United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

DAVID R. CLARK, Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Madisonville, KY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0083 

Issued: March 8, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 19, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a September 24, 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on August 3, 2015. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that, following the September 24, 2015 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 

Appellant also submitted new evidence with his appeal to the Board. However, the Board may only review

evidence that was in the record at the time OWCP issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(1); M.B., 

Docket No. 09-176 (issued September 23, 2009); J.T., 59 ECAB 293 (2008); G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007); Donald R. 

Gervasi, 57 ECAB 281 (2005); Rosemary A. Kayes, 54 ECAB 373 (2003). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 3, 2015 appellant, then a 43-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that day at 4:45 p.m. he experienced shortness of breath, 

dizziness, cramping, blurred vision, kidney dysfunction, and dehydration while walking on Sugg 

Street and provided a specific address. On the back of the form the employing establishment 

noted that appellant’s tour of duty was from 7:15 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. It checked a box indicating 

that the injury did occur in the performance of duty and that appellant stopped work at 5:00 p.m. 

on the date of injury. The employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim as he had 

failed to submit supporting medical evidence. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an illegible return to work/school notification 

form. 

By letter dated August 14, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to support his claim. Appellant was advised as to the medical and factual 

evidence required to support his claim and was afforded 30 days to provide the requested 

evidence. OWCP informed appellant there was no diagnosis for the alleged injury, nor was there 

sufficient evidence supporting that he was in the performance of duty at the time of the incident. 

It provided a questionnaire for appellant to answer. OWCP did not receive the completed 

questionnaire from appellant. 

Subsequent to OWCP’s letter it received an August 3, 2015 Baptist Health-Madisonville 

document concerning appellant’s treatment on August 3, 2015 for a syncopal episode. The 

report was electronically signed by Dr. Christopher Bunch, a Board-certified surgeon. Appellant 

had related that he felt faint and collapsed while under exertion delivering mail. He noted that, 

prior to fainting, he felt nauseous and light-headed. Treatment, test results, and examination 

findings were provided. Clinical impressions were syncope, dehydration, and moderate acute 

renal failure. 

By decision dated September 24, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found the 

evidence of record insufficient to establish that appellant was in the performance of duty at the 

time of the incident due to the fact that his work schedule ended at 3:45 p.m. and the incident 

occurred at 4:45 p.m. OWCP noted that no evidence had been submitted to show that appellant 

was in the performance of duty at the time of the August 3, 2015 incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 has the burden 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 and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
3

employment injury.4 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.5

 

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

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

and in the course of employment.6 The phrase in the course of employment is recognized as 

relating to the work situation and more particularly, relating to elements of time, place, and 

circumstance. In addressing this issue, the Board has stated the following: 

“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.7” 

The Board has noted that the course of employment for employees having a fixed time 

and place of work includes a reasonable interval before and after official working hours while 

the employee is engaged in preparatory or incidental acts and what constitutes a reasonable 

interval depends not only on the length of time involved, but also on the circumstances 

occasioning the interval and the nature of the employee’s activity.8 This alone is not sufficient to 

establish entitlement to compensation. The employee must establish the concurrent requirement 

of an injury arising out of the employment. Arising out of employment requires that a factor of 

employment caused the injury. It is incumbent upon the employee to establish that the claimed 

injury arose out of his or her employment; that is, the accident must be shown to have resulted 

from some risk incidental to the employment. In other words, some contributing or causal 

employment factor must be established.9 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that he sustained an injury on August 3, 

2015 while walking on Sugg Street. OWCP denied the claim as it found that appellant was not 

 4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006). 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

6 Charles Crawford, 40 ECAB 474, 476-77 (1989). 

7

 Mary Keszler, 38 ECAB 735, 739 (1987). 

8 See Venicee Howell, 48 ECAB 414 (1997); Narbik A. Karamian, 40 ECAB 617 (1989). In the cases concerning 

what constitutes a reasonable interval before or after work, the Board has been influenced by the activities engaged 

in by the employees before or after work. In Howell, the Board found coverage when the employee was injured five 

minutes after work while performing the incidental task of submitting a job bid. However, in Arthur A. Reid, 44 

ECAB 979 (1993), the Board denied coverage when the employee was injured 45 minutes after work while 

engaging in a private conversation. 

9 See Venicee Howell, supra note 8. 
4

in the performance of duty at the time of the injury as his tour of duty ended at 3:45 p.m. and the 

injury occurred at 4:45 p.m. The employing establishment reported to OWCP that on the date of 

injury he worked until 5:00 p.m. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to submit sufficient evidence for OWCP to make a 

determination as to whether he was in the course of federal employment at the time of the 

incident.10 This includes establishing the essential elements of his claim, which includes fact of 

injury. Other than noting on his CA-1 form that he sustained injuries while walking on Sugg 

Street on August 3, 2015, appellant has failed to provide a detailed account of the alleged injury 

sufficient to establish that the incident occurred in the performance of duty.11 More specifically, 

he did not identify what, if any, employment activity he was engaged in on his CA-1 form. 

Appellant merely stated that he was in the process of walking on Sugg Street. In its August 14, 

2015 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was insufficient 

to support his claim and requested that he submit additional evidence. While he submitted an 

August 3, 2015 hospital report noting that he fainted while delivering mail, he did not provide 

any factual evidence showing that he was in the performance of duty at the time of the incident. 

Appellant did not respond to OWCP’s questionnaire or otherwise submit evidence showing he 

was in the performance of duty, with a detailed account of what he was doing at the time of the 

August 3, 2015 incident. The Board finds that his statement that he was walking at the time and 

the lack of factual evidence showing his activities at the time of the incident does not support his 

allegation that the August 3, 2015 event occurred in the performance of duty. 

The Board therefore finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that 

he experienced the August 3, 2015 employment incident in the performance of duty. He has 

submitted no factual evidence establishing that he was performing work duties at the time of the 

incident. Because he has not met his burden of proof to establish fact of injury, it is unnecessary 

to make a finding as to whether appellant was performing work duties at 4:45 p.m. or to discuss 

the medical evidence.12

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 of proof to establish an injury in 

the performance of duty on August 3, 2015. 

 10 T.S., Docket No. 09-2184 (issued June 9, 2010); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 4.

11 See M.B., Docket No. 11-1785 (issued February 15, 2012); Dennis M. Mascarenas 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997 

12 Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated September 24, 2015 is affirmed, as modified. 

Issued: March 8, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board