United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Coppell, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1421 

Issued: November 14, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Debra Hauer, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 9, 2014 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal from April 16 and 

May 7, 2014 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which 

denied her traumatic injury 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 sustained an injury in the performance of duty on 

November 25, 2011. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 15, 2012 appellant, then a 51-year-old temporary employee letter carrier, 

filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that on November 25, 2011 he slipped while stepping into 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

his postal vehicle and sustained injuries to his right ankle, right knee and lower back. He did not 

stop work.2

On the claim form, Roy Russell, appellant’s supervisor, checked “no” to the question of 

whether appellant’s injury occurred in the performance of duty. He stated that appellant was 

terminated from employment on January 17, 2012 and did not turn in a traumatic injury form 

until February 27, 2012. Mr. Russell also noted that appellant did not submit any medical 

evidence along with his claim. He submitted a termination letter dated January 17, 2012 which 

indicated that appellant was terminated from employment due to “unacceptable work 

performance.” 

In a workers’ compensation history form dated January 23, 2012, appellant indicated that 

the date of his present injury was January 17, 2012. He reported that he was delivering mail in 

the afternoon when he “had accident when stepped off of curb.” 

In reports dated January 23 to April 18, 2012, Dr. Mahe T. Nadeem, Board-certified in 

physical medicine and rehabilitation, stated that he examined appellant for complaints of pain in 

his right knee radiating down the right leg and in his lower back. He related that appellant was 

out delivering mail on a new route when he stepped off the curb, missed a step and fell down. 

Upon examination of the right knee, Dr. Nadeem observed mild and moderate tenderness on the 

medial joint line and present crepitus. Examination of the lumbar spine demonstrated moderate 

tenderness right L5-S1 and mild on the left L5-S1 on spinous processes. Dr. Nadeem provided 

range of motion findings and reported no tenderness bilaterally of the sacroiliac joint, greater 

trochanter and sciatic notch. Straight leg raise testing was positive on the right. Dr. Nadeem 

reported that a January 24, 2012 x-ray of appellant’s right knee revealed no fracture and mild 

decrease of the medial joint space. He diagnosed lumbar disc injury and right knee internal 

derangement. Dr. Nadeem opined that the injuries sustained were directly related to appellant’s 

employment. 

In a February 17, 2012 statement, Mr. Russell stated that on February 17, 2012 appellant 

entered his office and demanded that he sign CA-1 and CA-2 forms. He noted that appellant had 

never reported any on-the-job injury from November 25, 2011 up to that date and pointed out 

that appellant was terminated from employment on January 17, 2012. Mr. Russell also reported 

that on January 25, 2012 he received a fax from a medical clinic about a CA-17 form for 

appellant with a date of injury of January 17, 2012. 

In a March 9, 2012 investigative report, Special Agent Krafels of the U.S. Office of the 

Inspector General stated that on February 15, 2012 appellant filed a questionable on-the-job 

injury claim for an injury to his right foot, ankle and knee, which allegedly occurred on 

November 25, 2011. He reported that the investigation revealed that appellant was terminated 

from employment on January 17, 2012 due to poor performance, changed the story of how the 

 2

 The record reveals that on February 15, 2012 appellant also filed an occupational disease claim which indicated 

that on November 25, 2011 he slipped on the step of his postal vehicle. He also noted that he was “always stepping 

on holes and tripping.” The claim was assigned File No. xxxxxx557. On April 2, 2012 OWCP determined that File 

No. xxxxxx557 was a duplicate filing of the traumatic injury claim and would be deleted from the records system. 

All documentation in that file was incorporated into File No. xxxxxx321, traumatic injury claim. 
3

alleged work injury happened when he reported it to the employing establishment and the 

doctor’s office and reported two different dates of injury. Special Agent Krafels noted that he 

spoke with the office manager where appellant received medical treatment. He was informed 

that appellant was first treated on January 23, 2012 and had told Dr. Nadeem that he sustained 

injuries to his right knee and lower back on January 17, 2012 when he stepped off the curb 

wrong and fell down. Special Agent Krafels also described an interview he had with appellant 

on March 2, 2012 and provided the memorandum of interview. He reported that it was apparent 

that appellant’s injury did not happen as reported and was filed a month after he was terminated 

for poor performance. Agent Krafels explained that throughout the investigation appellant 

continually changed his story as to how and where the alleged injury happened. He requested 

that appellant’s claim be denied based on the facts presented. 

