United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Waycross, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-2118 

Issued: March 6, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 16, 2013 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal of an 

August 7, 2013 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on February 7, 2010. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. The relevant facts are as follows. On 

February 12, 2010 appellant, then a 38-year-old sales and systems distributor, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging on February 7, 2010 he “passed out and hit [his] head on equipment.” He 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

claimed head trauma. The claim form indicated that appellant’s incident occurred during his 

regular tour of duty at his duty station. On February 8, 2010 a coworker stated that appellant 

collapsed on the floor on that date. He noted that appellant had a very large knot on the back of 

his head. The fall was reported to his supervisor and appellant was driven home. The coworker 

noted that appellant had a large lump on the back of his head. 

By decision dated October 18, 2010, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence was not sufficient to establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in 

connection with the claimed event. 

Appellant informed OWCP on October 27, 2010 that his teeth were dislodged during the 

fall. Appellant, through his attorney, requested an oral hearing on October 29, 2010. He 

testified at the oral hearing on March 21, 2011 and stated that he was working outside in 

100-degree weather and as he was leaving work walked by a concrete picnic table and fainted. 

Appellant alleged that he hit a concrete door and that his supervisors found him lying in a pool of 

blood with his teeth knocked out. 

By decision dated June 28, 2011, the hearing representative reviewed the medical 

evidence and noted variances between appellant’s description of the employment events. He 

concluded that appellant had blacked out and fell at work on February 7, 2010, but that the 

medical evidence was not sufficient to establish that appellant’s work affected an underlying 

medical condition on February 7, 2010. 

In the September 5, 2012 decision, the Board found that as an unexplained fall while 

appellant was engaged in activities incidental to his employment duties, an injury resulting from 

the February 7, 2010 fall was compensable.2

 The Board found that OWCP properly accepted 

that he had an unexplained fall on February 7, 2010. The Board further found that OWCP had 

properly concluded that appellant had not established any medical condition as a result of the 

February 7, 2010 incident. 

Following the Board’s decision, appellant requested reconsideration on July 25, 2013. In 

support of his request he submitted a report dated May 15, 2013 from Dr. Milton Peavey, a 

dentist, who stated that he first examined appellant on August 3, 2010 when he stated that he had 

been in an accident at the employing establishment. Dr. Peavey noted that he removed a broken 

tooth and provided appellant with a dental bridge. He stated that he had not previously examined 

appellant, but found that the injuries were due to his recent fall. 

By decision dated August 7, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its prior decisions 

noting that the evidence regarding appellant’s February 7, 2010 fall did not support that he 

sustained an injury to his teeth or mouth. 

 2

 Docket No. 11-1826 (issued September 5, 2012). 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence, 

including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United States” within the meaning of 

FECA and that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time limitation period of FECA, 

that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any disability or 

specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment 

injury.4

 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.5

OWCP defines a traumatic injury as, “[A] condition of the body caused by a specific 

event or incident or series of events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. Such 

condition must be caused by external force, including stress or strain which is identifiable as to 

time and place of occurrence and member or function of the body affected.”6

 To determine 

whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, it must 

first be determined whether a “fact of injury” has been established. First the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he and she actually experienced the employment 

incident at the time, place and in the manner alleged.7

 Second, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.8

ANALYSIS 

As the Board previously found, appellant has submitted evidence establishing that he 

sustained an unexplained fall on February 7, 2010. The Board further finds that he had not 

submitted sufficient factual and medical evidence to establish that the February 7, 2010 fall 

resulted in an employment injury. 

On his claim form appellant reported that he fell on February 7, 2010 and struck the back 

of his head. His supervisor and a witness confirmed this injury. The facts indicate that appellant 

fell inside the employing establishment building and perhaps struck his head on equipment. The 

Board has previously denied his claim as he had failed to submit medical opinion evidence 

providing a diagnosed head condition as a result of this fall. 

At his previous oral hearing and on this request for reconsideration currently before the 

Board, appellant describes a fall outside in extreme heat and alleges that he sustained damage to 

 3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-1893. 

4 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 41 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

7 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

8 J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007). 
4

his teeth and mouth. He submitted a report from Dr. Peavey dated May 15, 2013 noting that he 

first examined appellant on August 3, 2010 due to an alleged fall at work which allegedly 

resulted in tooth injuries. The factual evidence and medical evidence in the record regarding his 

February 7, 2010 fall does not support that he was outside, that he struck a picnic table or that he 

sustained injuries to his mouth or teeth. Dr. Peavey’s report is not sufficiently factually detailed 

to establish that appellant’s dental injuries resulted from the February 7, 2010 employment 

incident. 

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 has not submitted sufficient factual and medical evidence 

to establish that he sustained a traumatic injury on February 7, 2010. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 7, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 6, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board