When a case is referred to an impartial, medical specialist for the purpose of resolving a conflict in medical opinion evidence, the opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well-rationalized and based on a proper medical background, must be given special weight. Louis G. Psyras, 39 ECAB ___(1987) Marlene G. Owens, 39 ECAB___ (1988)

Where a claim is based on a specific accidental injury, the employee claiming compensation benefits has the burden of establishing the fact of injury by proof of an accident or fortuitous event having relative definiteness with respect to time, place and circumstances, and of an impairment causally related to such injury. The mere occurrence of an episode of pain during the work day is not proof of an injury having occurred at work, nor does it warrant an inference of causal relationship. Max Haber, 19 ECAB 243 (1967)

To establish a right to compensation, it is not sufficient for appellant merely to show the occurrence of an injury in the performance of duty; he must also establish by weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that the condition for which compensation is sought was the result of an employment injury. Forrest L. Hibson, 13 ECAB (1961)

The claimant has the burden of establishing that she sustained an injury at the time, place and in the manner alleged. While it is not necessary that an injury be witnessed in order to establish its occurrence, the claimant's allegations must be consistent with surrounding facts and circumstances. George Hoffman, 17 ECAB 456

The employee’s statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless it is refuted by substantial evidence. Michael Hunter, 34 ECAB 1252

While it is not necessary that an injury be witnessed in order to establish its occurrence, the claimant's allegations must be consistent with surrounding facts and circumstances. In meeting this burden, a claimant's statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a certain manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by substantial evidence.1/ Where interested persons such as witnesses or supervisors state that they are unsure whether the incident in question occurred as alleged, such statements are insufficient to refute the claimant's allegations.2/ Only where "sufficient inconsistencies" exist between the facts and circumstances and the allegations may the Office find that the fact of injury did not exist.3/ 1/Ruth Jackson, 30 ECAB 918; 2/Larry Bell, 29 ECAB 753; 3/William Rollins, 17 ECAB 451

Under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, the claimant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence that his condition was caused or materially adversely affected by his employment. As part of this burden he must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence, based on a complete factual and medical background, showing causal relation. Merely because a condition manifests itself during a period of employment does not raise an inference that there is a caused relationship between the two. Neither the claimant's belief that the condition was caused or aggravated by employment conditions nor the manifestation of a condition during the period of employment is sufficient to establish causal relation. Birger Areskog, 30 ECAB 571

Entitlement to compensation benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act is not based solely on a finding that an employee is disabled for employment. Under the Act, entitlement to compensation benefits is based on a finding, as supported by medical evidence, that the disability is causally related to factors or incidents of the employee's federal employment. The Act provides for payment of compensation only for so long as there exists a proven physical or related impairment attributable to employment factors or incidents. John A. Ceresoli, Docket No. 88-1565 (1988)

The fundamental prerequisite to compensation under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act is that there be a causal connection, established by reliable, probative and substantial evidence, between the employment and a personal injury sustained in-the performance of duty or disease proximately caused by the employment. The claimant's own assertion of an employment relationship is not proof of fact. Proof must include supporting rationalized opinion of qualified medical experts, based on Complete and accurate factual and medical backgrounds, establishing that the implicated incidents caused or materially adversely affected the ailments producing the work disablement. Margaret A. Donnelly, 15 ECAB 40

The opinions of physicians who have training and knowledge in a specialized medical field have greater probative value concerning medical questions peculiar to that field than the opinions of other physicians. Elmer L. Fields, 20 ECAB 250 (1969)

The claimant has the burden of establishing that the condition for which compensation is sought is causally related to a specific employment incident or to specific conditions of the employment. As part of this burden, the claimant must present rationalized medical evidence, based upon a complete and accurate factual and medical background, establishing causal relationship. Brian E. Flescher, 40 ECAB 532, 536 (1989); Ronald K. White, 37 ECAB 176, 178 (1985)

In assessing medical evidence, the number of physicians supporting one position or another is not controlling; the weight of such evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, and its convincing quality. The opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy and completeness of the physician’s knowledge of the facts and medical history, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion are factors which enter into this evaluation. Connie Johns, 44 ECAB (Docket No. 91-1226, issued March 9, 1993)

