United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.L., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH

AIR FORCE BASE, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0617

Issued: November 8, 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 March 22, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 1, 2023 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 diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted January 6, 2023 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 12, 2023 appellant, then a 35-year-old police officer, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 6, 2023 he sustained acute chemical pneumonitis of 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

the lungs and throat when he inhaled chemicals from vehicle coolant after a vehicle overheated 

while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on January 6, 2023 and returned to full duty 

on January 7, 2023. 

Appellant submitted a health summary report dated January 6, 2023 by an unknown 

provider, who indicated that appellant was treated for complaints of inhaled antifreeze and

diagnosed acute chemical pneumonitis.

In a January 18, 2023 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

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

claim and provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

Appellant submitted a January 6, 2023 emergency department note by Dr. Bhupinder S. 

Sangha, Board-certified in internal and critical care medicine and nephrology, who recounted 

appellant’s complaints that he inhaled antifreeze. Dr. Sangha described that appellant was opening 

the hood on his vehicle that had broken down and “felt a blast of warm air with a sweet taste of 

antifreeze.” Appellant reported that he had been coughing ever since the incident, but denied any 

shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. Dr. Sangha noted a discharge clinical impression of 

acute chemical pneumonitis.

A January 6, 2023 chest x-ray scan revealed no acute cardiopulmonary disease.

By decision dated March 1, 2023, OWCP accepted that the January 6, 2023 employment

incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted 

January 6, 2023 employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that he had not met the 

requirements 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 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

2

Id. 

3 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January29, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); 

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); 

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP must first determine whether fact of injury has been established. 6 

There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, 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. Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence 

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

To establish causal relationship between the condition and the employment event or 

incident, the employee must submit 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 the specific employment factor(s) 

identified by the employee.9 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a January 6, 2023 emergency department note 

by Dr. Sangha who described the January 6, 2023 employment incident and reported that appellant 

had been coughing ever since the incident. Dr. Sangha noted a discharge clinical impression of 

acute chemical pneumonitis. The Board finds, therefore, that the report by Dr. Sangha is sufficient 

to establish a diagnosis of acute chemical pneumonitis.10 

As the medical evidence of record establishes a diagnosed medical condition, the case must 

be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal 

relationship.11 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP 

shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

in connection with the accepted January 6, 2023 employment incident. The Board further finds, 

6 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007).

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); David 

Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); see 

also Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 C.F., Docket No. 18-0791 (issued February 26, 2019); M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); 

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

10 See E.L., Docket No. 21-0587 (issued July 6, 2022); see also T.C., Docket No. 17-0624 (issued 

December 19, 2017).

11 See S.R., Docket No. 22-0421 (issued July 15, 2022); S.A., Docket No. 20-1498 (issued March 11, 2021).
4

however, that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether his diagnosed condition is 

causally related to the accepted January 6, 2023 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 1, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: November 8, 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