United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Miami, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1767 

Issued: August 25, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 14, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 2, 2014 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

ISSUE 

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

the performance of duty on March 12, 2014. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted evidence subsequent to OWCP’s May 2, 2014 decision and with his 

appeal to the Board. The Board cannot consider this evidence as its review of the case is limited to the evidence of 

record which was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); P.W., Docket No. 12-1262 

(issued December 5, 2012). Appellant may submit this evidence to OWCP with a valid reconsideration request. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 16, 2014 appellant, then a 54-year-old transportation security officer, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on March 12, 2014 he injured the left side of his left knee 

when he turned to step off a mat at work. The employing establishment controverted the claim. 

By letter dated March 20, 2014, OWCP informed appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to support his claim. This was to include an explanation of the circumstances of the 

claimed cause of injury and a medical report from a physician supported by a medical 

explanation as to how the reported work incident caused or aggravated a medical condition. 

In a March 17, 2014 medical report, Dr. Seth A. Feldman, a Board-certified osteopath 

specializing in family medicine, noted that appellant reported a history that he felt a sharp pain in 

his left knee when he twisted his knee stepping off a mat at work on March 12, 2014. 

Tenderness and effusion were present on examination, and an x-ray demonstrated degenerative 

changes. Dr. Feldman diagnosed a knee sprain/strain, recommended medication and physical 

therapy, and advised that appellant could perform regular work. He reiterated this assessment on 

March 20 and 27 and April 3 and 10, 2014. On April 15, 2014 Dr. Hugh Conor McLoughlin, a 

family practitioner and an associate of Dr. Feldman, advised that appellant had reached 

maximum medical improvement and that his left knee strain had resolved. 

By decision dated May 2, 2014, OWCP denied the claim, finding that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish that the claimed event occurred as described, because it 

did not receive a reply from appellant clarifying what he was claiming as a work injury. 

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 FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

and that any disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally 

related to the employment injury. Regardless of whether the asserted claim involves a traumatic 

injury or an occupational disease, an employee must satisfy this burden of proof.3

 OWCP regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee) define 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.4

 To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, OWCP must determine whether “fact of injury” is established. First, an 

employee has the burden of demonstrating the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in 

the manner alleged, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 

Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical 

evidence, to establish a causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged 

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee) (1999, 2011); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 
3

disability and/or condition for which compensation is claimed. An employee may establish that 

the employment incident occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability and/or 

condition relates to the employment incident.5

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.6 

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 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.7

Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.8

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish an 

employment-related left knee injury on March 12, 2014 because the record does not support his 

allegation that a specific employment event occurred which caused an injury. The employing 

establishment controverted the claim. By letter dated March 20, 2014, OWCP informed 

appellant of the type of evidence needed to support his claim that he injured his left knee at work 

on March 12, 2014. This was to include an explanation of the circumstances of the claimed 

cause of injury and a medical report from a physician supported by a medical explanation as to 

how the reported work incident caused or aggravated a medical condition. Appellant did not 

submit any description of the employment injury and in response merely submitted medical 

evidence. He did not describe the specific circumstances of the injury as requested by OWCP 

and consequently did not provide any requested confirmation as to how the claimed injury 

occurred. 

The Board therefore concludes that appellant did not establish a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty on March 12, 2014 because he did not submit sufficient evidence to 

establish that he actually experienced an employment incident that caused his left knee condition. 

 5 Supra note 3. 

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

7 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 

8 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
4

Where a claimant does not establish an employment incident alleged to have caused his or her 

injury, it is not necessary to consider the medical evidence.9

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 did not establish that he sustained an employment-related 

injury on March 12, 2014. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 2, 2014 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 25, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 9 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007).