United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

_________________________________________ 

P.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

White Plains, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-100 

Issued: November 21, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant

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 October 18, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from the April 30, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which denied his claim. 

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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained an 

injury in the performance of duty on August 22, 2011. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 22, 2011 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that he injured his right shoulder that day while pushing a heavy hamper at work. 

He stopped work on August 22, 2011. The employing establishment controverted the claim. 

On a September 26, 2011 facsimile transmittal sheet, the employing establishment 

advised that no medical evidence was received. It noted that appellant merely indicated that “his 

shoulder was ‘hurt’ as he ‘started’ to turn a hamper of mail.” The employing establishment also 

noted that appellant was the subject of a disciplinary action, a removal from service, for 

attendance abuse. 

By letter dated September 29, 2011, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

support his claim. It requested that he submit such evidence within 30 days. OWCP noted that 

no documentation was received with his claim form. No further evidence was received. 

In a November 10, 2011 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence was insufficient to establish that he sustained the August 22, 2011 employment incident 

as alleged. It also found that the medical evidence was insufficient on causal relationship. 

On December 1, 2011 appellant requested reconsideration. On December 5, 2011 OWCP 

received his responses to the medical portion of its September 29, 2011 letter. Dr. Richard 

Seldes, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted examining appellant on December 1, 2011 

for an August 22, 2011 injury to the right shoulder. Appellant had pain and weakness in the right 

shoulder. Dr. Seldes diagnosed clavicular arthritis causing impingement, tendinitis, distal 

infraspinatus tendinitis. He stated that his injury was caused by pushing a large orange plastic 

hamper. 

In a December 1, 2011 progress report, Dr. Seldes listed an August 25, 2011 date of 

injury and diagnosed right rotator cuff tear and sprain of the right shoulder. In a December 1, 

2011 duty status report, he noted complaints of pain and weakness in the right shoulder and 

indicated that appellant could not return to work. 

A September 20, 2011 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan obtained by Dr. Najma 

Ahmed, a Board-certified internist, revealed degenerative changes at the acromioclavicular joint 

causing impingement and findings consistent with tendinitis/tendinosis of the distal infraspinatus 

tendon and no evidence of rotator cuff tear. Dr. Ahmed provided treatment notes dated 

August 23 to November 3, 2011 and advised that appellant was under his care and should be 

excused from work due to a sprained right shoulder. 

By decision dated March 6, 2012, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision. It 

found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. 

On February 26, 2013 counsel for appellant requested reconsideration and submitted new 

medical evidence. He argued that appellant had met his burden of proof to establish his claim. 

Counsel argued that the medical evidence established causal relationship. 
3

OWCP received several treatment notes dated May 31 to June 29, 2012. The reports 

were electronically signed by a physician’s assistant. 

By decision dated April 30, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

elements of his or her claim, including the fact 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 period of FECA2

 and that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty.3 These 

are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is 

predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

In order to determine whether an employee actually sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been 

established. Generally fact of injury consists of two components which must be considered 

in conjunction with one another. The first component to be established is that the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident which is alleged to have occurred. The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and generally this 

can be established only by medical evidence.5 The employee must also submit sufficient 

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

incident caused a personal injury.6

An employee’s statement that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given 

manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive 

evidence.7

 Moreover, an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. The 

employee’s statement, however, must be consistent with the surrounding facts and 

circumstances and his or her subsequent course of action. An employee has not met his or 

her burden in establishing the occurrence of an injury when there are such inconsistencies in 

the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim. Circumstances such as 

late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, continuing to work without 

apparent difficulty following the alleged injury and failure to obtain medical treatment may, 

if otherwise unexplained, cast doubt on an employee’s statement in determining whether a 

prima facie case has been established.8

                                                             2 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

3 James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988). 

4 Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

5 See John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 357 (1989). 

6 Id. For a definition of the term “traumatic injury,” see 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 

7 Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005); R.T., Docket No. 08-408 (issued December 16, 2008). 

8 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 
4

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is usually rationalized 

medical evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which 

includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal 

relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the claimant, 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 the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.9

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he developed a right shoulder condition on August 22, 2011 while 

pushing a hamper in the performance of his work duties as a mail handler. The employing 

establishment controverted the claim. It advised that appellant merely indicated that “his 

shoulder was ‘hurt’ as he ‘started’ to turn a hamper of mail.” The employing establishment also 

noted that he was the subject of a disciplinary action, a removal from service, for attendance 

abuse. The Board notes in a letter dated September 29, 2011, that OWCP requested that 

appellant provide additional evidence to support his claim and address the factual aspects of his 

claim. However, appellant failed to provide any further details. After OWCP denied his claim 

on November 10, 2011, appellant requested reconsideration. He indicated that his injury was 

caused by pushing a large orange plastic hamper. This general statement did not describe the 

contents of the hamper or how much it weighed. Additionally, the treatment notes from 

August 23, 2011 reflect that appellant had a sprained right shoulder; there was no description of 

how the sprain occurred. Without additional details to confirm the activities that he was doing 

on that date, such as where he was when he was pushing the hamper or the time the incident 

occurred; the facts are unclear and the first component of fact of injury is not established. The 

Board finds that appellant has not established that the claimed incident -- that he was pushing a 

hamper on August 22, 2011 occurred.10

On appeal, counsel reiterated his arguments made on reconsideration. However, as noted 

above, the evidence is insufficient to meet appellant’s 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 has not met his burden of proof in establishing that he 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on August 22, 2011. 

                                                             9 Id.

10 As appellant has not established the factual component of his claim, the medical evidence need not be 

considered. See Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 30, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 21, 2014 

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