United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.I., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POST OFFICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Antonio, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1205 

Issued: February 9, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Brett E. Blumstein, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 4, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 6, 2015 

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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a left shoulder 

injury causally related to a March 30, 2013 employment incident. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 30, 2013 appellant, then a 46-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that on the same day between 2:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. his 

supervisor Stephanie Page assigned him to a mail handler job where he was dumping mail from 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

mail sacks. He alleged that while dumping mail he felt a pinch pain in his left shoulder. 

Appellant noted that there were no witnesses. Appellant’s supervisor noted that the employing 

establishment was still investigating the alleged accident and controverted the claim. Appellant 

did not stop work at that time. 

Appellant submitted an undated statement and related that he had been dumping a sack 

onto a conveyor belt and felt a pinch to his left upper shoulder. He noted that he did not think 

much of the pinch in the left shoulder until he went home and it began to hurt. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. James Murray, a Board-certified family practitioner, from 

March 30 to April 5, 2013 for a left shoulder injury. In duty status reports dated March 30 and 

April 5, 2013, Dr. Murray diagnosed left shoulder strain and impingement and returned appellant 

to work on March 30, 2013 subject to restrictions. In a work status report form dated March 30, 

2013, he noted treating appellant for a “WRI Left Shoulder U.S. Postal Service” which occurred 

on March 30, 2013. Dr. Murray diagnosed left shoulder strain/impingement. An April 2, 2013 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left shoulder revealed linear tearing of the 

anterior and superior segments of the labrum, findings consistent with impingement syndrome 

with partial-thickness tearing of the supraspinatus and subscapularis tendons. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Helo Chen, an osteopath, on April 10, 2013 for left shoulder 

pain reportedly incurred from a traumatic work accident. He reported that on March 30, 2013, 

while at work, he was unloading mail from sacks weighing approximately 30 pounds and while 

lifting a sack he felt a sudden pinch in his left shoulder. Dr. Chen noted that appellant presented 

in mild acute distress, with tenderness on palpation, and had decreased range of motion. He 

opined that the effects of the work injury persisted and limited appellant’s activities. Dr. Chen 

diagnosed left shoulder impingement and left shoulder superior glenoid labrum lesion causally 

related to the traumatic work injury of March 30, 2013. Appellant reported unloading mail from 

sacks, which weighed 30 to 40 pounds and while lifting a sack he felt a sudden pinch in his left 

shoulder. Dr. Chen opined that the March 30, 2013 accident directly resulted in his diagnosed 

conditions of left shoulder impingement and left shoulder superior glenoid labrum lesion. He 

noted that appellant had residuals of the work-related injury. 

In a statement dated March 31, 2013, Ms. Page, appellant’s tour 1 supervisor, provided 

an accident report noting that on March 30, 2013 she instructed appellant to load mail onto belts 

and indicated that she would be sending four workers to assist at 1:00 a.m. She stated that he 

loaded belts until she stopped the machine at 1:55 a.m. Ms. Page reported that appellant and two 

other clerks stood by the front of the machine talking and she dismissed appellant for lunch at 

2:20 a.m. Appellant returned to the manual belt and worked until 3:50 a.m. without incident and 

the next day informed the tour three supervisors that he hurt himself the day before loading belts 

between 2:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. Ms. Page controverted his claim. 

By letter dated April 10, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual and 

medical evidence needed to establish his claim. It indicated that the evidence was insufficient to 

establish that he experienced the incident or employment factor alleged to have caused the 

injury. OWCP specifically requested that appellant substantiate the factual elements of his claim 

and respond to a questionnaire regarding how his injury occurred. 
3

In an April 2, 2013 statement, appellant claimed that on March 30, 2013 between 2:00 

a.m. and 2:30 a.m., Ms. Page had assigned him mail handler duties and while dumping mail from 

the sacks he felt a pinch in his left shoulder. Appellant continued to work, but the next morning 

he felt a sharp pain in his left shoulder. That afternoon he reported his injury to his supervisor. 

Appellant submitted a March 30, 2013 report from Dr. Murray who had treated appellant 

for a left shoulder injury. He reported that while at work he felt a small pinch in his left shoulder 

when dumping mail. Appellant noted tenderness on palpation over the lateral aspect of the left 

shoulder and a limited range of motion. Dr. Murray diagnosed left shoulder strain and 

impingement. In duty status reports dated April 2 and 23, 2013, he diagnosed left shoulder 

injury and returned appellant to work subject to restrictions. 

In a decision dated May 13, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the evidence did 

not support that the injury or events occurred as alleged. 

On May 24, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. In a statement dated May 23, 

2013, he noted filing a (Form CA-1) on March 30, 2013 and then notifying his supervisor of his 

injury. Appellant reported that his injury occurred when he was lifting and dumping mail 

weighing approximately 30 pounds from the sacks to the belt and after a few minutes Ms. Page 

sent two more clerks to assist. He stated that he followed his supervisor’s instructions because 

he did not want to be insubordinate. Appellant noted that during the course of dumping mail 

from the sacks he felt a left shoulder pinch. He did not report the injury to his supervisor as he 

thought it was minor and continued to work until 2:30 a.m. The following morning appellant felt 

a sharp and throbbing pain in his left shoulder and reported his injury. 

Appellant underwent an EMG on May 7, 2013 which revealed no abnormalities. In a 

June 6, 2013 report, Dr. Chen referred to his April 10, 2013 report to explain how appellant had 

sustained a work-related injury in the performance of duty. 

