United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Boston, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0751 

Issued: September 7, 2016 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 4, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 23, 2015 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (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 met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury on 

September 29, 2015 while in the performance of duty. 

 1

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its November 23, 2015 

decision. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final 

decision and therefore, this additional evidence cannot be considered on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); Dennis E. 

Maddy, 47 ECAB 259 (1995); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35, 36 n.2 (1952). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 29, 2015 appellant, then a 56-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that same date she sustained a back sprain, wrist sprain, and 

scraped left knee injury. She reported that she was crossing the street when the security guard 

called out to her. Appellant turned around and fell over a raised grate on the street. She noted 

the time of injury as 6:20 a.m. and location of injury as “A Street USPS parking area.” On the 

reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment controverted the claim stating that 

the injury occurred off of the employing establishment’s premises. 

In September 29, 2015 medical notes, Dr. Irina Popescu, Board-certified in internal 

medicine, reported that appellant presented to the emergency room (ER) on that date and was 

restricted from lifting or twisting for five days. In an October 5, 2015 attending physician report 

(Form CA-20) and duty status report (Form CA-17), she reported that on September 29, 2015 

appellant tripped and fell on a manhole cover that was protruding because of construction. 

Dr. Popescu diagnosed left arm and shoulder pain and checked a box marked “yes” when asked 

if the condition was caused or aggravated by the employment activity, noting that the incident 

happened at work. Appellant was released to full duty. 

By letter dated October 9, 2015, the employing establishment controverted the claim 

arguing that the injury did not arise during the course of employment and was not within the 

scope of compensable work factors. It noted that appellant’s Form CA-1 stated that she was 

crossing the street when she fell over a raised grate. The employing establishment alleged that 

the street she was crossing, A Street, was not part of the employing establishment’s premises. 

By letter dated October 20, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence received 

failed to establish that the January 29, 2015 injury occurred as alleged or that she was in the 

performance of duty at the time of injury. It further stated that the medical evidence failed to 

provide a firm medical diagnosis with an opinion that the injury was caused by the work 

incident. OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence. It requested that appellant 

complete a questionnaire in order to substantiate the factual basis of her claim and a medical 

report from her attending physician including a diagnosis, history of the injury, and a physician’s 

opinion on causal relationship supported by medical rationale. The questionnaire requested that 

she explain the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the location of the fall, 

whether the location was on the employing establishment’s premises, what activities she was 

engaged in at the time of the fall, how the injury occurred, and statements from any persons who 

witnessed the injury or had immediate knowledge of it. Appellant was afforded 30 days to 

provide the requested information. No further evidence was received from her. 

In another letter dated October 20, 2015, OWCP notified the employing establishment 

that additional information was needed regarding the circumstances of the January 29, 2015 

injury. It requested that the employing establishment complete the accompanying questionnaire. 

On October 30, 2015 the employing establishment explained that at the time of injury 

appellant was crossing a city street and walking to the employing establishment. It explained 

that the street was not owned, operated, or controlled by the employing establishment. The 

employing establishment further stated that appellant’s assigned work shift began at 7:00 a.m., 
3

whereas the injury occurred at 6:20 a.m. It reported that, at the time of the injury, she was not 

engaged in official duties which required her to be off premises and was not performing assigned 

duties or any activity which, by its nature, was considered reasonably incidental to the 

assignment. The employing establishment further stated that appellant was walking when she 

was injured and no government-owned vehicle was involved. 

By decision dated November 23, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

evidence of record failed to establish that the incident occurred in the performance of duty, as 

alleged. It found that she had failed to establish fact of injury because she had not responded to 

the request for additional factual information surrounding the incident. OWCP explained that the 

evidence of record indicated that at the time of the incident appellant was not on the employing 

establishment’s premises performing assigned duties. It further found that at the time of injury, 

6:20 a.m., she had not yet reported for work as her regular work shift did not begin until 7:00 

a.m. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 filed within the applicable 

time limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that 

any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

employment injury.3

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

The Board has interpreted the phrase while in the performance of duty to be the 

equivalent of the commonly found requisite in workers’ compensation law of arising out of and 

in the course of employment. In the course of employment deals with the work setting, the 

locale and time of injury whereas, arising out of the employment, encompasses not only the work 

setting but also a causal concept, the requirement being that an employment factor caused the 

injury. In addressing this issue, the Board has stated that in the compensation field, to occur in 

the course of employment, in general, an injury must occur: (1) at a time when the employee 

may reasonably be said to be engaged in his or her master’s business; (2) at a place where he or 

she may reasonably be expected to be in connection with the employment; and (3) while he or 

she was reasonably fulfilling the duties of his or her employment or engaged in doing something 

incidental thereto.5

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to establish an injury in the performance of duty 

on September 29, 2015. 

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989). 

4 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

5 Kathryn S. Graham Wilburn, 49 ECAB 458 (1998). 
4

Appellant alleged that on September 29, 2015 she fell on a raised grate on “A Street” and 

sustained a back sprain, wrist sprain, and scraped left knee. Although she claimed she fell in the 

employing establishment “parking area,” she has failed to provide the sufficient level of detail 

needed to establish that the incident occurred in the performance of duty.6

The employing establishment disputed appellant’s claim that she had fallen on the 

employing establishment premises. It asserted that the street where the incident occurred was 

not part of its premises and was not in the care, custody, and control of it. The employing 

establishment claimed that the fall occurred on a city street, which was not within its jurisdiction. 

Without more information, the Board finds that appellant has failed to establish that her injury 

occurred on the premises of the employing establishment,7

 or in the performance of duty.8 

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.606 and 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty on September 29, 2015. 

 6 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997). 

7 Michael Hazzard, Docket No. 05-1514 (issued November 4, 2005). 

8 See Thomas E. Kiplinger, Docket No. 93-2359 (issued April 12, 1995). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 23, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 7, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board