United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Philadelphia, PA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1635

Issued: December 5, 2017

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 24, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 8, 2017 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. 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 has met her burden of proof to establish a head injury in 

the performance of duty on November 17, 2016, as alleged.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of OWCP’s February 8, 2017 decision, appellant submitted new 

evidence. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued 

its final decision. Thus, the Board may not consider the new evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 17, 2016 appellant, then a 67-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, at 10:40 p.m. that night, she sustained a contusion and 

bruise to the head due to a defective latch on the top gate of an all-purpose container (APC) on a

workroom floor. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment checked a

box marked “yes” in response to the question whether she was injured in the performance of 

duty. Appellant stopped work on November 18, 2016. 

OWCP received a November 18, 2016 brain computerized tomography (CT) scan report 

signed by Dr. Tara Otto, a Board-certified radiologist. Dr. Otto noted a clinical history that 

appellant sustained an injury or trauma when a metal shelf fell on her head, initial encounter, 

blunt trauma (contusions or hematomas). She provided an impression of no acute intracranial 

finding visualized.

OWCP also received a November 18, 2016 excuse from work note with an illegible 

signature from Aria Health. The note excused appellant from work and recommended that she 

avoid physical activity through November 21, 2016. 

In a prescription dated December 2, 2016 that, was mostly illegible, Dr. John M. 

Anderson, an attending Board-certified family practitioner, provided a diagnosis of headache. 

In a facsimile transmittal dated December 15, 2016, Ruth Shafer, an OWCP registered 

nurse, requested that Dr. Anderson submit information regarding appellant’s diagnosis, treatment 

plan, and work capacity. She noted that the date of injury was November 17, 2016. In a 

December 20, 2016 continuation of pay (COP) nurse report, Nurse Shafer indicated that 

appellant remained off work with a head injury. She related that appellant had informed her that 

she could possibly return to work on January 2, 2017. Nurse Shafer reported that, on the date of 

injury, appellant placed mail on the top shelf of a container and closed the door. She further 

reported that, when appellant went to place mail on the bottom shelf of the container, the top 

shelf fell on her head. Appellant fell down, but did not lose consciousness. She was taken to an 

emergency room by a coworker and underwent a CT scan that was negative. 

By letter dated January 3, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that when her claim was 

received it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work. It 

noted that the employing establishment did not controvert COP or challenge the merits of the 

case and payment of a limited amount of medical expenses was administratively approved. 

However, the merits of the claim had not been formally considered and appellant’s claim was 

being reopened because she had not returned to full-time work. OWCP explained the additional 

factual and medical evidence needed and afforded appellant 30 days to submit such evidence. It 

also requested that she respond to a factual development questionnaire. 

OWCP subsequently received a December 9, 2016 prescription note from Dr. Anderson. 

Dr. Anderson indicated that appellant had a closed-head trauma injury and that she could return 

to full-duty work without restrictions on an illegible date in 2017. 
3

In a February 8, 2017 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

found that she had failed to respond to its January 3, 2017 development questionnaire and failed 

to describe the November 17, 2016 incident in sufficient detail to establish that the employment 

incident occurred as alleged. OWCP further found that the medical evidence submitted did not 

contain a medical diagnosis in connection with the claimed injury or event(s). 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has 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 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.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

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 

evidence, in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.6 

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.7 

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 or her 

subsequent course of action. 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. 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.8

 

3

Supra note 1. 

4

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

5

See Irene St. John, 50 ECAB 521 (1999); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999); Elaine Pendleton, id.

6

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

7 R.T., Docket No. 08-0408 (issued December 16, 2008); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005).

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

ANALYSIS

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

on November 17, 2016, as alleged. 

Appellant has not provided sufficient detail to establish that a traumatic incident occurred 

as alleged.9 On her Form CA-1, she alleged that she sustained a head injury on November 17, 

2016 due to a defective latch on the top gate of an APC. Appellant did describe precisely where

the alleged injury occurred, providing the exact location of the work floor at the employing 

establishment. However, the Board notes that her description of the traumatic incident is vague 

and fails to provide any specific detail to determine the manner in which she sustained her 

alleged injury. Appellant’s description did not relate with specificity the circumstances of the 

injury.10 She did not explain how the defective latch on the top gate of an APC caused her 

claimed injury. The Board notes that Dr. Otto’s November 18, 2016 brain CT scan report and 

Nurse Shafer’s December 20, 2016 COP nurse report relate that on November 17, 2016 the top 

shelf of a container on which appellant had placed mail fell on her head. While this statement 

provided additional details of how the injury allegedly occurred, it remains unclear as to whether 

these reports were based on an accurate history of injury. The Board is unable to consider the 

accuracy of Dr. Otto’s and Nurse Shafer’s recitation of the history of injury as appellant has not 

provided details as to how the injury occurred.11 

Appellant was provided an opportunity to establish how her alleged injury occurred on 

November 17, 2016 while in the performance of duty. By letter dated January 3, 2017, OWCP 

requested that she describe the factual circumstances of her injury and provided her with a 

factual development questionnaire for completion. Appellant did not respond to the 

questionnaire and failed to provide a narrative statement detailing the traumatic incident prior to 

the issuance of OWCP’s denial of her claim on February 8, 2017. The only explanation she 

provided pertaining to the alleged November 17, 2016 traumatic incident was the generalized 

and vague statement noted on her Form CA-1. By failing to describe the employment incident 

and circumstances surrounding her alleged injury, appellant has not established that the traumatic 

injury occurred at work, as alleged.12 Thus, the Board finds that she has not meet her burden of 

proof.13 A s such, it is unnecessary to address the medical evidence regarding causal 

relationship.14

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.

 

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

10 See T.N., Docket No. 16-1099 (issued December 16, 2016).

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 See Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a head injury 

in the performance of duty on November 17, 2016, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 8, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 5, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board