United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MILITARY 

OCEAN TERMINAL SUNNY POINT, 

Southport, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1278 

Issued: September 12, 2014 

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 May 12, 2014 appellant timely appealed the March 28, 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 sustained an injury in the performance of duty on 

January 30, 2014. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (2006). 

2

 The record on appeal contains evidence received after OWCP issued its March 28, 2014 decision. The Board is 

precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP issued its final decision. 20 

C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1) (2012). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 38-year-old security guard, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) 

alleging that she slipped on icy asphalt in the performance of duty on January 30, 2014. The 

alleged incident occurred under the truck search canopy. Appellant claimed to have slipped and 

caught herself before falling. She twisted awkwardly, which caused pain in her right knee and 

mid-upper back. The employing establishment challenged the claim, noting that prior to the 

alleged injury appellant reported back pain from moving. Additionally, there were no witnesses, 

and appellant did not immediately seek medical attention.3

OWCP received February 6, 2014 treatment notes from Dr. John A. Azzato, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, who saw appellant for follow-up regarding a work-related knee and 

back injury. Dr. Azzato noted that her knee was still somewhat sensitive and she had 

intermittent upper back pain. Physical examination of the back revealed no significant 

tenderness, and appellant’s reflexes and strength were normal. Dr. Azzato also noted that 

appellant’s bruise had decreased. He diagnosed right knee contusion and low back strain, both 

improved. Dr. Azzato advised appellant to continue with her exercises and return to work as of 

February 7, 2014. 

On February 24, 2014 OWCP advised appellant of the need for additional factual and 

medical evidence in support of her claimed injury. It explained that the evidence previously 

received was insufficient to establish that the January 30, 2014 employment incident occurred as 

alleged. OWCP requested a detailed description of how the injury occurred. Additionally, it 

advised appellant to submit a narrative medical report from her attending physician. Appellant 

was afforded 30 days to submit the requested factual and medical information. 

OWCP subsequently received a series of x-rays taken on February 16, 2014. Dr. Gail M. 

Capel, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, found no evidence of fracture in the thoracic 

spine, a normal right knee and normal right tibia and fibula. 

In a March 28, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim because 

she failed to establish fact of injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial 

evidence, including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that 

any specific condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.4

To determine if 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. 

The first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

 3

 The employing establishment indicated that appellant did not seek medical attention until the following 

Monday, February 3, 2014. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 
3

allegedly occurred.5

 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.6

ANALYSIS 

On January 30, 2014, appellant allegedly slipped on icy asphalt and was able to catch 

herself and avoid falling, but in the process, she reportedly twisted awkwardly injuring her right 

knee and mid-upper back. On February 24, 2014 OWCP requested additional factual and 

medical evidence in support of appellant’s claimed injury. Specifically, it requested a detailed 

description of how the January 30, 2014 injury occurred. Appellant failed to submit the 

requested statement within the allotted time frame. OWCP also requested a narrative medical 

report from appellant’s attending physician, which also was not received in a timely fashion. 

CONCLUSION 

Appellant failed to establish that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty on 

January 30, 2014. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 28, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 12, 2014 

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 

 5 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

6 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). Causal relationship is a medical question which generally requires 

rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue.