United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.F., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

El Paso, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1211

Issued: December 18, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 15, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 29, 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 his burden of proof to establish a left lower 

extremity condition in connection with the accepted November 28, 2018 employment incident.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board. The facts and circumstances as presented 

in the Board’s prior order are incorporated herein by reference.2 The relevant facts are set forth 

below.

On October 6, 2021 appellant, then a 49-year-old customs and border protection employee, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 28, 2018 he injured his left 

foot when he fell while simulating a one-person lift during training while in the performance of 

duty.3 He asserted that when lifting, the second toe on his left foot became swollen and infected. 

On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor indicated that appellant was injured 

in the performance of duty. Appellant did not stop work. He accepted a temporary full-time 

modified-duty position on October 14, 2021.

In an October 6, 2021 statement, appellant reported that following his fall on November 28, 

2018 he experienced discomfort in his left foot and toes. He noted that after fractures of his three 

lesser toes on his left foot, all four of his lesser toes remained bent. Appellant asserted that on 

November 28, 2018 his second toe was swollen and suppurating. He sought medical attention and 

received antibiotics. Appellant continued to have an open wound, but his pain lessened. During 

September 2021, his second toe became swollen, and he again sought medical treatment. 

Appellant asserted that he was advised that his second toe was broken, infected and necrotic. He

provided undated photographs.

In a signed report dated January 4, 2019, Dr. Gregory Lind, physician specializing in 

family medicine, provided International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) code L97.522, nonpressure chronic ulcer of the left foot with the fat layer exposed. In a separate note of even date, 

he diagnosed diabetic ulcer of the left fourth toe.

In an October 7, 2021 note, Katrina Rogers, an acute care nurse practitioner, diagnosed left 

foot second toe osteomyelitis, left diabetic foot ulceration with infection, and second toe hammer 

toe contracture deformity. Appellant underwent an unauthorized left foot surgery on 

October 7, 2021.

In a development letter dated October 18, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

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

medical evidence needed and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

Appellant completed the development questionnaire on October 23, 2021. He resubmitted 

the medical evidence already of record.

By decision dated November 23, 2021, OWCP accepted that the November 28, 2018 

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

2 Order Remanding Case, G.F., Docket No. 22-0306 (issued June 22, 2022).

3 Appellant had previous traumatic injury on May 9, 2018 accepted for nondisplaced closed fracture of the proximal 

phalanx of left toes three through five in OWCP File No. xxxxxx648. He stopped work on May 9, 2018and returned 

to full duty on August 21, 2018. On July 29, 2022 as directed by the Board, OWCP administratively combined the 

current claim with OWCP File No. xxxxxx648 serving as the master file. Id.
3

he had not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis from a qualified physician

in connection with the accepted November 28, 2018 employment incident. OWCP concluded, 

therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined under FECA.

Appellant appealed to the Board on December 21, 2021. In its June 22, 2022 order, the 

Board directed OWCP to administratively combine appellant’s left foot claims and issue a de novo

decision.4

By decision dated July 29, 2022, OWCP accepted that the November 28, 2018 incident 

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

not submitted medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis from a qualified physician in 

connection with the accepted November 28, 2018 employment incident. OWCP concluded, 

therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined under FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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,6that 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.7 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.8

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 and can be established only by medical 

evidence.9

4

Supra note 2.

5

Supra note 1.

6

J.W., Docket No. 23-0080 (issued May 23, 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).

7

J.W., id.; 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).

8 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).

9 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).
4

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.10 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.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established a diagnosed medical condition in connection 

with the accepted November 28, 2018 employment incident.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted January 4, 2019 notes from Dr. Lind, wherein

Dr. Lind diagnosed non-pressure chronic ulcer of the left foot and diabetic ulcer of the left fourth

toe. Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has established a diagnosed medical condition.

Consequently, the case must be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence as to 

whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that his diagnosed medical conditions 

are causally related to the accepted November 28, 2018 employment incident. Following this, and 

other such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision on the issue 

of causal relationship.

CONCLUSION

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

10 D.D., Docket No. 22-0847 (issued September 16, 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).

11 J.R., Docket No. 22-0622 (issued July 25, 2022); R.J.,Docket No. 22-0202 (issued June 21, 2022); L.W., Docket 

No. 21-1325 (issued May 3, 2022); S.E., Docket No. 21-0666 (issued December 28, 2021); 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).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 29, 2022 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: December 18, 2023

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