);

A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9

J.D., Docket No. 22-0935 (issued December 16, 2022); T.L.,Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January22, 2020);

Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

10 E.K., Docket No. 22-1130 (issued December 30, 2022); S.K., Docket No. 22-0592 (issued July 20, 2022).
5

CONCLUSION

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted September 11, 2020 employment incident. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 25, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 6, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board