United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE,

CHINLE COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE 

FACILITY, Chinle, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0813

Issued: January 25, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 24, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

COVID-19.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 12, 2022 appellant, then a 39-year-old pharmacist, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 2, 2022 she was exposed to and contracted COVID-19 

while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s supervisor 

acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty and indicated that she stopped 

work on January 5, 2022.

In a development letter dated February 17, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the

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

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence.

OWCP received a March 10, 2022 “statement of certification” signed by appellant. 

Appellant did not respond to OWCP’s development questionnaire. 

Appellant submitted a March 10, 2022 statement from Dr. Leslie Stewart, an employing 

establishment physician specializing in infectious disease and internal medicine, who indicated 

that appellant tested positive for COVID-19 on January 3, 2022. Dr. Stewart advised that 

appellant used a home antigen test, which was verified as positive. She informed appellant that 

she did not need to come in for a Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test because the protocol in 

the hospital at that time was not to repeat COVID-19 testing for those with a positive home antigen 

test. Appellant’s symptoms were fatigue, headache, congestion, rhinorrhea, and sore throat. 

Dr. Stewart restricted appellant from work from January 3 through 13, 2022 and informed her that 

she could return to work on January 14, 2022, as her symptoms had improved.

By decision dated March 24, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

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

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

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 

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).
3

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

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 be 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 (PCR) or Antigen COVID-19 test result; or (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 test result is not available. Self-administered 

COVID-19 tests, also called “home tests,” “at-home tests,” or “over-the-counter (OTC) 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 met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosis of 

COVID-19.

Appellant did not provide a positive COVID-19 test result. In support of her claim, she

submitted a March 10, 2022 statement from Dr. Stewart, an employing establishment physician,

4 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 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).

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. 
4

who confirmed that appellant tested positive for COVID-19 on January 3, 2022. Dr. Stewart

advised that appellant used a home antigen test, which was verified as positive. She noted that 

appellant had fatigue, headache, congestion, rhinorrhea, and sore throat. Dr. Stewart explained 

that appellant did not need to come in for a PCR test as the protocol in her hospital at that time 

was not to repeat COVID-19 testing for those with a positive home antigen test. She noted that 

appellant was disabled from work from January 3 through 13, 2022 and as her symptoms 

improved, she was released to work on January 14, 2022.

OWCP’s guidance provides that if no positive laboratory test is available, a COVID-19 

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

and an explanation as to why a positive test result is not available would suffice to establish a 

diagnosis of COVID-19.

9

 As Dr. Stewart’s March 10, 2022 opinion meets this criteria, the Board,

therefore, finds that it is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of COVID-19. The case will, therefore, 

be remanded for the payment of medical expenses and any attendant disability.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosis of

COVID-19.

9

Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 24, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 25, 2024

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board