P.K. and Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM (Board decision, May 20, 2013)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP’s November 1, 2012 denial of P.K.’s occupational disease claim. The medical note did not explain how conditions during his Forest Service fire assignment caused his genitourinary symptoms. 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

P.K., a Forest Service forestry technician, reported painful urination and blood in his urine during a fire assignment. He attributed the symptoms to varied food and water supplies in the field. OWCP accepted his reported work duties and diagnosis of hematuria, but denied the claim for lack of medical evidence of causation. The Board found that the emergency room note did not describe the work exposure or explain a medical link to the condition. It affirmed the claim denial.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Occupational disease under 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).
• Outcome: November 1, 2012 occupational disease claim denial affirmed.
• Key point: Accepted field conditions and a documented symptom required a reasoned medical explanation connecting them.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
P.K., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 13-566
) Issued: May 20, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST
)
SERVICE, Albuquerque, NM, Employer
)
__________ )

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

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 10, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal of a November 1, 2012 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision denying his occupational disease claim. 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 the case.

ISSUE

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 11, 2012 appellant, then a 27-year-old forestry technician, filed an occupational disease claim alleging that he developed genitourinary illness due to field work in extreme environmental conditions and varying nutritional food and fluid intakes. He first became aware of his condition and attributed it to his employment on August 15, 2012.

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
Appellant submitted a narrative statement dated August 20, 2012 alleging that on August 15, 2012, while on fire assignment, he noted pain on urination and blood coming from his urethra. He sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with a possible kidney stone. Appellant submitted a September 11, 2012 emergency room record from a nurse with a diagnosis of hematuria or blood in the urine.

In a letter dated September 14, 2012, OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence. On September 26, 2012 appellant responded that he was on a 13-day fire assignment with access to varied water supplies and wide variety in diet. He alleged that his water supply was sub-par for 7 to 10 days. Appellant submitted additional emergency room records dated August 15, 2012 with an illegible physician signature noting that he reported painful urination with blood and described the pain as a sting.

By decision dated November 1, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between his hematuria condition and his employment duties.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”2 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 alleged that he experienced painful urination with blood while on fire duty in August 2012. He attributed his condition to a varied water and food supply while fighting a wildfire while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the diagnosis hematuria or blood in the urine and accepted that the employment duties occurred as alleged. OWCP found that appellant did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between his diagnosed condition and his accepted employment duties.

2
20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).
3
Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994).

2
The only medical evidence in the record is an emergency room note dated August 15, 2012. It was signed by a physician whose signature is illegible. The note does not contain any history of injury or address the causal relations of appellant’s genitourinary disease and his employment duties. Without detailed medical opinion evidence providing a history of injury as implicated by appellant and offering a reasoned medical opinion explaining how his employment duties caused or contributed to the diagnosed condition, appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof.

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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant failed to submit the necessary medical opinion evidence to establish his claim for an occupational disease.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 1, 2012 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 20, 2013
Washington, DC

Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

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

3