United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MARINE 

CORPS LOGISTICS BASE BARSTOW, 

Barstow, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0455

Issued: June 9, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 13, 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, following the September 13, 2021 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

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the accepted February 23, 2021 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 29, 2021 appellant, then a 48-year-old police officer, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on January 16, 2021 he sustained a right elbow injury when performing

push-ups during a physical agility test while in the performance of duty. He explained that he felt 

a pop in his elbow and immediately experienced pain and swelling in the right elbow and numbness 

in his right hand, which progressively worsened with typing and desk work. In an August 17, 2021 

memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110), appellant advised OWCP that the date of injury 

was incorrect. In a note received on August 30, 2021, the employing establishment requested that 

the date of injury be corrected to February 23, 2021. Appellant did not stop work.

In a development letter dated August 9, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

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

days to respond. No response was received.

By decision dated September 13, 2021, OWCP accepted that the February 23, 2021 

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he did not submit any medical evidence to establish a diagnosed condition causally 

related to the accepted employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT

A claimant 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 

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

3

Supra note 1.

4 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). 

5 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 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).
3

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.7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.

8

 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 

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

identified by the claimant.

9

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted February 23, 2021 employment incident. 

On July 29, 2021 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that he injured his right 

elbow on February 23, 2021 while in the performance of duty. No medical evidence was received 

in support of his claim. In an August 9, 2021 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant

submit medical evidence to support his claim. Appellant, however, did not submit the requested 

evidence. 

There is no medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosed condition causally related 

to the accepted February 23, 2021 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.

7 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).

8

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).

9 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).
4

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted February 23, 2021 employment incident. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 13, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 9, 2022

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