A physician’s opinion on causal relation that consists only of checking “yes” to the form’s question of whether appellant’s condition was related to the history as given, without any explanation or rationale, has little probative value and is insufficient to establish causal relation. Debra S. King, 44 ECAB _ (Docket No. 92-414, issued November 4, 1992); Robert J. Krstyen, 44 ECAB _ (Docket No. 92-666, issued November 16, 1992); Geraldine H. Johnson, 44 ECAB (Docket No. 92-1611, issued June 9, 1993)-

One of the essential elements of a claim is that the claimant specify factors of his employment which he believes have caused an injury, such as an emotional condition. Appellant had failed to furnish detailed information, of the type requested by the Office, with respect to the specific incidents and factors in his employment which he believed were stressful and adversely affected his emotional and gastrointestinal conditions. The mere fact that a claimant is employed as an Air Traffic Control Specialist and develops or has an aggravation of an emotional and gastrointestinal condition does not free him from the responsibility of describing in detail the employment factors which he believes caused or aggravated his conditions. Gary A. King, 30 ECAB 253

The opinion of a physician that a condition is causally related to an employment injury because the employee was asymptomatic before the employment injury is insufficient, without supporting medical rationale, to establish causal relation. Thomas D. Petrylak, 39 ECAB 276 (1987)

A physician’s opinion supporting causal relationship between a claimant’s disability and a specific employment incident or factors of employment is not dispositive on the issue of causal relationship simply because it is rendered by a physician. To be of probative value to an employee’s claim, the physician must provide rationale for the opinion reached. Where no such rationale is present the medical opinion is of diminished probative value. Michael Stockert, 39 ECAB 1186

The Board has long held that proceedings under the Act are not adversary in nature nor is OWCP a disinterested arbiter.   While the claimant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares responsibility in the development of the evidence, and has the obligation to see that justice is done. Gertrude E. Evans (Wesley W. Evans), 26 ECAB 195, 1974

As noted by Larson in his treatise Workmen’s Compensation Law, the ultimate social philosophy behind compensation liability is to provide, in the most efficient and dignified manner, financial and medical benefits for victims of work-connected injuries. Section 2,20. Workmen’s compensation statutes are remedial legislation and should be liberally construed in favor of the employee. Pearl Phillips Parker (George Tom Parker), 9 ECAB 200 (1956) U.S. Department of Labor/Employees’ Compensation Appeal Board/Washington, DC 20210/The Board’s Function, p.1

The Appeals Board has consistently held that once an employee returns to work, with respect to the alleged periods of disability thereafter, he has the burden of establishing by the weight of reliable, probative and substantial evidence that the disability was caused or adversely affected by the employment injury.1 This burden is met when the preponderance of the evidence shows that the employee is disabled, and that such disability is the result of an employment injury or injuries.2 1/Nicolea Brushy 33 ECAB 1138; 2/ William H. Burress, 34 ECAB

When an employee, who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account of employment- related residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the medical evidence establishes that the employee can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden to establish by weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, a recurrence of total disability and to show that he or she cannot perform such light duty. As part of this burden, the employee must show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a change in the nature and extent of the light-duty job requirements. George DePasquale, 39 ECAB (1987); Jackie Wilson 39 ECAB (1988)

Under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, when the recurrence of disability is alleged, appellant has the burden of establishing by weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that her current disability was causally related to her 4/20/72 work injury. Garland Gargus, 30 ECAB 1018

When a recurrence is claimed in occupational disease cases where the claimant has returned to a light duty position within the medical restrictions imposed by the accepted condition, the evidence must demonstrate that the claimant can no longer carry out the requirements of the position. As part of this requirement, the claimant must show that a) a material change in the condition has occurred which justifies his inability to perform the restricted work, and that this change is causally related to the previously accepted employment factors; or b) that the light duty job requirements have changed. Terry R. Hedman, ECAB Docket No. 86-1418 (1986) (a synopsis)

When an employee, who is disabled from the job he held when injured on account of employment related residuals, returns to a light-duty position, or the medical evidence of record establishes that he can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden to establish by weight of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence of total disability and show that he cannot perform such light duty. As part of this burden, the employee must show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a change in the nature and extent of the light-duty job requirements. Appellant, here, worked in a light-duty status and stopped on July 13, 1982 claiming a recurrence of total disability due to the employment injury. The medical evidence submitted by appellant was insufficient to meet her burden of establishing that she was totally disabled due to her employment injury. Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986)

