United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Dover, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0930 

Issued: March 1, 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 23, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 23, 2014 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 sustained an injury on August 8, 2012 in the performance 

of duty. 

 1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from September 23, 2014, the date of OWCP’s last decision, was 

Sunday, March 22, 2015. The next business day was Monday, March 23, 2015. Consequently, appellant’s appeal 

was timely as it was received on March 23, 2015. See also 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 31, 2013 appellant, then a 48-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 8, 2012 she injured her left wrist and shoulder “after 

lifting [a] heavy parcel and delivering cluster boxes.” She stopped work on August 8, 2012 and 

did not return. The employing establishment controverted the claim as appellant had not 

reported her traumatic injury until January 30, 2013. It noted that she had previously filed a 

recurrence of disability beginning August 8, 2012 and, after it was denied, filed the traumatic 

injury claim. 

Appellant had a prior accepted claim for a work injury on January 4, 2012, assigned 

OWCP file number xxxxxx080. The claim had been accepted for left forearm and shoulder 

strains. On September 19, 2012 OWCP terminated compensation benefits. The employing 

establishment controverted this traumatic injury claim. It advised that appellant had returned to 

limited-duty work on August 3, 2012, stopped work on August 8, 2012 and filed a claim for 

recurrence of disability beginning August 8, 2012 under file number xxxxxx080. By decision 

dated October 25, 2012, OWCP denied the claim for recurrence as it found that the disability was 

not causally related to the accepted conditions. The employing establishment indicated that 

appellant was now filing a new traumatic injury claim for the same date. It enclosed the 

recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) for file number xxxxxx080, noting that it addressed the 

same parts of the body. The employing establishment argued that the only difference was that on 

the recurrence form, appellant stated that on August 8, 2012 she was still weak and every time 

she reached for mail she felt a pain in her shoulder and that she had no other injuries. On the 

newly filed traumatic injury claim she indicated that on August 8, 2012 she had lifted a heavy 

box (inconsistent stories). 

In the current traumatic injury claim, by letter dated February 22, 2013, OWCP informed 

appellant that the evidence was insufficient to support the claimed August 8, 2012 traumatic 

injury and asked that she submit additional factual and medical information, including a reasoned 

report from her attending physician addressing the relationship between any diagnosed condition 

and the identified work incident. 

In an undated statement received by OWCP on March 22, 2013, appellant related that she 

had initially filed the wrong claim.3

 She maintained that she sustained an injury as the result of 

repetitive action casing and delivering mail and lifting boxes weighting 15 to 20 pounds. 

Appellant indicated that she was supposed to work light duty but her supervisor instructed her to 

perform her usual employment, which caused a new injury to her left wrist and shoulder. 

 3

 In a progress report dated March 9, 2013, Dr. Steven Stecker, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, discussed 

appellant’s continued complaints of pain in her left shoulder and wrist. He related, “[She] states that with repetitive 

lifting and overhead activity she has significant pain in the left upper extremity, mainly related to the left shoulder 

and left wrist.” Dr. Stecker noted that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left shoulder was 

unremarkable and that the MRI scan of the left wrist showed basal joint osteoarthritis, degenerative changes, and a 

partial tear in the triangular fibrocartilage. He found that appellant’s “complaints are related to her prior injury” and 

recommended a diagnostic left shoulder arthroscopy. 
3

By decision dated April 3, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a traumatic injury 

finding that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish a diagnosed condition as a result 

of the accepted August 8, 2012 work incident. In another decision also dated April 3, 2013, it 

found that she had also not established a recurrence of disability as she had not established a new 

traumatic injury on August 8, 2012. 

On April 30, 2013 appellant requested a review of the written record.4 In an undated 

statement received May 6, 2013, she advised that she had sustained an injury on January 4, 2012 

and a new injury on August 8, 2012. Appellant described her injury as occurring after casing 

and delivering a full route of mail which required repetitive movements and delivering boxes 

weighing 15 to 20 pounds. She advised that her statement was not inconsistent as she listed 

functions that were part of route operation. Appellant maintained that she sought immediate 

medical treatment. 

By decision dated September 5, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

April 3, 2013 decision as modified to show that appellant had not factually established the 

occurrence of the August 8, 2012 work incident. She found that appellant’s statements were 

inconsistent and the medical evidence did not describe a new injury on August 8, 2012. 

In a statement dated June 4, 2014, appellant related: 

“I sustained an on-the-job injury on January 4, 2012, which was accepted as 

compensable by OWCP. In August of 2012, I had sufficiently recovered from 

this injury to return to duty, with restrictions. I began the limited duty assignment 

on August 6, 2012, and worked through August 8, 2012. After the third day of 

work, I had to seek medical attention due to the worsening of the earlier 

conditions. 

“On August 8, I was instructed to deliver my route, without assistance, and the 

work on that date aggravated my condition because at least some of it should not 

have been assigned to me, given my restrictions.” 

Appellant described her work duties in detail and noted that before the end of the day she 

felt pain whenever she reached or lifted mail. She sought medical treatment on that date. 

Appellant received instructions to file a recurrence claim (Form CA-2a) and only later learned 

that she should have filed a traumatic injury claim because of her exposure to new work factors. 

