United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, 

Albuquerque, NM, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-249 

Issued: March 24, 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 12, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the May 22, 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 his burden of proof to establish the April 26, 2011 

work injury occurred as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 26, 2014 appellant, a 47-year-old firefighter (hazardous materials technician), 

or someone acting on his behalf, filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that he injured his right 

thumb in the performance of duty on April 26, 2011: “Individual loading supply hose onto the 

P-19 and P-23 during live fire training for Farmington Fire Department. Individual 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

hyperextended right thumb.” The incident took place at the training fire pit area south of 

building 638 at 2:00 p.m. 

A supervisor completed a notification of injury form on April 27, 2011 indicating that 

appellant hyperextended his right thumb while loading a supply hose the previous day. 

Dr. Matthew W. Patton, a Board-certified hand surgeon, saw appellant for a right thumb 

problem on April 20, 2011. Appellant related that he suffered some pain in the basal joint of the 

right thumb for the last month and a half or so. “His pain began insidiously without a history of 

trauma.” Dr. Patton diagnosed right thumb basal joint arthritis. 

Dr. Patton saw appellant again on May 31, 2011. He noted continued pain in the basal 

joint of the right thumb. He noted that appellant tried wearing a splint, but it was not effective. 

Dr. Patton treated appellant with an injection. He saw appellant about nine months later and 

provided another injection. Dr. Patton repeated the procedure on August 2, 2013 and 

February 10, 2014. 

Appellant notified OWCP on May 6, 2014 that the traumatic injury actually occurred in 

2008. He told his supervisor at that time, but no paperwork was completed. After that traumatic 

injury, appellant began having pain in his thumb. He received cortisone shots every four to six 

weeks. Appellant advised that work activities aggravated his thumb, which he had to ice to 

reduce the swelling. An orthopedic doctor told appellant that he had developed arthritis over 

time as a result of the traumatic injury. “Claimant [stated] he was informed incorrectly by his 

agency what date to put down for his [traumatic injury]. The agency entered 2011 as the [date of 

injury].” 

Appellant advised OWCP in writing that he reported the injury to his supervisor in 

November 2008. He submitted a claim because the condition of his thumb was getting worse. 

Appellant noted that he hyperextended his right thumb during search training drills at Fire 

Station 2. He described the symptoms he experienced in 2008. Appellant added: “I have not 

sustained any other injury to my right thumb since 11/2008.” 

In a decision dated May 22, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

found that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the event occurred as described. The 

claim form indicated the date of injury as April 26, 2011, but appellant’s statement indicated that 

the actual date of injury was in November 2008. “Due to the discrepancy in the date you 

sustained an injury, we are unable to establish fact of injury, factual.” OWCP added that the 

medical evidence did not support the element of causal relationship. 

Appellant disagrees with OWCP’s decision. He feels that he has submitted all the 

documentation requested to prove the extent of his injury. Appellant explains that he has never 

been trained in this matter. He feels that all paperwork was sent to the proper people, and if any 

forms or paperwork was not received, it was due to management. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of his duty.2 An employee seeking benefits under 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 
3

FECA has the burden of proof to establish the essential elements of his or her claim. When an 

employee claims that he or she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, he or she must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she experienced a specific event, incident or 

exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. He or she must also establish 

that such event, incident, or exposure caused an injury.3

To establish that an injury occurred as alleged, the injury need not be confirmed by 

eyewitnesses, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and 

circumstances and his subsequent course of action. In determining whether a prima facie case 

has been established, such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of 

injury, and failure to obtain medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast sufficient 

doubt on a claimant’s statements. The employee has not met this burden when there are such 

inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt on the validity of the claim.4

ANALYSIS 

It appears that someone filed a traumatic injury claim on appellant’s behalf. Appellant 

did not sign the typed claim form, and the description of the injury refers to him in the third 

person as “the individual.” Further, he advised it was the employing establishment that entered 

the date of injury. 

Although the claim form indicated that an injury occurred on April 26, 2011, appellant 

later explained that the injury actually occurred in November 2008. He clarified that he injured 

his right thumb during search training drills at Fire Station 2, and that he had not sustained 

another injury to his right thumb since November 2008. Appellant submitted the claim form 

because the condition of his thumb was getting worse. 

Appellant has thereby given good reason to question whether the April 26, 2011 injury 

occurred as alleged on the claim form. The medical record shows that he sought medical 

attention for his right thumb problem prior to April 26, 2011. When he saw Dr. Patton, the 

attending hand surgeon, on April 20, 2011, he related that he suffered some pain in the basal 

joint of the right thumb for the last month and a half or so. When appellant saw Dr. Patton on 

May 31, 2011, he did not mention an injury while loading a supply hose at work. It is reasonable 

to expect a patient to inform his doctor how an injury occurred. None of Dr. Patton’s reports 

note a work injury occurring on April 26, 2011. 

Given the statements from appellant that conflict with the submitted claim form, and 

given the lack of any reference in the medical record to an injury occurring at work on April 26, 

2011, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden to establish that the April 26, 2011 

work injury occurred as alleged. The Board will therefore affirm OWCP’s May 22, 2014 

decision denying the traumatic injury claim that was submitted. 

OWCP did not deny appellant’s claim because he did not submit all the documentation 

requested to prove the extent of his injury. It denied the traumatic injury claim that was 

 3 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

4 Carmen Dickerson, 36 ECAB 409 (1985); Joseph A. Fournier, 35 ECAB 1175 (1984). See also George W. 

Glavis, 5 ECAB 363 (1953). 
4

submitted because it appeared from the evidence that the date of injury was not actually 

April 26, 2011. The factual evidence did not support the claim alleged.5

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 has not met his burden to establish that the April 26, 2011 

work injury occurred as alleged. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 22, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 24, 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 

 5

 OWCP also found that the medical evidence did not support the element of causal relationship, but appellant 

must first establish that he experienced a specific event, incident, or exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the 

manner alleged.