J.R. and Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Great Lakes, IL (Board decision, May 14, 2013)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP’s December 20, 2012 denial of J.R.’s occupational disease claim. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless the order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

J.R., a Navy electrical worker, claimed that drilling, bending, pulling wires, and other work caused back and leg pain. OWCP asked him for factual and medical evidence, but he did not respond before it denied his claim. The Board found that he had submitted no evidence to establish an occupational disease or connect it to his duties. It affirmed OWCP’s denial. The Board could not consider evidence first submitted on appeal because OWCP had not reviewed it.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Evidence needed to establish an occupational disease and its connection to federal employment.
• Outcome: December 20, 2012 denial affirmed; occupational disease claim not established.
• Key point: A claim form alone did not establish a compensable condition without supporting factual and medical evidence.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
J.R., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 13-499
) Issued: May 14, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL
)
FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND,
)
Great Lakes, IL, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 2, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal of a December 20, 2012 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision denying his occupational disease claim. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he developed a back condition due to factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2012 appellant, then a 50-year-old electrical worker, filed an occupational disease claim alleging that he developed lower back pain, right leg and thigh pain and a pinched

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. nerve due to his employment duties of drilling, hammering, bending, twisting, pulling wires and moving equipment. He stated that his medical evidence was submitted with a notice of recurrence of disability.

In a letter dated October 10, 2012, OWCP advised appellant that he had not submitted any documentation with his claim form. It requested additional factual and medical evidence in support of his occupational disease claim within 30 days. Appellant did not respond.

By decision dated December 20, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he failed to submit any factual or medical evidence in support of his claim.2

LEGAL PRECEDENT

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. The evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, based upon a complete factual and medical background, showing a causal relationship between the claimed condition and identified factors. The belief of a claimant that a condition was caused or aggravated by the employment is not sufficient to establish causal relation.3

ANALYSIS

Appellant submitted a claim for occupational disease alleging that he developed back and leg pain due to his employment duties. He did not submit any evidence in support of his claim. As appellant failed to submit factual and medical evidence in support of his claim, he has failed to establish a prima facie claim for an occupational disease claim.4 The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that he developed an occupational disease as a result of his federal employment.

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.

2
On appeal to the Board appellant submitted new evidence. As OWCP did not consider this evidence in reaching a final decision, the Board may not consider it for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 3 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994).
4
See Donald W. Wenzel, 56 ECAB 390 (2005).

2
CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant failed to submit any evidence in support of his occupational disease claim and therefore failed to meet his burden of proof.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 20, 2012 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 14, 2013
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3