United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Sandston, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0436 

Issued: July 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 19, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 4, 2016 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 to consider the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a right finger injury 

causally related to an August 10, 2016 employment incident. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant filed a timely request for oral argument. By order dated May 23, 2017, the Board denied his request 

as his arguments could be adequately addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Order Denying 

Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 17-0436 (issued May 23, 2007). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 12, 2016 appellant, then a 60-year-old custodial groundskeeper, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on August 10, 2016, as he opened a door to a 

room, he sustained a cut to his finger from a metal plate. He stopped work on that same day. 

On August 10, 2016 appellant was treated in the emergency room by Dr. Michael W. 

Singleton, a Board-certified emergency room physician, who diagnosed laceration of right little 

finger, provided sutures, and administered a tetanus booster. Dr. Singleton noted that appellant 

presented with a 1.5 centimeter V-shaped laceration to his right fifth finger, that appellant could 

not stop the laceration from bleeding, and that the laceration occurred that morning when he had 

hit his hand on the edge of a metal plate on a door at work. He recommended that appellant 

follow up with his primary care provider within two days for wound check and 10 days for 

suture removal. 

Appellant also submitted a duty status report (Form CA-17) from a physician assistant, 

which had been reviewed by Dr. Singleton, dated August 10, 2016, noting the clinical finding of 

a 1.5 centimeter laceration to the right finger and a diagnosis of fifth finger laceration. The duty 

status report notes that appellant’s supervisor confirmed that the injury occurred while appellant 

was entering a door and cut his finger. Appellant was informed that he could return to work full 

time. 

By letter dated August 30, 2016, OWCP advised appellant that his claim was originally 

received as a minor, uncontroverted case which resulted in minimal or no time loss from work. 

As the employing establishment did not controvert continuation of pay or challenge the case, 

payment of a limited amount of medical expenses had been administratively approved without a 

formal adjudication of the merits. OWCP advised that, because appellant had not returned to 

full-time work, it would proceed to formally adjudicate the claim. It requested that he submit 

additional information, including a comprehensive medical report from his treating physician 

which should contain a reasoned explanation as to how the work incident contributed to his 

claimed injuries. OWCP advised that medical evidence must be submitted from a qualified 

physician and instructed that physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA. 

Thereafter, appellant submitted medical records from Dr. Richard L. Hunley, a Boardcertified family practitioner, who provided treatment on August 16, 2016 for a cut on the right 

hand, an injury which he noted had occurred on the job. Dr. Hunley diagnosed laceration and 

provided an excuse note for work in which he reported that appellant had been seen in his office, 

but was released to work on August 20, 2016. On August 19, 2016 he had treated appellant in 

follow up to remove stitches from his finger. On that same date Dr. Hunley noted that appellant 

was released to return to work on August 22, 2016. On August 23, 2016 he removed the last 

suture from appellant’s finger. 

In an October 4, 2016 decision, OWCP denied the claim finding that appellant had failed 

to submit medical evidence establishing a diagnosed medical condition in connection with the 

accepted work incident. 
3

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 of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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. These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.3

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 actually experienced the employment incident at 

the time, place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.4

An employee has the burden of proof to establish the occurrence of an injury at the time, 

place, and in the manner alleged, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence. An injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact 

that an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, as alleged, but the employee’s 

statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action.5 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. 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 sufficient 

doubt on an employee’s statement in determining whether a prima facie case has been 

established. An employee’s statement alleging 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.6

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is generally required to establish causal 

relationship. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant.7

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

4

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

5 Gene A. McCracken, Docket No. 93-2227 (issued March 9, 1995); Joseph H. Surgener, 42 ECAB 541, 

547 (1991). 

6 D.B., 58 ECAB 529 (2007); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005). 

7 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
4

ANALYSIS 

It is undisputed that on August 10, 2016 appellant opened a door while at work and 

lacerated his finger on a metal plate. The Board finds that he has submitted sufficient medical 

evidence to establish that his accepted employment incident caused the diagnosed right finger 

laceration. 

Appellant was treated in the emergency room that same day by Dr. Singleton at 8:38 a.m. 

on August 10, 2016. Dr. Singleton diagnosed laceration of right little finger, provided sutures, 

and administered a tetanus booster. He recommended that appellant follow up with his primary 

care provider for wound check and suture removal. Dr. Singleton noted that appellant had 

reported to the emergency room with a lacerated finger after appellant could not stop the 

bleeding. He noted as a history of injury that at 7:25 a.m. appellant sustained a right fifth finger 

laceration when he hit his hand on the edge of a metal plate on a door at work. 

Appellant also submitted a duty status report (Form CA-17) from a physician assistant 

dated August 10, 2016, who diagnosed fifth finger laceration. The duty status report was 

reviewed by Dr. Singleton and documented a consistent mechanism of injury as confirmed by 

appellant’s supervisor and noted the recommendations of treatment. 

Finally, appellant submitted an August 16, 2016 excuse slip from Dr. Hunley who treated 

him for a cut on the right hand which the physician noted had occurred on the job. Dr. Hunley 

diagnosed a laceration and provided a work excuse note. On August 19, 2016 he saw appellant 

to remove stitches from his finger. On August 23, 2016 Dr. Hunley removed the last suture from 

his finger. 

OWCP accepted that the August 10, 2016 employment incident occurred as alleged, but 

denied the claim because appellant had presented insufficient evidence to establish a diagnosed 

condition causally related to the accepted incident. The Board finds, however, that he has met 

his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted 

August 10, 2016 incident. Appellant has submitted a duty status report and a medical note from 

Dr. Singleton as well as treatment notes from Dr. Hunley. These medical notes are found to be 

sufficient to establish causal relationship. The opinions of Dr. Singleton and Dr. Hunley are 

contemporaneous with the incident, based on a complete factual and medical background, are 

provided with reasonable medical certainty, and are supported by sufficient medical rationale to 

explain the nature of the relationship between the 1.5 centimeter laceration on his right fifth 

finger and the act of hitting his hand on the metal plate on the door, cutting the skin on his finger, 

and experiencing bleeding which required sutures. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant met his burden of proof to establish that his right finger 

injury was causally related to the August 10, 2016 employment incident. The case shall be 

remanded to determine whether appellant has sustained any disability resulting from his work 

injury. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 4, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: July 5, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board