United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

U.S. BORDER PATROL, San Ysidro, CA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1103

Issued: July 14, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 14, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 12, 2021 merit decision and 

a June 15, 2021 nonmerit 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 18, 2020 employment incident; and 

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record as 

untimely filed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 23, 2020 appellant, then a 27-year-old border patrol agent, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 18, 2020 he strained his left wrist and 

reinjured his right knee in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) while in the performance of duty. He 

noted that his vehicle hydroplaned and lost control, impacting a concrete barrier, and that the air 

bags deployed. Appellant did not stop work.

In a February 8, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence required and afforded him 

30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In a December 18, 2020 form report, Dr. Michelle Chastain, an emergency medicine 

specialist, indicated that she had evaluated appellant on that date. She diagnosed MVA. In an 

emergency department report of even date, Dr. Chastain indicated that appellant was a driver in a 

single vehicle accident when he crashed into a median barrier after the rear wheel slipped out from 

under him. She noted that he was not wearing a seatbelt when the airbags were deployed. 

Dr. Chastain conducted a physical examination and found no chest pain, airbag burns, or bruising. 

She indicated that there was no “evidence of trauma or injury at this time.” Dr. Chastain diagnosed 

status post motor vehicle collision (MVC). In an industrial injury form of even date, Dr. Chastain 

diagnosed MVC. In discharge instructions of even date, she again indicated that appellant was 

involved in a work-related MVA.

A December 18, 2020 x-ray of the chest revealed no evidence of active cardiopulmonary 

disease. 

In an undated authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16), the 

employing establishing authorized appellant to seek medical care after a vehicle accident on 

December 18, 2020.

By decision dated March 12, 2021, OWCP accepted that the December 18, 2020 incident 

occurred, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the

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

the accepted December 18, 2020 employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that the 

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

On May 21, 2021 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

By decision dated June 15, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a review of the 

written record, finding that it was untimely filed. It further exercised its discretion and determined 

that the issue in this case could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration before 

OWCP, along with the submission of new evidence.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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

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. 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. The second component is whether the employment 

incident caused a personal injury.6 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.7 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 factors identified by the employee.8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 18, 2020 employment incident. 

On the date of injury, appellant sought emergency medical treatment with Dr. Chastain

who only assessed appellant as having been involved in a work-related MVA/MVC, which is a 

2

Id.

3 K.C., Docket No. 23-0062 (issued March 27, 2023); 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 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).

5 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).

6 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).

7

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).

8 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

description of the incident, not a diagnosis.9 Further, she reported that there was no evidence of 

trauma or injury. The Board has held that medical reports which do not provide a firm diagnosis 

and render an opinion on causal relationship are of no probative value and are insufficient to 

establish the claim.10 Thus, Dr. Chastain’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted a December 18, 2020 x-ray of the chest. The Board has held that 

diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value as they do not address whether the 

employment injury caused any of the diagnosed conditions. 11 As such, this evidence is also

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the record lacks rationalized medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical 

condition in connection with the accepted December 18, 2021 employment incident, the Board 

finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together 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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8124(b)(1) of FECA provides that “a claimant for compensation not satisfied with 

a decision of the Secretary is entitled, on request made within 30 days after the date of the issuance 

of the decision, to a hearing on his [or her] claim before a representative of the Secretary.”

12

 

Sections 10.617 and 10.618 of the federal regulations implementing this section of FECA provide 

that a claimant shall be afforded a choice of an oral hearing or a review of the written record by a 

representative of the Secretary.13 A claimantis entitled to a hearing or review of the written record 

as a matter of right only if the request is filed within the requisite 30 days as determined by 

postmark or other carrier’s date marking and before the claimant has requested reconsideration.14 

Although there is no right to a review of the written record or an oral hearing, if not requested 

within the 30-day time period, OWCP may within its discretionary powers grant or deny 

appellant’s request and must exercise its discretion.15

9

See K.R., Docket No. 20-0995 (issued January 29, 2021); K.V., Docket No. 18-0723 (issued November 9, 2018).

10 R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020); S.H., Docket No. 19-1897 (issued April 21, 2020).

11 See E.M., Docket No. 21-0512 (issued September 7, 2021); V.H., Docket No. 18-1282 (issued April 2, 2019).

12 Supra note 1 at § 8124(b)(1).

13 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.616, 10.617.

14 Id. at § 10.616(a).

15 M.A., Docket No. 22-0850 (issued November 8, 2022); W.H., Docket No. 20-0562 (issued August 6, 2020); P.C., 

Docket No. 19-1003 (issued December 4, 2019); M.G., Docket No. 17-1831 (issued February 6, 2018); Eddie 

Franklin, 51 ECAB 223 (1999); Delmont L. Thompson, 51 ECAB 155 (1999).
5

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the written 

record as untimely, filed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124.

As noted above, a request for a review of the written record must be made within 30 days 

after the date of the issuance of an OWCP final decision. Appellant, on May 21, 2021, requested

a review of the written record. As the request was submitted more than 30 days following issuance 

of OWCP’s March 12, 2021 decision, the Board finds that it was untimely filed. Appellant was, 

therefore, not entitled to a review of the written record as a matter of right.

16

 Section 8124(b)(1)

is unequivocal on the time limitation for requesting a review of the written record.17

Although appellant’s request for a review of the written record was untimely filed, OWCP 

has the discretionary authority to grant the request and it must exercise such discretion. 18 The

Board finds that, in the June 15, 2021 decision, OWCP properly exercised discretion by 

determining that the issue in the case could be equally well addressed through a request for 

reconsideration before OWCP, along with the submission of additional evidence. The Board has 

held that the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is reasonableness.19 An abuse of discretion is 

generally shown through proof of manifest error, a clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or 

actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deductions from established facts.20 

In this case, the evidence of record does not indicate that OWCP abused its discretion by denying 

appellant’s request for a review of the written record. Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP 

properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the written record as untimely filed, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

CONCLUSION

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

medical condition in connection with the accepted December 18, 2020 employment incident. The 

Board further finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a review of the written 

record by an OWCP hearing representative as untimely filed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).21

16 See K.B., Docket No. 21-1038 (issued February 28, 2022); M.F.,Docket No. 21-0878 (issued January 6, 2022);

see also P.C., Docket No. 19-1003 (issued December 4, 2019).

17 Supra note 13. See also L.S., Docket No. 18-0264 (issued January 28, 2020).

18 Supra note 16.

19 A.M., Docket No. 20-1575 (issued May 24, 2021); R.M., Docket No. 19-1088 (issued November 17, 2020). See 

also E.S., Docket No. 18-1750 (issued March 11, 2019).

20 A.M., id.

21 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16. A completed Form CA-16 authorization 

may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when properly executed. 

The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the 

examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); J.J., Docket No. 22-

0957 (issued March 29, 2023); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); TracyP. Spillane, 54 ECAB 

608 (2003).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 12 and June 15, 2021 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: July 14, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board