By letter dated March 13, 2012, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish his claim. It requested additional factual evidence to demonstrate 

that he actually experienced the incident at the time, place and in the manner alleged and 

additional medical evidence to establish that he sustained a diagnosed condition as a result of the 

employment incident. 

Appellant submitted various reports by Dr. Nadeem dated March 21 to April 5, 2012, 

which described a January 17, 2012 employment injury and the medical treatment appellant 

received. 

In a decision dated May 8, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that fact of 

injury had not been established. It determined that the factual evidence did not demonstrate that 

the November 25, 2011 incident occurred at the time, place and in the manner that appellant 

alleged. 

On May 24, 2012 OWCP received appellant’s request for a telephone hearing. On 

September 18, 2012 a telephone hearing was held. Appellant was represented by his attorney, 

Tim Egbuchunam. He alleged that the employing establishment never controverted appellant’s 

claim but merely stated that more evidence was coming and that there were no inconsistencies 

regarding the alleged November 25, 2011 employment incident. Mr. Egbuchunam also pointed 

out that Dr. Nadeem corrected the earlier description of the November 25, 2011 incident, which 

was now consistent with the facts. He stated that appellant’s claim was a simple traumatic injury 

claim and that OWCP erred by not reviewing the evidence on its own merit. 

In a May 15, 2012 report, Dr. Nadeem provided a “corrected history.” He stated that 

appellant was examined for injuries sustained on the job when he was delivering mail and 

attempted to step into the mail car but he missed the step and almost fell down. Although 

appellant was able to catch his balance, he experienced sharp pain in his right knee and lower 

back. Dr. Nadeem reviewed appellant’s history and conducted an examination. He provided 

examination findings similar to his previous reports and diagnosed lumbar disc injury and right 

knee internal derangement. Dr. Nadeem opined that the injuries appellant sustained were 

directly related to his employment. Appellant also resubmitted Dr. Nadeem’s various other 

reports. 
4

In a May 15, 2012 letter, Dr. Nadeem stated that on November 25, 2011 appellant was 

working as a postal worker when he slipped on the step of the postal vehicle and almost fell. He 

noted that appellant recovered his balance but twisted his right knee and experienced low back 

and right knee pain. Dr. Nadeem explained that appellant hyperextended his back and twisted 

his right knee, resulting in an injury to the internal anatomy of the right knee and most likely a 

slipped disc in his low back. He reviewed appellant’s history and noted that a January 24, 2012 

x-ray of the right knee showed decreased medial joint line and arthritic changes. Dr. Nadeem 

provided physical examination findings and diagnosed lumbar and right knee sprain. In 

subsequent reports dated August 30 to September 14, 2012, he continued to provide medical 

treatment for appellant for his alleged November 25, 2011 employment injury. 

On May 23, 2012 appellant also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan 

examinations of the lumbar spine and right knee. The examinations revealed a two-millimeter 

broad-based annular bulge which touched and effaced the thecal sac and L4-5 of the lumbar 

spine and evidence of a marginal tear within the posterior horn of the lateral meniscus and 

posterior horn of the medial meniscus of the right knee. 

By decision dated December 4, 2012, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

May 8, 2012 denial decision. 

In letters received by OWCP on March 18 and April 12, 2013, appellant requested that 

OWCP reconsider its decision. He stated that on November 25, 2011 he injured himself when 

stepping into a vehicle and that on January 17, 2012 he sustained a reinjury of the November 25, 

2011 injury. Appellant stated that he did not initially report the November 25, 2011 incident 

because he feared he would lose his job and because he hoped that he would get better on his 

own. He noted that on January 25, 2012 he sought medical treatment for his continued knee and 

lower back pain and was advised to remain off work for a week. Appellant related the knee and 

back pain he continued to experience and the stress he was under due to financial problems and 

his father-in-law’s health problems. He further contended that the employing establishment and 

Special Agent Krafels had acted maliciously and committed federal crimes in preventing him 

from obtaining medical treatment. Appellant submitted another letter from Dr. Nadeem dated 

May 14, 2013. 

In a February 13, 2013 report, Dr. Jacqueline Le, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

examined appellant for lumbago with lumbar radiculitis condition. She noted that appellant was 

setting up the MRI scan study and would receive pain management specialist for his pain in the 

meantime. Appellant underwent another MRI scan of the lumbar spine which revealed mild 

spondylosis and disc desiccation of the L5-S1 and L4-5 and mild degenerative changes, most 

pronounced at L4-5, acute stress reactive changes in right L5 pedicle and superior articular facet 

and mild-to-moderate bilateral neuroforaminal stenosis. 