In a decision dated July 19, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the May 13, 2013 

decision. 

On July 24, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted time and attendance 

reports from April 27 to 30, 2013. On July 30, 2013 Dr. Jackie Stephenson, a general 

practitioner and Board-certified urologist, treated appellant for a left shoulder injury. Appellant 

reported dumping mail at work and feeling pain in the left shoulder. Dr. Stephenson noted a left 

shoulder MRI scan showed linear tearing of the anterior and superior segments of the labrum, 

impingement syndrome with partial-thickness tearing of the supraspinatus, and subscapularis 

tendons. 

A September 12, 2013 report from Dr. Chen reiterated that he believed appellant had a 

work-related injury. He provided a history of injury and opined that the repetitious movements 

of lifting and dumping a significant amount of weight while keeping pace with a conveyor belt 

caused strain to the shoulders, exhausting the supporting muscles, and increasing risk of injury. 

Dr. Chen diagnosed left shoulder impingement syndrome and left shoulder superior glenoid 

labrum lesion. He opined that both conditions were caused by forceful lifting and repetitive 
4

overhead activities which included lifting and dumping 30-pound sacks of mail onto a moving 

conveyor belt. 

Appellant submitted September 10, 2013 witness statements from Emilio Lopez and 

Patrick McColley, coworkers, who noted that they were working with appellant dumping mail on 

the day he claimed his injury occurred. 

In a decision dated December 16, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision. 

On February 24, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted two new 

identical witness statements from Mr. Lopez and Mr. McColley providing more specifically that 

“[Appellant] was working on March 30, 2013 at 2:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., on Saturday 

March 20, 2013.” 

Appellant submitted a March 25, 2014 report from Dr. Chen who noted that appellant had 

sustained a work-related injury while in the performance of his work duties. He advised that 

appellant’s treatment could not move forward unless the claim was accepted by OWCP. 

The employing establishment submitted an April 14, 2014 statement from Gaye R. 

Gresham, manager, Health and Resource Management, who controverted appellant’s claim. The 

employing establishment submitted time and attendance records of both Mr. Lopez and 

Mr. McColley for March 30, 2013. Ms. Gresham indicated that the employing establishment 

contends that appellant’s claim lacked a factual basis and should remain denied. 

In a decision dated July 17, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision. 

On October 13, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a declaration 

dated October 10, 2014 and explained that the reason he noted on the CA-1 form that there were 

no witnesses to his injury was that he did not believe that he would be able to get the witnesses to 

testify that they had seen anything for fear of retribution. Appellant further noted that he was not 

dismissed for lunch at 2:20 a.m. with his coworkers as he took his lunch at midnight and the two 

coworkers were witnesses that he kept working until 2:30 a.m. when they went to lunch. 

The employing establishment submitted an October 29, 2014 statement from Sharon 

Faust, health resource management specialist. Ms. Faust asserted that the claim should remain 

denied. 

In a decision dated January 6, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision. 

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 

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 is causally related to the 
5

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

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 he actually experienced the employment incident at 

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

evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.3

An employee’s statement that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is 

of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.4 

Moreover, an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. The employee’s statement, 

however, must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and her subsequent 

course of action. An employee has not met her burden 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. Circumstances such as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, 

continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury, and failure to obtain 

medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast doubt on an employee’s statement in 

determining whether a prima facie case has been established.5

ANALYSIS 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he failed to establish that the events 

occurred as alleged. It is undisputed that appellant’s duties as a mail processing clerk involved 

dumping mail from mailbags which involved the use of his left shoulder. Appellant consistently 

alleged he was injured on March 30, 2013 “at about 2:00 am -- 2:30 am.” There is no dispute 

that appellant was dumping mail from mailbags during the work shift that he alleges an injury. 

While there are alleged inconsistencies about when the incident occurred, appellant nonetheless 

alleged his injury at a time which was within 10 minutes of a time when his supervisor confirms 

he was performing his assigned work duties. Statement from Mr. Lopez and Mr. McColley also 

support that appellant was dumping mail at the time in question. 

Additionally, the history of the work incident was confirmed by contemporaneous 

medical reports. The Board notes that appellant reported the injury on the following day and 

immediately sought medical treatment for a diagnosed left shoulder condition and provided his 

medical care providers with a consistent history of injury. In a work status report form dated 

March 30, 2013, Dr. Murray treated appellant for a “WRI Left Shoulder U.S. Postal Service” 

which occurred on March 30, 2013. Dr. Murray diagnosed left shoulder strain/impingement. 

Similarly, on April 10, 2013 Dr. Chen noted appellant reported that on March 30, 2013, while at 

 2 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

3

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

4 R.T., Docket No. 08-408 (issued December 16, 2008); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005). 

5 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 
6

work, he was unloading mail from sacks weighing approximately 30 pounds and while lifting a 

sack he felt a sudden pinch in his left shoulder. The Board finds that the evidence is consistent 

that on March 30, 2013 appellant was performing his work duties as a mail processing clerk 

which included dumping mail as alleged. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. The weight of the factual 

evidence established that the incident occurred as alleged. OWCP must now determine whether 

the medical evidence establishes that the incident caused an injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 6, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is modified in part and remanded for further action consistent 

with this decision.6

Issued: February 9, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 6

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015.