United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

H.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Columbus, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1386 

Issued: November 13, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 8, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a March 19, 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 this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty on January 6, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 28, 2015 appellant, then a 46-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 6, 2015, due to the stress he was under, he 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

could not think clearly because of a conflict with an employee. He indicated that his back, knee, 

and foot were numb and that he pushed a gurney of parcels to the back and felt a pain in his right 

hip while in the performance of duty. Appellant stopped work on January 6, 2015. A supervisor 

with the employing establishment indicated that he did not have any actual knowledge of the 

claimed accident.2

 

In a February 2, 2015 statement, Michael B. Alter, a health and resource management 

specialist from the employing establishment, controverted the claim. He indicated that appellant 

was working modified duty as a lobby assistant. Mr. Alter provided a copy of the modified job 

offer, which was given to appellant on December 22, 2014. He noted that the start date was 

December 27, 2014. Mr. Alter related that it was his belief that appellant did not want to work as 

he did not start until three days after the reporting date. Furthermore, when he reported, 

appellant claimed that he needed a “special chair.” Mr. Alter confirmed that his restrictions were 

accommodated. However, appellant claimed that was not enough and the stress of his lobby 

position caused him to hurt his hip while pushing a gurney of parcels. Mr. Alter noted that the 

employing establishment did not agree that appellant was entitled to receive any benefits for this 

claim. 

A copy of a February 3, 2015 letter from Mr. Alter to appellant was also provided. In 

that letter, Mr. Alter informed appellant that he would be assigned to assist him with his claim 

and the return to work process. 

By letter dated February 10, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that additional factual and 

medical evidence was needed. It noted that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he 

actually experienced the incident or employment factor alleged to have caused the injury. 

OWCP also explained that a physician’s opinion was crucial to his claim and allotted appellant 

30 days within which to submit the requested information. No response was received. 

By decision dated March 19, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the 

claim was denied because the factual component of fact of injury had not been met. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 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,4

 and that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty.5 These 

 2

 The record reflects that appellant also filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) on January 6, 2015 for a 

physical condition and a stress condition. Appellant has filed a separate appeal regarding this claim, Docket No. 15-

1733, which is proceeding to adjudication separately from the present matter. 

3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

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

5 James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988). 
3

are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is 

predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

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 which is alleged to have occurred. An 

employee has the burden of establishing the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in 

the manner alleged by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.7

 

An injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact that an 

employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, as alleged, but the employee’s 

statements must be consistent with surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action. Such circumstances 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 cast doubt on an employee’s statements 

in determining whether he or she has established a prima facie case.8 However, an 

employee’s statement alleging 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.9

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that on January 6, 2015 his back, knee, and foot were numb and that he 

pushed a gurney of parcels to the back of the facility and felt a pain in the right hip in the 

performance of duty. 

OWCP denied his claim, finding that he did not demonstrate that the specific event 

occurred at the time, place, and in the manner described. The initial question presented is 

whether appellant has established that the January 6, 2015 employment incident occurred as 

alleged. The Board finds that appellant has not established the occurrence of the alleged 

January 6, 2015 employment incident. 

In this case, the employing establishment controverted the claim and provided a 

February 2, 2015 statement from Mr. Alter. Mr. Alter indicated that appellant was working a 

modified-duty position as a lobby assistant. He explained that the modified job offer was 

provided to appellant on December 22, 2014. However, appellant did not start until 

December 27, 2014. Mr. Alter explained that it was the employing establishment’s belief that 

appellant did not want to work as he did not start until three days after the reporting date. He 

indicated that appellant requested a “special chair” and confirmed that his restrictions were 

 6 Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

7 Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667 (1987). 

8 Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988). 

9 Thelma S. Buffington, 34 ECAB 104 (1982). 
4

accommodated. Mr. Alter advised that appellant claimed that was not enough and the stress of 

his lobby position caused him to hurt his hip while pushing a gurney of parcels. He advised that 

the employing establishment did not agree that appellant was entitled to receive any benefits. 

By letter dated February 10, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that additional factual and 

medical evidence was needed and allotted him 30 days within which to submit the requested 

information. However, no response was received. As appellant did not provide further details, 

he has not established that a specific traumatic incident occurred at the time, place, and in the 

manner alleged. As appellant has not established that the claimed incident occurred as alleged, it 

is not necessary to consider the medical evidence with respect to causal relationship.10

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty on January 6, 2015. 

 10 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007) (where a claimant did not establish an employment incident alleged to have caused 

his or her injury, it was not necessary to consider any medical evidence). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 19, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 13, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board