By decision dated July 11, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the December 4, 2012 

denial decision. It found that the new evidence submitted did not resolve the discrepancies in the 

evidence of record and the initial differing explanations in appellant’s medical history. 

In a letter received on January 24, 2014, appellant, through his attorney, requested 

reconsideration. He alleged that Dr. Nadeem provided a comprehensive medical report based on 
5

a detailed review of appellant’s medical history and physical assessment which provided the 

necessary evidence for OWCP to accept appellant’s claim. 

In a November 1, 2013 report, Dr. Don West, Board-certified in physical medicine and 

rehabilitation, noted appellant’s complaints of severe pain in the lower back and both legs. He 

related that appellant was injured on the job on July 25, 2011 and that an MRI scan of the lumbar 

spine revealed bulging discs of the lower two levels with minimal nerve root irritation and facet 

changes. Upon examination, Dr. West observed no lumbar tenderness and intact lower 

extremities. Straight leg raise testing was negative bilaterally. Dr. West diagnosed discogenic 

low back pain and bilateral lumbar radiculitis. 

In a January 24, 2014 causation letter, Dr. Nadeem stated that on November 25, 2011 

appellant was out delivering mail when he stepped into the mail car and missed a step. Although 

appellant was able to recover his balance and not fall down he experienced sharp pain in his right 

knee and lower back. He continued to deliver mail. Dr. Nadeem explained that, when a person 

misses a step, the full weight of the body is supported by the upper leg, knee and lower leg 

closest to the ground as the other leg is in the air. He noted that the phase of the gait, known as 

the terminal stance, puts all of the weight of the body on the menisci of the knee and discs of the 

low back. Dr. Nadeem reported that, when the body is unprepared, such as during a misstep, and 

lands with the full weight of the body this traumatic impact could damage the menisci and discs 

which are “shock” absorbers. When additional weight is added such as a load of mail, this 

tremendous amount of stress could cause tears in the menisci of the knee and discs in the lumbar 

region. Dr. Nadeem reported that appellant’s right knee meniscal tear and lumbar disc bulge 

were causally related to the occupational injury occurring on November 25, 2011. He also 

provided medical treatment for appellant in reports dated August 22, 2013 to March 20, 2014. 

In a decision dated May 7, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the July 11, 2013 denial 

decision. It determined that the factual evidence remained insufficient to resolve the 

discrepancies in the factual element of his traumatic injury claim and to establish that the 

employment incident occurred as he alleged. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that the individual is an employee with 

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.3

 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.4

 3 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1999). 
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 or she actually 

experienced the employment incident at the time, place and in the manner alleged.5

 Second, the 

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

evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

An employee has the burden of establishing the occurrence of an injury at the time, place 

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

evidence. An injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact 

that an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, as alleged, but the employee’s 

statements must be consistent with surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action.7

 An employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish 

the occurrence of an injury when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious 

doubt upon the validity of the claim. Such circumstances 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 sufficient 

doubt on an employee’s statement in determining whether a prima facie case has been 

established. An 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 refuted by strong or persuasive 

evidence.8

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.9 To establish a 

causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability claimed and the 

employment event, the employee must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence, based on a 

complete factual and medical background, supporting such a causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleges that on November 25, 2011 he sustained injuries to his right ankle, right 

knee and lower back when he slipped while stepping into his mail vehicle. He did not stop work 

and filed a traumatic injury claim on February 15, 2012. OWCP denied appellant’s claim 

finding insufficient evidence to establish fact of injury. The Board finds that OWCP properly 

 5 Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Edward C. Lawrence, 19 ECAB 442 (1968). 

6 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

7 Joseph H. Surgener, 42 ECAB 541, 547 (1991); Gene A. McCracken, Docket No. 93-2227 (issued 

March 9, 1995). 

8 D.B., 58 ECAB 529 (2007); Robert A. Gregory, 40 ECAB 478 (1989); Thelma S. Buffington, 34 ECAB 

104 (1982). 

9 J.Z., 58 ECAB 529 (2007). 

10 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 
7

found that the factual evidence is insufficient to establish that the November 25, 2011 

employment incident occurred at the time, place and in the manner alleged. 