Appellant has the burden of establishing by reliable, probative and substantial evidence that the recurrence of a disabling condition for which he seeks compensation was causally related to his employment injury. As part of such burden of proof, rationalized medical evidence showing causal relation must be submitted. Henry L. Kent, 34 ECAB 361 (1982); Dennis F. Twardzik, 34 ECAB 536 (1983); Merria L. Bell, 34 ECAB 1507 (1983)

Where an employee claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employment-related injury, he or she has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, reliable and probative evidence that the recurrence of the disabling condition for which compensation is sought is causally related to the accepted employment injury. As part of this burden, the employee must submit rationalized medical evidence based on a complete and accurate factual and medical background showing a causal relationship between the current disabling condition and the accepted employment-related condition. Kevin J. McGrath, 42 ECAB Docket No. 90-1207, issued October 2, 1990; Herman W. Thornton, 39 ECAB 975 (1988)

The medical evidence failed to establish that appellant’s recurrence of disability after September 1980 was causally related to his June 27, 1980 employment injury. There was no rationalized medical evidence of record which established that a causal relationship existed between appellant’s disability after September 1980 and the June 27, 1980 employment injury. Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof. Dennis F. Twardzik, 34 ECAB 536 (1983)

As part of this burden, he or she must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a complete factual and medical background showing a causal relationship between the current disabling condition and the accepted employment injury. Steven J. Wagner, 32 ECAB 1446

To require the Office to reopen a case for reconsideration, a claimant must submit relevant evidence not previously of record or advance legal contentions not previously considered. Daisy M. Tharp, 27 ECAB 277, (1976)

The Board has held that assaults arising out of the employment or having their origins at work are compensable. However, when animosity or a dispute which culminates in an assault is imported into the employment from a claimant’s domestic or private life, the assault does not arise out of the employment. George A. Fenske, Jr., 11 ECAB 471 (1960)

Assaults arise out of the employment if the reason for the assault was a quarrel having its origin in the work. Thus, if the altercation occurred because of a dispute over work-related matters, such as the practice of shooting rubber bands in the work-place, it is covered as arising out of the employment. Eric J. Koke, 43 ECAB 638 (1992)

At the time of the accident appellant had left the employing establishment, gotten into her car parked in the basement of the building, and proceeded to an adjacent area neither owned nor controlled by the federal government. Her status at that time was that of a “fixed premises” employee with fixed hours of work coming from work. She was therefore subject to the “going and coming” rule generally applicable to such employees and her injury was not compensable. Marie W Rogers, 36 ECAB 562

Appellant, a rural mail carrier sustained injury in a motor vehicle accident while driving to a fixed work station at which she had arranged for a limited-duty assignment that date. Appellant’s injury was not sustained in the performance of duty as the accident occurred before she reached the employing establishment premises. On the date of injury appellant was assigned to limited duty with fixed hours and a fixed work site and her employment duties that date did not require her to travel on the highways. Appellant’s injury arose from nonemployment hazards shared by all travelers. Betty R. Rutherford, 40 ECAB 496 (1989)

When it is clear that the origin of the assault is purely private and personal, and that the employment contributed nothing to the episode, whether by engendering or exacerbating the quarrel or facilitating the assault, the assault should be held noncompensable. An assault, to be compensable, must either arise in the course of employment, or if it does not, must be directed at the employee because of his employment. Bruce Wright, 43 ECAB 284 (1991)

Fear of a reduction in force or frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or hold a particular position are not factors of employment. Anna J. Backman, 30 ECAB 118 (1978)

[The employee’s] fear of a reduction in force and fear of a possible reassignment...are not compensable [employment factors] under the principles enunciated in Cutler. Janice Balan, 37 ECAB 485 (1986)

[A change in the employee's] status in the bargaining unit and the impending transfer of his office to a new location [are not factors of employment; however] disagreement with another employee over a technical procedure in connection with work and a subsequent confrontation with his supervisor concerning the incident [are factors of employment]. Jerry D. Campbell, 32 ECAB 1959 (1981)

[The employee] did not report for duty and subsequently experienced a panic attack upon his receipt of an employing establishment advisory letter noting that he was absent without leave and that his continued failure to comply with applicable regulations for requesting leave could result in employment termination. [This] panic attack and alleged emotional disability did not constitute an injury sustained in the performance of duty. [The employee’s] emotional condition was related to agency actions on personnel matters and had no relationship to his assigned duties or requirements imposed by his employment.  Joseph C. De Donato, 39 ECAB 1260 (1988)

