United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, SOUTHEAST 

REGION, Atlanta, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0671 

Issued: August 24, 2015 

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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 28, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

December 16, 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 over the merits of this case.

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on September 19, 2012. 

On appeal, appellant’s counsel contends that OWCP’s decision is contrary to law and 

fact. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 31, 2012 appellant, then a 54-year-old administrative assistant, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on September 19, 2012 she suffered an injury to her right 

upper wrist and thumb as a result of over usage caused by typing and writing. She noted that on 

that date, she heard her hand pop and had severe pain. 

By letter dated November 6, 2012, OWCP asked appellant to submit further information. 

It asked her to respond to questions regarding how her injury occurred, whether there were 

witnesses and indicate if she had any other similar symptoms before the injury. OWCP also 

asked appellant to submit medical information in support of her claim. On December 3, 2012 

appellant responded to the questions by indicating that she had immediate pain while writing up 

transfer of funds documents and that the pain in her hand was due to repetitive typing/writing 

which aggravated her condition. 

Appellant submitted a December 3, 2012 statement prepared by a physician assistant that 

was countersigned by Dr. Jack H. Powell, a Board-certified surgeon, who diagnosed 

carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis of the right thumb, indicated that it had been treated by 

surgery and that appellant’s prognosis was good. The report indicated that recovery was 

expected in six to eight weeks, after which time appellant should not experience any further 

limitations. The report noted that appellant did not indicate that she had an injury to her thumb, 

but stated that she was typing and writing at work on September 19, 2012 when she felt 

immediate pain. It noted that, after the initial visit, appellant was found to have pain in palpation 

of the CMC joint of the right hand, a positive CMC grind test and swelling and that an x-ray 

revealed severe osteoarthritis in the CMC joint of the right hand. The report further noted that 

repetitive tasks, such as typing and writing, could have aggravated appellant’s condition. 

By decision dated December 14, 2012, OWCP determined that appellant had established 

that she timely filed a claim that the incident or employment factor occurred, that a medical 

condition had been diagnosed and that she was in the performance of duty. However, it denied 

her claim because she had not submitted a detailed description of the employment factors that 

she believed caused the condition. 

In an October 12, 2012 note, Dr. Powell assessed appellant with unspecified right 

osteoarthrosis, generalized or localized in her hand. He noted that appellant wished to have 

surgery and that she was restricted to no typing or writing. 

By letter dated December 18, 2012, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim. It, through the assistant regional director, indicated that appellant alleged that the injury 

occurred on September 19, 2012 while she was typing, but that she did not report the injury to 

him until 21 days later on October 10, 2012. The employing establishment also noted that, if her 

injury was caused by over usage, an occupational disease claim would need to be filed. 

In a February 20, 2013 letter, Dr. Kevin D. Webster, a Board-certified internist, found 

that it was medically necessary to make significant changes to appellant’s work situation. He 

noted that she was being treated for diabetes and had significant arthritis of her hands, especially 

the thumbs. Appellant had required surgery of the thumb and left upper extremity. Dr. Webster 
3

noted that appellant reported considerable pain with prolonged typing along with recurrent 

emotional distress related to her work environment. 

In a form report dated August 28, 2013, Dr. Powell indicated that appellant did not have 

an injury, rather she stated that she experienced immediate pain in the right thumb on 

September 9, 2012 while she was typing and writing at work. He noted that she stated that on 

October 9, 2012 her right thumb was aching and throbbing with sharp quality, and that the pain 

was moderate to severe in intensity. Dr. Powell listed the diagnosis of CMC osteoarthritis, and 

stated that he believed that this was an exacerbation of a preexisting condition. 

 In a decision date December 16, 2013, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s case but 

denied modification of the prior decision. It alleged that she had not established employment 

factors that she alleged caused her condition. 

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. 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.2

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 or exposure, which is alleged to have occurred.3

 

The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and 

generally can be established only by medical evidence.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.5

 

 2 Jussara L. Arcanjo, 55 ECAB 281, 283 (2004). 

3 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803(2)(a) (June 1995). 

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

5 Judith A. Peot, 46 ECAB 1036 (1995); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276 (1994). 
4

To establish that an injury occurred as alleged, the injury need not be confirmed by 

eyewitnesses, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and 

circumstances and her subsequent course of action. In determining whether a prima facie case 

has been established, such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of 

injury, and failure to obtain medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast sufficient 

doubt on a claimant’s statements. The employee has not met this burden when there are such 

inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt on the validity of the claim.6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed her claim for compensation on October 31, 2012. At that time, she 

indicated that, while working on September 19, 2012, she had sudden severe pain in her right 

wrist and thumb. There were no witnesses to this alleged incident. Appellant’s statement that 

she sustained a traumatic injury on September 19, 2012, although entitled to great weight, is 

contradicted by her subsequent behavior. She did not inform any person at the employing 

establishment of this injury until October 10, 2012. There is no indication that appellant sought 

medical treatment until October 9, 2012. There is no explanation in the record for appellant’s 

delay in reporting the injury or in seeking medical treatment. Furthermore, she informed her 

physician that she did not sustain a traumatic injury, yet she filed a claim for a traumatic injury 

which she alleged occurred on September 19, 2012. However, the record currently offers no 

support for her allegation that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty as a result of a 

traumatic injury on September 19, 2012.7

The circumstances surrounding appellant’s account of an employment incident, include 

her delay in reporting the incident and her delay in seeking medical attention. In addition, she 

informed her treating physician that she did not suffer a traumatic injury. These discrepancies 

cast serious doubt on her claim. 

For these reasons, the Board finds that appellant has not established that the incident 

occurred as alleged. Because appellant has not established that the September 19, 2012 incident 

occurred, it is not necessary for the Board to consider the medical evidence.8

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 failed to meet her burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty on September 19, 2012. 

 6 T.B., Docket No. 13-1823 (issued March 20, 2014). 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(15), (16) defines a traumatic injury as a wound or other injury caused by a specific event or 

incident within a single workday or shift, whereas an occupational injury is defined as a condition produced in the 

work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 

8 B.W., Docket No. 13-244 (issued May 13, 2013). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated December 16, 2013 is affirmed. 

Issued: August 24, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board