J.C. and Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mammoth Cave National Park, Mammoth Cave, KY (Board decision, February 19, 2021)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP’s decision in J.C.’s case. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this decision 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.C., a National Park Service worker, reported a left arm strain while shoveling asphalt into a truck. OWCP accepted the work incident but denied the injury claim. The Board found that OWCP had received no medical evidence before its July 16, 2020 decision. The accepted incident alone did not establish an injury. It affirmed the denial.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: July 16, 2020 claim denial affirmed.
• Key point: The accepted incident alone did not establish a diagnosed work-related condition.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
J.C., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 20-1462
) Issued: February 19, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
)
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, MAMMOTH
)
CAVE NATIONAL PARK,
)
Mammoth Cave, KY, Employer
)
__________ )

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

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 31, 2020, appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 16, 2020 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.2

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2
The Board notes that, following the July 16, 2020 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. The Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 20, 2020 appellant, then a 49-year-old small craft operator, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 14, 2020 he sustained a left arm strain when he pitched loose asphalt into the bed of a dump truck while in the performance of duty. He indicated that he felt a pull in his left bicep and, thereafter, experienced pain in his left arm throughout the night. Appellant stopped work on May 15, 2020.

In a June 1, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received no evidence in support of his traumatic injury claim. It advised him of the type of evidence necessary to establish his claim and requested a narrative medical report from his treating physician containing a detailed description of findings and a diagnosis, explaining how his work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated his medical condition. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

By decision dated July 16, 2020, OWCP accepted that the May 14, 2020 employment incident occurred, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that he had not submitted any medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment incident. Consequently, OWCP found that appellant had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,4 that 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.5 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.6

3
Supra note 1.
4
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). 5 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). 6 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).

2
 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 and can be established only by medical evidence.7

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific condition and an employment incident is 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 specific employment factors identified by the employee.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP, in its June 1, 2020 development letter, notified appellant of the type of medical evidence needed to establish his traumatic injury claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. However, no medical evidence was received prior to OWCP’s July 16, 2020 decision.

As there is no medical evidence of record establishing a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident, the Board finds that appellant has not met 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 10.607.15.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted May 14, 2020 employment incident.

7
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). 8 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). 9 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).

3
 ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 16, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 19, 2021
Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4