The situations enumerated by [the employee] which would be deemed conditions of employment as enunciated in Cutler were his emotional reaction to the circumstances of his performance rating; his assignment to [a special] project and its subsequent cancellation; the legal action taken against him by his subordinate for failure to select the subordinate for a promotion and the employing establishment's alleged failure to arrange for [his] defense in the ensuing lawsuit...; and confrontations with his supervisor involving criticism and other verbal altercations concerning his performance. Factors enumerated by the employee which would not be compensable are: distress over the reduction-in-force and the appeals process which followed; distress over failure of being promoted; distress over the newly created position and the national advertisement of that position; and distress over the assignment of one of his subordinates as his acting supervisor [emphasis supplied]. George Derderian, 33 ECAB 1910

The detail assignment to Chicago constitutes specially assigned work duty within the language of Cutler. A disability arising out of an emotional reaction to a detail assignment or the working conditions involved in a detail assignment would therefore be within the coverage of the FECA. Brenda Getz, 39 ECAB 245 (1987)

[A] letter from the employing establishment proposing to remove [the employee] from his position due to failure to meet certain performance requirements of that position did not constitute an injury sustained in the performance of duty. Although [the employee’s] disabling emotional reaction did have some connection to his employment, it was not a reaction to his day-to-day duties or to fear or anxiety concerning his ability to perform his employment duties, but to what he perceived as a “sudden loss of his career.” Allen C. Godfrey, 37 ECAB 334 (1986)

[The employee] alleged an emotional condition which he attributed to discrimination in his employment as he sought time off for religious  purposes. The...emotional condition was due to symptoms caused by his distress over not being able to fulfill his religious responsibilities and obligations, which are not factors of employment. Robert Gray, 39 ECAB 1239 (1988)

[The employee’s] emotional reaction to the denial of reimbursement of travel vouchers constituted an injury sustained in performance of duty. The procedure for claiming these expenses is a requirement imposed by the employing establishment and relates to the duties [the employee] was required to perform. Robert E. Green, 37 ECAB 145 (1985)

[The employee] did not cite any duties or special requirements imposed by his position as a mail handler which can be related to his emotional condition, [but] attributed his condition to alleged mismanagement of his claim by OWCP. The factors he listed are not employment factors and are actions of OWCP, not the employing establishment. Virgil M. Hilton, 37 ECAB 806 (1986)

The fear of recurrence of [an emotional condition] if the employee returns to work does not constitute a valid claim for compensation. Herbert H. Kiehn, 31 ECAB 488 (1980)

The sexual harassment claims made against [the employee] did not arise out of [his] day-to-day regular duties or out of any specially assigned duties imposed by the employment. Rather, the complaints arose out of [the employee’s] own behavior toward certain coemployees. Wilbert Kimbrough, 39 ECAB 425 (1988)

In this case, the medical evidence establishes more than [the employee’s] feeling of job insecurity: It establishes that [the employee’s] episode of severe depression and impaired function was directly precipitated by what [he] regarded as an unsatisfactory performance appraisal. The Board finds that [the employee’s] emotional reaction bears a direct relationship to his regular or especially assigned duties and constitutes an injury in the performance of duty within the meaning of the [FECA].  Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387

[The employee’s] emotional condition resulted from her reaction to the knowledge of the shootings [of postal workers in Edmund, OK] and to the subsequent revelation that her husband was among the dead...[and not to her] day-to-day duties, specially assigned duties, or any other requirement imposed by her employment. Carla E. Phillips, 39 ECAB 1040 (1988)

5 U.S.C. 8106(c) (2) provides that a partially disabled employee who refuses or neglects to work after suitable work is offered to, procured by, or secured for the employee is not entitled to compensation. To justify a termination of compensation pursuant to this section on the grounds that an individual refused to accept an offer of suitable work, the Office must show that the work offered was suitable. Harry B. Topping, 33 ECAB 341; Robert Bledsoe, 34 ECAB 144

Once the Office determines that an employee has disability causally related to his employment and pays compensation for such disability, it has the burden of proving that his disability has ceased or lessened in order to justify termination or modification of compensation. John R. White, 27 ECAB 236