United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

_________________________________________ 

S.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Pasadena, TX, Employer 

___________________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1707 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record 

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 1, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 13, 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 met her burden of proof to establish traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty on January 15, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 30, 2014 appellant, then a 52-year-old custodial laborer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that on January 29, 2014 she sustained a respiratory condition due to smoke 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal, appellant submitted new evidence. However, the Board has no jurisdiction to review this evidence 

for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35 (1952). 
2

inhalation in the performance of duty. She indicated that smoke inhalation caused her head pain, 

eye pain and sinus congestion. Appellant stopped work on January 30, 2014 and returned on 

February 3, 2014. The employing establishment controverted the claim, explaining that 

appellant noted that she was injured at 9:30 a.m. However, appellant’s supervisor indicated that 

this was when there was first recognizable smoke in the building. 

In a February 11, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant that additional factual and 

medical evidence was needed. It advised her that the employing establishment was challenging 

the claim based upon fact of injury as it did not believe that the smoke inhalation caused her 

condition. OWCP asked appellant to provide a detailed description of where she was and what 

she was doing at the time the claimed injury occurred. It also asked that she provide statements 

from any persons who witnessed her injury or had immediate knowledge of it and state the 

immediate effects of the injury. 

On February 14, 2014 appellant signed a certification that accompanied OWCP’s 

February 11, 2014 letter but no statement from appellant describing the circumstances of her 

claimed injury accompanied this letter. 

OWCP received a letter dated February 19, 2014, from Robin Young Williams, a human 

resource specialist with the employing establishment acknowledging the claim. Accompanying 

this was a letter dated January 31, 2014, from Monica Coleman, an employing establishment 

manager, in which she noted that she reported appellant’s claimed injury on January 30, 2014. 

She reported that there was a faulty electrical wire incident. Ms. Coleman advised that there was 

the smell of burning wires and the building was evacuated for two hours while firemen and upper 

management investigated the situation. She noted that appellant and two other custodians 

assisted the firemen with building schematics in the upper lobby and conference room. 

Ms. Coleman indicated that the employing establishment was contesting appellant’s claim. 

Appellant also submitted January 30, 2014 hospital discharge instructions for headache, 

and a nurse practitioner’s discharge instructions and duty status report indicating that appellant 

could perform regular work full time. 

In a letter dated February 25, 2014, Monique H. Nguyen, a health and resource 

management specialist also controverted the claim. She asserted that fact of injury was 

questionable and no causal relationship was established. Ms. Nguyen indicated that the building 

was immediately evacuated for two hours when the employing establishment noticed a smell 

similar to melting plastic. She indicated that there was no fire and it was an electrical issue. 

Furthermore, appellant and two employees remained to assist the firemen in the upper lobby to 

the conference room which was “away from the affected area.” Ms. Nguyen also noted that 

appellant had worked for the employing establishment for 32 years and had five injuries. She 

also noted that appellant’s leave balances were at zero. 

By decision dated March 13, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish that appellant sustained the employment incident as alleged. 

She had failed to provide details of where she was and how her condition occurred. Appellant 

was also advised that the medical evidence was from a nurse or nurse practitioner, and not from a 

qualified physician under FECA. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish 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 FECA4

 and that an injury was sustained in the performance 

of duty.5

 These 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 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 or she actually experienced the employment 

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

medical evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

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.8

 

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 his subsequent 

course of action. An employee has not met his or her burden of proof 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.9

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that on January 29, 2014 she sustained a respiratory condition in the 

performance of duty. OWCP found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the 

incident occurred as alleged. The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that the factual 

evidence was insufficient to establish that the January 29, 2014 employment incident occurred at 

the time, place, and in the manner alleged. 

 3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

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

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

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

7

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

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

9 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 
4

In a February 11, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the factual evidence needed to 

establish her claim. It asked her to provide a detailed description of where she was and what she 

was doing at the time the claimed injury occurred. However, appellant did not provide any 

further details or other evidence confirming how the claimed injury occurred. The only 

information from her about the claimed injury is the vague information contained on the 

January 30, 2014 notice of traumatic injury. The employing establishment controverted the 

claim and provided statements that cast doubt on appellant’s assertion. In a letter dated 

February 25, 2014, Ms. Nguyen of the employing establishment indicated that the building was 

immediately evacuated for two hours when a smell similar to melting plastic was noticed. She 

stated that there was no fire and appellant was “away from the affected area.” Additionally, the 

January 31, 2014, statement of Ms. Coleman, a manager, disputed that appellant was in an area 

in which she had any smoke inhalation on January 29, 2014. These statements, together with 

appellant’s failure to provide a detailed description of the claimed incident, cast doubt on her 

statement that she had smoke inhalation on January 29, 2014. The Board finds that she has not 

established the occurrence of the January 29, 2014 work incident as alleged and therefore has not 

met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an employment-related injury on 

January 29, 2014.10

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 this appellant did not meet her burden of proof in establishing that 

she sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty on January 29, 2014. 

 10 As appellant did not meet her burden to establish the occurrence of an employment incident, it is not necessary 

to consider the medical evidence with regards to causal relationship. See Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 

364 (2006). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 13, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board