On June 27, 2014 appellant, through her representative at the time, requested 

reconsideration. He related that she had initially filed a recurrence of disability beginning 

 4

 In a report dated April 16, 2013, Dr. Stecker related that he was treating appellant “for a left shoulder 

impingement and left wrist tendinitis that she sustained while at work on January 4, 2012 after lifting a mail cart out 

of a jam.” He indicated that she could perform light duty but that working repetitively overhead aggravated her 

symptoms. On April 22, 2013 Dr. Stecker performed an arthroscopic subacromial decompression of the left 

shoulder with acromioplasty and lysis of subacromial adhesions. In a report dated April 24, 2013, Dr. Ross J. Fox, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, obtained a history of appellant twisting her left arm and wrist a year ago while 

rolling a cart filled with mail that became unbalanced. He diagnosed mild left carpal tunnel syndrome and mild left 

osteoarthrosis of the carpometacarpal (CMC) joint of the left thumb. 
4

August 8, 2012 based on incorrect advice as her condition did not recur spontaneously, but as the 

result of exposure to new work factors. The representative noted that on August 8, 2012 

management assigned her to her regular work duties, as reflected in her time and attendance 

record for that date. He asserted: 

“The claimant filed a Form CA-1 because she experienced a medical condition as 

the result of excessive exertion during the course of a single workday. Her 

description of the individual tasks which contributed to the condition have been 

characterized as ‘inconsistent’ and therefore of ‘little probative value.’ This 

ignores the fact that a traumatic injury need not be a single, momentary event, but 

can also be a ‘series of events’ within one calendar day and/or work tour. The 

claimant’s description of how reaching, lifting, and carrying caused her injury are 

not contradictory, they are descriptive of the contributing factors that precipitated 

her disability.” 

By decision dated September 23, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its September 5, 

2013 decision. It found that as appellant provided different histories of injuries on the traumatic 

injury claim form and the notice of recurrence of disability, she had not factually established the 

occurrence of the August 8, 2012 work incident. 

On appeal appellant related that she was wrongly instructed to file a recurrence of 

disability instead a new injury claim. She indicated that being back at work for three days 

performing her usual employment caused her condition. When OWCP denied appellant’s 

recurrence of disability it instructed her to file a traumatic injury claim. Appellant related that on 

August 8, 2012 she felt pain throughout the day while delivering her route, especially after 

delivering cluster boxes. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5

 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 

employment injury.6

 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.7

To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, OWCP must determine whether “fact of injury” is established. First, the employee has the 

burden to demonstrate the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in the manner alleged, 

by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.8

 Second, the employee 

 5

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

6 Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003). 

7 See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

8 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover, 51 ECAB 146 (1999). 
5

must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish a 

causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged disability and/or condition 

for which compensation is claimed.9

 An employee may establish that the employment incident 

occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability and/or condition relates to the 

employment incident.10

In order 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.11 An injury 

does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish that an employee sustained 

an injury in the performance of duty, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the 

surrounding facts and circumstances and her subsequent course of action.12 An employee has 

not met his or her burden of proof to establish the occurrence of an injury when there are such 

inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim.13 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, if otherwise unexplained, cast doubt on an employee’s statements in determining whether a 

case has been established.14 However, an employee’s statement regarding the occurrence of an 

employment incident is of great probative force and will stand unless refuted by strong or 

persuasive evidence.15

ANALYSIS 

On January 31, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a traumatic injury alleging that on 

August 8, 2012 she injured her left shoulder and wrist when lifting a heavy package and 

delivering cluster boxes. Prior to filing her traumatic injury claim, she also had alleged that on 

that same date she had sustained a recurrence of disability on August 8, 2012 under OWCP file 

number xxxxxx080. Appellant attributed her recurrence of disability to reaching while 

delivering mail. The employing establishment controverted the claim as she had not reported a 

traumatic injury until January 30, 2013 and as she had initially maintained that she had 

experienced a recurrence of disability that date. 

 9 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 

10 Id.

11 See Louise F. Garnett, 47 ECAB 639 (1996). 

12 See Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 

13 Id. 

14 Linda S. Christian, 46 ECAB 598 (1995). 

15 Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005). 
6

Due to appellant’s inconsistent description of the August 8, 2012 incident, OWCP 

determined that she had not factually established her traumatic injury claim. The Board, 

however, finds that the evidence does not contain inconsistencies sufficient to cast serious doubt 

on appellant’s version of the employment incident. Appellant explained in a statement dated 

May 6, 2013 that she initially sustained an injury on January 4, 2012 and then sustained a new 

injury on August 8, 2012. She attributed the injury on August 8, 2012 to performing repetitive 

actions delivering mail and lifting boxes weighing 15 to 20 pounds. Appellant asserted that the 

statement on her traumatic injury claim form was not inconsistent with the description of her 

alleged recurrence of disability as on both forms she described actions necessary to prepare and 

deliver a route. In a June 4, 2014 statement, she related that on that date she experienced pain 

reaching for or lifting mail. Appellant claimed that she had received instructions to file a 

recurrence of disability but later learned that she should have filed a traumatic injury claim, as 

she had been exposed to new work factors. She stopped work on August 8, 2012. An 

employee’s statement regarding the occurrence of an employment incident is of great probative 

force and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.16 Under the circumstances 

of this case, the Board finds that appellant’s allegations have not been refuted by strong or 

persuasive evidence. The Board, therefore, finds that the evidence of record is sufficient to 

establish that the August 8, 2012 incident occurred at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. 

The Board, consequently, will remand the case to OWCP to determine whether appellant 

sustained an injury due to the August 8, 2012 work incident. Additionally, it appears that 

OWCP’s correspondence dated February 22, 2013 indicates that there is medical evidence 

relevant to the issue of whether appellant sustained an injury on August 8, 2012 contained in 

OWCP file number xxxxxx080. OWCP procedures provide for combining files in claims 

pertaining to the same area of the body and where correct adjudication depends on crossreferencing between files.17 Upon return of the case record, OWCP should combine the current 

file number with OWCP file number xxxxxx080. Following this and such further development 

as deemed necessary, it should issue an appropriate decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. 

 16 Id. 

17 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8(c) 

(February 2000). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 23, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: March 1, 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