United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 

PHILPOTT DAM, Bassett, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-2112 

Issued: March 5, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 16, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 3, 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 has established a traumatic right knee injury in the 

performance of duty. 

On appeal, appellant contends that his supervisor and a coworker corroborated his 

account of events. 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 15, 2013 appellant, then a 43-year-old Power Plant Trainee II, filed a 

traumatic injury (Form CA-1) claim for a right knee injury sustained on October 21, 2012 when 

descending a step ladder. On the reverse of the form, appellant’s supervisor stated that the injury 

occurred on October 21, 2012. In an authorization for medical treatment (Form CA-16) dated 

January 15, 2013, he noted October 21, 2012 as the date of injury. 

Dr. Jon T. Peterson, an attending physician Board-certified in emergency medicine, 

provided a January 16, 2013 report relating appellant’s account of injuring his right knee before 

Thanksgiving, then it “popped” again on January 12, 2013. 

Dr. Howard Brown, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted in his 

February 18, 2013 reports that appellant experienced right knee pain after a ladder incident, then 

in January 2013 heard his right knee “pop” while squatting at work. He diagnosed an anterior 

cruciate ligament tear and scheduled arthroscopy for March 12, 2013.2

 In a March 4, 2013 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the additional evidence needed to 

establish his claim, including an explanation of the discrepancy between Dr. Peterson’s statement 

that appellant injured his knee before Thanksgiving and the claim form injury date of 

October 21, 2012. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit such evidence. 

 In response, appellant’s supervisor submitted a March 19, 2013 letter explaining that he 

mistakenly wrote October 21, 2012 as the injury date on appellant’s claim form but that the 

correct date of injury was November 21, 2012. Dr. Brown provided a February 13, 2013 report 

stating that, on November 12, 2012, appellant twisted his right knee when he stepped off a 

ladder. In January 2013, appellant heard a “pop” in his right knee while squatting. 

 By decision issued April 3, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the grounds that 

fact of injury was not established. It found that the discrepancies in the dates of injury cast 

significant doubt on the time, place and the manner of the claimed 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while 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 

 2

 A January 31, 2013 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right knee showed a complete anterior 

cruciate ligament tear. 
3

employment injury.3

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

In order to determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic 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 that must be considered in 

conjunction with one another. First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish 

that he or she actually experienced the employment incident that is alleged to have occurred.5 

An employee has not met his or her burden of proof 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.6

 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.7

ANALYSIS 

There are significant factual discrepancies as to the date and mechanism of injury. 

Appellant claimed that he sustained a right knee injury when climbing down a step ladder on 

October 21, 2012. His supervisor corroborated the October 21, 2012 date in the claim form and 

an authorization for medical treatment. However, the supervisor later asserted that the injury 

occurred on November 21, 2012. Dr. Peterson, an attending physician Board-certified in 

emergency medicine, related appellant’s account of injuring his right knee before Thanksgiving, 

then it “popped” again on January 12, 2013. Dr. Brown, an attending Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, placed the “ladder incident” on November 12, 2012, followed by a right knee “pop” in 

January 2013 while squatting at work. Thus, the record provides October 21, 2012, 

November 21, 2012 and “before Thanksgiving” as the date of the initial injury, and no date for 

the squatting incident. These inconsistencies create significant doubt as to the time, place and 

manner of the claimed injury.8

The Board notes that OWCP advised appellant by March 4, 2013 letter of the factual 

evidence needed to resolve the discrepancies regarding the occurrence of the claimed right knee 

injury. However, appellant did not submit such evidence. Therefore, he has not established a 

right knee injury. As appellant failed to establish the threshold issue of the fact of the incident, it 

is premature to address the secondary issue of causal relationship by reviewing the medical 

evidence in this case. 

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

4 See Irene St. John, 50 ECAB 521 (1999); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

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

6 S.N., Docket No. 12-1222 (issued August 23, 2013); Tia L. Love, 40 ECAB 586, 590 (1989). 

7 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003).

8 S.N., supra note 6. 
4

On appeal, appellant contends that his supervisor and a coworker corroborated his 

account of events. As stated, there are still significant, unresolved discrepancies regarding the 

date and mechanism of injury in this case. 

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 established that he sustained a traumatic right knee 

injury in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated April 3, 2013 is affirmed. 

Issued: March 5, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board