United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

_________________________________________ 

R.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Oxon Hill, MD, Employer 

___________________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0971 

Issued: August 14, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Jeffrey P. Zeelander, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 17, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 9, 

2014 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) merit decision. 

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 a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty on January 21, 2014. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 23, 2014 appellant, then a 59-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on January 21, 2014 he sustained an injury to his right knee when he slipped 

and fell on steps while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on January 21, 2014.2 

In a January 21, 2014 disability certificate, Dr. Craig Thomas, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, indicated that appellant could return to work on January 25, 2014. 

In a May 19, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant that additional factual and medical 

evidence was needed. It explained that a physician’s opinion explaining how the reported work 

incident caused or contributed to his condition was crucial to his claim. 

Appellant submitted duty status reports dated January 27 and February 10, 2014 from 

Dr. Thomas. Dr. Thomas found that appellant had a right knee rupture and patella tendon and 

diagnosed “quad tendon rupture.” He noted that the diagnosis was due to the January 21, 2014 

work injury. Dr. Thomas advised that his clinical findings included that appellant could not 

extend the right knee, had pain and could not walk. Additionally, he indicated that appellant 

could not work and was awaiting surgery to the right knee. 

 Appellant provided a June 29, 2014 statement in which he described the circumstances of 

his injury. He advised that January 21, 2014 was a snowy day and he was delivering a package 

when his left foot slipped on a customer’s front steps and his full body landed on his right knee. 

Appellant explained that he fell backward and was in intense pain. He indicated that he saw 

Dr. Thomas and diagnostic testing revealed that his right quadriceps tendon in the knee required 

surgery. Appellant also noted that he was diabetic and that a delay in surgery could cause further 

problems. 

 OWCP received a February 4, 2014 radiology report read by Dr. Krishna Chadhuri, a 

diagnostic radiologist, which revealed a complete rupture of the quadriceps tendon and medial 

patellar retinaculum, possible small cortical evulsion of the superior patella, and probable 

contusion in the lateral femoral condyle. Additionally, the findings included high grade cartilage 

fissuring and delamination in the patellar apex and central trochlear groove with possible flap 

formation and equivocal medical meniscus posterior horn tear. 

OWCP also received medical documentation to include discharge instructions dated 

February 20, 2014. Additionally, a referral form dated January 31, 2014 contained several 

diagnoses that included a ruptured patella tendon on the right knee. 

By decision dated June 26, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as he did not establish 

an injury as alleged. It found that the medical evidence did not demonstrate a claimed medical 

condition related to established work-related events. 

 2

 The record reflects that appellant has several claims that include a traumatic injury on July 1, 1996 under claim 

No. xxxxxx820; a traumatic injury on June 19, 2008 under claim No. xxxxxx067; and an occupational disease claim 

for an August 12, 2008 date of injury under claim No. xxxxxx102. These other claims are not presently before the 

Board. 
3

On September 6, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. He noted that he was 

submitting documentation to support causal relationship. 

In an August 6, 2014 report, Dr. Thomas noted that appellant was post status a workrelated injury involving his right knee while delivering mail on January 21, 2014. He advised 

that appellant was seen in the emergency room that day and in his office on February 10, 2014. 

Dr. Thomas indicated that appellant had surgery on February 20, 2014. He explained that the 

diagnosed condition was consistent with appellant’s description of injury. Appellant related to 

her that he fell while delivering mail and suffered immediate right knee pain and was unable to 

fully extend his knee. He indicated that appellant “denied any other traumatic events in that 

timeframe that would cause such a[n] injury.” Dr. Thomas advised that appellant’s quadriceps 

tendon rupture was secondary to his work-related injury. Appellant underwent surgery with 

rerupture of the quadriceps tendon, which required additional surgical management. 

By decision dated December 9, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 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,4 and that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty.5 These 

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

predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether the fact of injury has been established. 

There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. First, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he 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

 

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

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

background, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

 3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

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

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

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

7 Julie B. Hawkins, 38 ECAB 393, 396 (1987); see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of 

Injury, Chapter 2.803.2a (June 1995). 

8 Id. For a definition of the term “traumatic injury,” see 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). 
4

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant.9

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

Appellant alleged that on January 21, 2014 he sustained an injury to his right knee when 

he slipped and fell on a customer’s front step while delivering a package in the performance of 

duty. OWCP accepted that the claimed event occurred. Therefore, the Board finds that the first 

component of fact of injury is established; the claimed incident -- that appellant was delivering a 

package and slipped and fell on his right knee at work as alleged. 

The Board notes that the medical evidence submitted by appellant generally supports that 

he sustained a right knee quadriceps tendon rupture in the performance of duty on 

January 12, 2014. 

The record contains several reports from Dr. Thomas with the most relevant being an 

August 6, 2014 report in which he noted that appellant was post status a work-related injury 

involving his right knee while delivering mail on January 21, 2014. Dr. Thomas advised that 

appellant was seen in the emergency room and in his office on February 10, 2014. He indicated 

that appellant underwent surgery on February 20, 2014. Dr. Thomas explained that the injury 

was consistent with appellant’s description of injury. He reported that appellant “denied any 

other traumatic events in that timeframe that would cause such a[n] injury.” Dr. Thomas further 

opined that appellant’s quadriceps tendon rupture was secondary to his work-related injury. He 

advised that appellant underwent surgery with rerupture of the quadriceps tendon, which 

required additional surgical management. The Board notes that Dr. Thomas also completed duty 

status reports dated January 27 and February 10, 2014, saw appellant contemporaneous with the 

injury, and opined that the diagnosis was due to the injury. Although Dr. Thomas’ reports are 

not sufficiently rationalized to meet appellant’s burden of proof in establishing his claim, his 

reports are uncontroverted in the record and are sufficient to require further development of the 

case.10 

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial 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. It has the obligation to see that justice 

is done.11 

 9 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 

10 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); Horace Langhorne, 29 ECAB 820 (1978). 

7 John W. Butler, 39 ECAB 852 (1988). 

11 Id.
5

The Board will remand the case to OWCP for referral to an appropriate medical specialist 

to determine the extent of any injury or aggravation of any preexisting conditions as a result of 

his employment injury on January 21, 2014. Following this, and any other further development 

as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue an appropriate merit decision on appellant’s claim. 

On appeal counsel for appellant argues that the case should be remanded for additional 

development as the evidence submitted by appellant supported further development. As found 

above, the Board concurs. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 9, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and remanded. 

Issued: August 14, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board