United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Chamblee, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0287 

Issued: August 20, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

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 November 19, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of the November 6, 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

a traumatic injury in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 25, 2014 appellant then a 63-year-old contact representative, filed a Form 

CA-1, traumatic injury claim alleging that on September 17, 2014, she cut her right index finger 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

on the sharp underside edge of a toilet paper dispenser in the restroom while in the performance 

of duty. She did not stop work. The employing establishment advised that it received notice of 

the claimed injury on September 25, 2014. 

By letter dated September 30, 2014, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to establish her claim, particularly requesting that she submit a physician’s reasoned 

opinion addressing the relationship of her claimed condition and specific employment factors. 

The employing establishment submitted a September 25, 2014 statement from Paul 

Cashman, an assistant manager, who noted that on September 17, 2014 appellant reported cutting 

herself slightly in the women’s restroom on an exposed sharp edge and she submitted a repair 

ticket so that the problem could be corrected. Mr. Cashman noted appellant treated herself for 

the injury using first-aid supplies at her workstation and went to the nurses’ station the following 

day to be treated. 

Appellant submitted a statement dated October 24, 2014 and noted that on September 17, 

2014 she cut her right index finger on a sharp edge of a toilet paper dispenser in the restroom. 

She reported the injury to Mr. Cashman on September 17, 2014 and sent a repair ticket for the 

hazard to be corrected. Appellant reported being treated by a nurse at the federal occupational 

health clinic on September 18, 2014. She submitted federal occupational health clinic notes 

prepared by a registered nurse dated September 17 to 22, 2014 which noted her treatment for a 

right index finger cut. Appellant reported cutting her right index finger the day before while 

handling a toilet paper dispenser. Also submitted were e-mails from her on September 18, 2014 

to her supervisor, Kathy Primm, advising her of the incident and appellant’s treatment and 

testing for blood borne diseases. Appellant submitted an OWCP Form CA-20 attending 

physician’s report dated October 14, 2014, prepared by Dr. Hugh Lee Durham, a Board-certified 

internist, who noted that appellant reported cutting her right index finger on a toilet paper 

dispenser at work on September 17, 2014. She requested testing for blood borne diseases. 

Dr. Durham noted testing for hepatitis A and hepatitis C. He noted diagnoses of “no hepatitis A 

or C.” Dr. Durham noted with a checkmark “yes” that appellant’s condition was caused or 

aggravated by an employment activity. He returned her to regular duty on September 17, 2014. 

In a decision dated November 6, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding the 

medical evidence insufficient to establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection 

with the claimed event or work factors. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking compensation under FECA has the burden of establishing the 

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

evidence,2

 including that she is an “employee” within the meaning of FECA and that she filed 

her claim within the applicable time limitation.3

 The employee must also establish that she 

 2

 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 57 (1968). 

3 R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008). 
3

sustained an injury in the performance of duty as alleged and that her disability for work, if any, 

was causally related to the employment injury.4

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

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

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

submit sufficient evidence to establish that she actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit evidence, in the 

form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.5

 OWCP may accept a case without a medical report when one or more of the following 

criteria, as set forth in OWCP’s procedure manual,6 are satisfied: 

“(a) the condition reported is a minor one which can be identified on visual 

inspection by a lay person (e.g., burns, lacerations, insect sting, or animal bite); 

“(b) the injury was witnessed or reported promptly and no dispute exists as to the 

fact of injury; and 

“(c) no time was lost from work due to disability.” 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim in a decision dated November 6, 2014 finding that the 

medical evidence was insufficient to establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in 

connection with the claimed event or work factors. Although causal relationship generally 

requires rationalized medical opinion, its procedures provide for acceptance of a claim without a 

medical report when the above-referenced criteria are satisfied. 

The condition reported, a laceration, is specifically listed in the first criterion as the type 

of condition that can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person. Mr. Cashman’s account 

gives no indication of a serious condition, indeed, its brevity and matter-of-fact presentation 

suggests a minor one. Specifically, he noted that on September 17, 2014 appellant reported 

cutting herself slightly in the women’s restroom on an exposed sharp edge and she submitted a 

repair ticket so that the problem could be corrected. Mr. Cashman noted that she treated herself 

for the injury using first-aid supplies at her workstation and went to the nurse’s station the 

following day to be treated. Therefore, the first criterion is satisfied. 

The second criterion is also satisfied. Appellant reported the injury to the assistant 

manager, Mr. Cashman, on September 17, 2014, the day of the accident and she sent a repair 

ticket for the hazard to be corrected. She reported being treated by a nurse at the federal 

 4 Id.; Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

5

 T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008). 

6 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3 (January 2013); 

Melissa A. Carter, 45 ECAB 618 (1994). 
4

occupational health clinic on September 17, 2014 and she submitted federal occupational health 

clinic notes prepared by a registered nurse dated September 17 to 22, 2014 which noted her 

treatment for a right index finger cut sustained the day before while handling a toilet paper 

dispenser. No dispute exists as to these facts. As the record indicates that appellant did not stop 

work and has not claimed disability due to this incident, the third criterion is also met. A 

medical report is therefore not necessary in this case. Accordingly, the Board finds that the 

record establishes that a right index finger laceration occurred in the performance of duty.7

The case will be remanded for OWCP for payment of appropriate medical expenses. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant established that she sustained an injury in the performance 

of duty on September 17, 2014. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 6, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: August 20, 2015 

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 

 7 Pearlene Morton, 52 ECAB 493 (2001).