United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

McKinney, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0756 

Issued: September 12, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 7, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a December 11, 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 to consider the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant established that she sustained an emotional condition in 

the performance of duty on June 15, 2015, as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 23, 2015 appellant, then a 41-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 15, 2015 she sustained mental and emotional trauma due to 

finding a customer lying on the floor of her home, deceased for two days. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

In correspondence dated July 23, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish her claim. Appellant was advised as to the medical and 

factual evidence required to support her claim and afforded 30 days to provide this information. 

On July 29, 2015 OWCP received a June 25, 2015 duty status report (Form CA-17) 

signed by Dr. Thomas Shoaf, a treating Board-certified psychiatrist, finding appellant totally 

disabled from working at that time. Dr. Shoaf diagnosed acute stress disorder which he 

attributed to finding a dead woman on her route on June 15, 2015. 

In an undated letter, received by OWCP on July 29, 2015, Stan R. Link, postmaster, 

controverted the claim. He contended that appellant illegally entered her customer’s premises 

due to the open front door. Mr. Link noted that it is against the employing establishment rules to 

enter a customer’s premises without permission from the resident or homeowner. He related that 

prior to this event appellant had a variety of preexisting mental health issues. 

In an August 6, 2015 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Shoaf diagnosed 

post-traumatic stress disorder which he attributed to witnessing the death of an individual on 

appellant’s mail route. Under history of injury, he noted that while appellant was delivering mail 

she encountered a deceased individual and this individual’s dog which resulted in appellant 

having to call 911. According to Dr. Shoaf, appellant was traumatized as a result of witnessing 

the death scene and that the bodies had been dead for two days in the summer heat. 

Dr. Shoaf also completed a work capacity evaluation for psychiatric/psychological 

conditions (Form OWCP-5c) dated August 6, 2015 where he opined that appellant was totally 

disabled from working due to her significant psychiatric symptoms. 

By letter dated October 30, 2015, OWCP again informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to support her claim and that the employing establishment controverted 

her claim. It informed her that the evidence was insufficient to establish that she actually 

experienced the incident and the evidence was insufficient to establish that she was injured in the 

performance of duty. OWCP again advised appellant regarding the medical and factual evidence 

required to support her claim. It also requested that appellant complete an attached questionnaire 

and afforded her 30 days to provide this information. The questionnaire requested that appellant 

provide further information clarifying what she was doing at the time of the incident, including 

the location of the mailbox and proximity of the location to her employment duties. Appellant 

was also asked to explain how she determined the customer had died and provide details 

regarding her preexisting emotional conditions. No evidence was submitted. 

By decision dated December 11, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as it found she 

had failed to establish fact of injury. It found that appellant failed to establish that she was 

injured while performing any employment duty. OWCP noted that appellant failed to complete 

OWCP’s questionnaire or provide any supporting documents as requested regarding performance 

of duty. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 has the burden of establishing 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.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

 

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty it must first be determined whether a fact of injury has been established.5

 

First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that she actually experienced the 

employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.6

 Second, the employee must 

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

employment incident caused a personal injury.7

 

To establish that an injury occurred as alleged, the injury need not be confirmed by 

eyewitnesses, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and 

circumstances and her subsequent course of action.8 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.9 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.10

The employee must establish all of the elements of her claim in order to prevail. She 

must prove the time, place, and manner of the alleged incident, and a resulting personal injury.11 

 2 Id. 

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

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

5 B.F., Docket No. 09-60 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 3. 

6 D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005). 

7 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008); D.G., 59 ECAB 734 (2008); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra

note 3. 

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

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

10 Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005) 

11 See C.C., Docket No. 15-1866 (December 11, 2015). 
4

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging mental and emotional trauma due to 

finding a deceased customer in her home on June 15, 2015. OWCP denied her claim as it found 

the incident did not occur as alleged and that she was not in the performance of duty at the time 

of the alleged incident. 

OWCP’s procedures include letter carriers in the first of four general classes of offpremises workers who, by the nature of their employment, perform service away from the 

employer’s premises.12 In determining whether this class of employees has sustained an injury 

in the performance of duty, the factual evidence must be examined to ascertain whether, at the 

time of injury, the employee was within the period of the employment, at a place where the 

employee reasonably should be, and while the employee is fulfilling employment duties or 

engaged in activities incidental thereto.13

It is not disputed that, while carrying a mail route on June 15, 2015, appellant discovered 

a deceased customer in the customer’s home. The issue is whether appellant was in the 

performance of duty at the time. 

The only evidence appellant submitted describing the June 15, 2015 incident was her 

CA-1 form which lacked a sufficient explanation regarding why she entered the customer’s 

residence. The only detail provided was that appellant entered the customer’s residence to find a 

dead body. OWCP informed her by letters dated July 23 and October 30, 2015 that the evidence 

was insufficient to establish her claim and advised as to the factual and medical evidence 

required. Appellant also did not respond to OWCP’s questionnaire. She failed to provide an 

adequate description of the June 15, 2015 employment incident which she believed caused or 

aggravated her condition to establish that an injury occurred at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged, and in the performance of duty. Thus, appellant did not meet her burden of proof.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. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she sustained an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty on June 15, 2015, as alleged. 

 12 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.5(a)(1) 

(August 1992). See Donna K. Schuler, 38 ECAB 273, 275 (1986). 

13 See Donna K. Schuler, id.

14 Given that appellant did not establish an employment incident in the performance of duty, further consideration 

of the medical evidence is unnecessary. See Bonnie A. Contreas, supra note 3. 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated December 11, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 12, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board