The Board finds that there are numerous and serious inconsistencies in the evidence as to 

cast doubt upon the validity of appellant’s statement that he sustained an injury on November 25, 

2011 in the performance of duty. In the February 15, 2012 claim form, appellant alleged that the 

injury occurred on November 25, 2011. In a January 23, 2012 form, however, he reported the 

date of his present injury as January 17, 2012 and explained that he “had accident when stepped 

off of curb.” Appellant’s supervisor also stated that on January 25, 2012 he received a fax from 

a medical clinic about a CA-17 form with a date of injury of January 17, 2012. In an interview 

with Special Agent Krafels, appellant also provided varying accounts as to how and where the 

alleged injury happened. The Board finds that these above-mentioned inconsistencies call into 

serious question appellant’s account of the alleged November 25, 2011 incident.11

Appellant’s subsequent course of conduct also fails to support that the November 25, 

2011 incident occurred as alleged. The record reflects that he delayed in filing a traumatic injury 

claim for the alleged November 25, 2011 work injury until February 15, 2012. In various 

statements, appellant explained that he did not initially report the November 25, 2011 

employment incident because he was waiting to see if he improved on his own and because he 

feared he would lose his job if he reported the injury. The Board notes, however, that in the 

February 15, 2012 occupational disease claim form he explained that he did not file a claim 

within 30 days because he was “always stepping on holes and tripping.” Doubt is further raised 

by the fact that appellant waited until after he was no longer employed to file his claim and did 

not promptly notify anyone of the November 25, 2011 employment incident. As previously 

noted, late notification of injury, if otherwise unexplained, may cast doubt on an employee’s 

statement that an injury occurred as alleged.12 The Board notes that appellant did not adequately 

explain why he delayed so long in filing his claim. 

Appellant also delayed in seeking medical attention and continued to work following the 

alleged November 25, 2011 incident. The record reveals that he did not seek medical treatment 

until January 23, 2012, more than two months after the alleged injury occurred. The earliest 

medical report received is dated January 23, 2012 by Dr. Nadeem, who related that appellant 

sustained an injury on January 17, 2012 when he stepped off the curb, missed a step and almost 

fell down. The Board notes that although Dr. Nadeem provided a “corrected history” of 

appellant’s alleged injury in later reports and described the November 25, 2011 incident as 

appellant alleged, this correct description by only one person is insufficient to rebut the other 

inconsistencies and evidence in the record. There is no other medical evidence in the record that 

provides an accurate history of the alleged November 25, 2011 incident as appellant described. 

On the other hand, in a November 1, 2013 report, Dr. West related that appellant was injured on 

the job on July 25, 2011. Although appellant indicated that he was waiting to see if the injury 

was permanent, the Board finds that he did not adequately explain why his delay in seeking 

medical treatment was so long given the severity of the injuries that he claimed. 

 11 See R.M., Docket No. 13-173 (issued April 16, 2013); R.R., Docket No. 11-919 (issued December 19, 2011). 

12 Supra note 8. 
8

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

a given manner is generally accorded great probative value, there is strong persuasive evidence 

refuting appellant’s account of the events of November 25, 2011. The Board finds that appellant 

has not established the occurrence of the November 25, 2011 work incident as alleged and 

therefore has not established that he sustained an injury on November 25, 2011 in the 

performance of duty. 

On appeal, appellant’s attorney alleges that appellant has satisfied all five elements 

necessary to establish his claim. She contended that appellant’s account of the injury should be 

given great probative value because it was not refuted by strong or persuasive evidence. Counsel 

explained that appellant never changed the account of what happened but his doctor erred in 

providing an incorrect history. Despite these explanations, however, the Board finds that 

appellant has still not provided a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence that the November 25, 2011 incident occurred at the time, place and in the manner 

alleged. 

Appellant’s attorney also references the Board’s decision in C.C. v. Department of 

Justice, Docket No. 10-2054 (issued July 8, 2011) in support of his claim. The Board finds, 

however, that that case substantially differentiates from appellant’s present claim. In that case, 

the Board set aside OWCP’s July 7, 2010 decision and found that the November 1, 2009 

employment incident occurred as alleged. Unlike appellant’s present claim, the employee in that 

case promptly sought medical treatment from the employee health unit and from the hospital 

emergency room on the day of the alleged injury. In addition, the only inconsistencies in that 

case record were from the employing establishment whereas in appellant’s present claim there 

are inconsistencies in appellant’s statements themselves along with the medical record. The 

Board finds that appellant did not submit evidence to establish that he actually experienced an 

employment incident at the time, place and in the manner alleged. Accordingly, he failed to 

establish fact of injury. 

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 meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on November 25, 2011. 
9

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 7 and April 16, 2014 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: November 14, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board