United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Madison, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0066 

Issued: March 24, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 19, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 16, 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 an injury in the 

performance of duty on July 2, 2016. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that, following the August 16, 2016 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 July 2, 2016 appellant, then a 35-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that date, he sustained an umbilical hernia due to 

lifting a parcel from the delivery vehicle. He stopped work on July 2, 2016 and has not returned 

to work. 

In a July 2, 2016 narrative statement, appellant related that the July 2, 2016 injury 

occurred as he was attempting to deliver a parcel which weighed 10 to 15 pounds. He explained 

that when he reached down to retrieve the parcel from the back of his vehicle, he felt an intense 

burning sensation from his navel to groin area. Appellant saw a small bulge around his navel 

area. After delivering the parcel, he returned to his vehicle and drove a short distance before 

contacting his supervisor. 

In a July 2, 2016 statement, K.A., acting supervisor customer service, related that 

appellant informed her that he felt a burning sensation in his navel while bending to pick up a 

parcel for delivery. He informed her that he noticed a golf ball sized knot in his navel area after 

standing up. K.A. related that appellant stated that he had prior hernia problems and that he 

believed his hernia had popped out. 

In an undated narrative statement, J.R., a coworker, related that appellant told him that he 

had previously been treated for hernia, which is how he recognized his current condition as a 

hernia. 

The record contains one page of an authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form 

CA-16) signed by K.A. K.A. noted by checkmark that there was doubt as to whether the 

employee’s condition was employment related. 

A July 2, 2016 duty status form (Form CA-17) contained a diagnosis of umbilical hernia 

and lifting/carrying restrictions of no more than 10 pounds. No history of injury was provided 

and the physician’s signature was illegible. 

By correspondence dated July 13, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish his claim. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit 

additional factual and medical evidence. 

OWCP received additional evidence on July 25, 2016. In a July 2, 2016 emergency room 

report, Christopher C. Thomas, a physician assistant, diagnosed umbilical hernia and abdominal 

pain. He related that appellant was seen for a burning pain and pull in his abdomen which 

occurred after he bent down to pick up a parcel at work. Appellant’s physical examination 

revealed a one centimeter mass near the umbilicus. In a July 4, 2016 addendum, Dr. Dewitt A. 

Pittman, a specialist in emergency medicine, noted that appellant had history of umbilical hernia 

and that he experienced swelling and pain at work after lifting a box. 

In a report dated July 8, 2016, Dr. Whitney L. Webb, Board-certified in general surgery, 

noted that appellant was seen for complaints of pain and mid abdomen bulge. Under history of 

present illness, he reported that appellant was diagnosed with a traumatic ventral hernia in 

July 2014 following a motor vehicle collision while working for the employing establishment. 
3

According to appellant the hernia was much smaller until July 2, 2016 when he lifted a heavy 

object. Appellant related that following the lifting of the heavy object, he experienced pain and a 

mid-abdomen bulge. A physical examination revealed a six centimeter bulge mid abdomen 

below the umbilicus, which was consistent with a ventral hernia. 

In a July 8, 2016 disability note, Dr. Webb indicated that appellant would be able to 

return to work on July 11, 2016 with work restrictions and noted that surgery was scheduled for 

August 9, 2016. 

On July 28, 2016 appellant provided responses to questions posed by OWCP. He stated 

that, prior to the July 2, 2016 incident, he had not been treated or diagnosed with a hernia. While 

a treating physician informed appellant that he had symptoms of hernia, he had not previously 

been diagnosed with a hernia. He also related that he had lifted several packages weighing more 

than 11 pounds on the day in question. Appellant denied telling J.R. that he had previously been 

diagnosed with a hernia. He related at the time of the July 2, 2016 incident he was performing 

the duties of his position by delivering parcels and that prior to the incident he had delivered 

several large parcels. 

By decision dated August 16, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found the 

evidence of record failed to establish that the incident occurred as alleged. OWCP found that 

appellant supplied conflicting descriptions regarding how the injury occurred. It noted that his 

various descriptions of reaching down, lifting, standing up, and bending down suggested more 

than one cause of injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3

 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.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 must first be determined whether a fact of injury has been established.6

 

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.7

 Second, the employee must 

 3 Supra note 1. 

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 B.F., Docket No. 09-60 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 4. 

7 D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005). 
4

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

employment incident caused a personal injury.8

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.9

 

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 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.10

ANALYSIS 

On July 2, 2016 appellant stopped work and filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that, 

on that date, he sustained an umbilical hernia due to lifting parcels from his delivery vehicle. 

OWCP by decision dated August 16, 2016 denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had failed to 

establish that the July 2, 2016 incident occurred as alleged due to inconsistencies in the factual 

evidence. 

The Board finds that appellant has established the factual aspect of his alleged injury. 

Statements from a supervisor and a coworker are supportive of appellant’s description of how the 

July 2, 2016 incident occurred. The Board finds that the July 2, 2016 emergency room report 

and addendum by Dr. Pittman describing the July 2, 2016 incident does not vary from 

appellant’s description that appellant bent down to pick up a parcel and felt pain and a pull in his 

abdomen. The emergency room report and Dr. Pittman described the incident as occurring after 

appellant bent over to pick up a parcel at work, which is consistent with appellant’s statement on 

his CA-1 form and statements from his supervisor and coworker. There is no contradictory 

evidence of record that this incident did not occur at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. 

Thus, contrary to OWCP’s finding in its August 16, 2016 decision, the Board finds that appellant 

has established an employment incident during his scheduled work shift on July 2, 2016.11

Whether or not this incident caused the diagnosed hernia condition is a separate 

component of fact of injury.12 Causal relationship is a medical issue, which must be determined 

by review of the medical evidence.13 Appellant has established that a work incident occurred on 

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

note 4. 

9 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 

10 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002). 

11 Thelma Rogers, 42 ECAB 866 (1991). 

12 See S.H., Docket No. 12-1776 (issued August 5, 2013). 

13 I.R., Docket No. 09-1229 (issued February 24, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007). 
5

July 2, 2016 in the performance of duty. The evidence of record supports that he felt pain while 

lifting a parcel from the back of his delivery vehicle on July 2, 2016. OWCP has not however 

evaluated the medical evidence of record to determine whether this incident caused an injury. 

The case shall be remanded to OWCP to consider whether the record establishes a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted incident. After this further development, OWCP shall 

issue a de novo decision regarding appellant’s claimed July 2, 2016 work incident. 

CONCLUSION 

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

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated August 16, 2016 is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP 

for proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: March 24, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board