United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Pompano Beach, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0730

Issued: March 6, 2018

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 14, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 5, 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 over the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the

performance of duty on October 17, 2016, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 17, 2016 appellant, then a 30-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 17, 2016, he sustained injury to the right side of his 

face when a customer punched him in the face. On the same form, appellant’s immediate 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

supervisor checked boxes marked “Yes” indicating that appellant was injured in the performance 

of duty and that the injury was caused by a third party. The supervisor reported that the third 

party was unknown and that reference should be made to a Broward County Sheriff’s report 

regarding the incident. Appellant stopped work on October 18, 2016 and returned to work on 

October 19, 2016.

Appellant submitted a partially completed October 17, 2016 disability certificate and an 

unsigned October 17, 2016 document from Broward Health North describing pain medication 

prescribed for him on that date.

In an October 27, 2016 letter sent to appellant and the employing establishment, OWCP 

requested that appellant submit additional factual and medical evidence in support of his claim. 

It requested that appellant complete and return a development questionnaire to provide 

information concerning the October 17, 2016 incident, including whether he had a personal 

relationship outside of work with the person who assaulted him, and whether he had an argument 

with this person. OWCP also requested that appellant submit a copy of a police report 

documenting the incident. In the same letter, it requested that the employing establishment 

submit treatment notes if appellant was treated at an employing establishment medical facility.

Appellant submitted answers to OWCP’s development questionnaire. He indicated that 

he was delivering mail at the time of the claimed October 17, 2016 injury. Appellant noted that 

he did not have an argument with the person who assaulted him, and indicated that he did not 

know him or have a personal relationship with him.

Appellant also submitted medical evidence in support of his claim, including the report of 

an October 17, 2016 emergency room visit by Dr. Holly Wilson, a Board-certified emergency 

medicine specialist, at which time he reported that on the same date a man approached him at 

work, accused him of talking to his girlfriend, and punched him in the right side of his neck. 

Dr. Wilson diagnosed blunt neck trauma.

In an Incident/Investigation Report completed on October 17, 2016, an officer of the 

Broward County Sheriff’s Office indicated that on October 17, 2016 he went to a residence in 

the city of Pompano Beach, Florida in response to a claimed battery which had been reported at 

5:20 p.m. He noted that appellant advised that he was on duty and delivering mail on his normal 

mail route in the area when a resident punched him on the side of his face. Appellant reported 

that he was approached by the assailant while he was stopped and sitting in the driver’s seat of 

his postal vehicle and that the assailant started accusing him of making sexual comments to his 

girlfriend a few days prior. The officer noted that appellant reported telling the assailant that he 

did not make any comments to his girlfriend and that the assailant suddenly struck him two times 

on the right side of his jaw area. He indicated that he observed swelling to the right side of 

appellant’s jaw area and that appellant was transported by ambulance to Broward Health North 

with nonlife threatening injuries. The officer made contact with the girlfriend of the assailant 

who reported that, three days prior (October 14, 2016), appellant approached her while 

delivering mail at her residence and started commenting to her that she was pretty and that he 

wanted to go inside her residence with her. The girlfriend reported that her boyfriend, the 

assailant, was out of town on that date, but that upon his return she informed him of the alleged 

incident. On October 17, 2016 when appellant arrived in the area, the girlfriend pointed him out 
3

to her boyfriend. The officer made contact with the assailant who admitted that he struck 

appellant because of his girlfriend’s allegations, noting that appellant “should n[o]t have [stated]

that to his girlfriend.” He arrested the assailant for battery and took him into custody.

In a December 5, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the October 17, 2016 incident/assault did not occur within the performance of duty. 

Although the assault occurred while appellant was working, OWCP found that it “was due to 

personal issues,” noting that the Sheriff’s incident/investigation report indicated that appellant 

had previously “made inappropriate comments to [the assailant’s] girlfriend....” 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Congress, in providing for a compensation program for federal employees, did not 

contemplate an insurance program against any and every injury, illness or mishap that might 

befall an employee contemporaneous or coincidental with his or her employment; liability does 

not attach merely upon the existence of any employee/employer relation.2 FECA provides for 

the payment of compensation for disability or death of an employee resulting from a personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of duty. The term in the performance of duty has been 

interpreted to be the equivalent of the commonly found prerequisite in workers’ compensation 

law, arising out of and in the course of employment.3 In the course of employment deals with 

the work setting, the locale, and time of injury.4 In addressing this issue, the Board has noted 

that to occur in the course of employment, in general, an injury must occur: (1) at a time when 

the employee may reasonably be stated to be engaged in his or her master’s business; (2) at a 

place where he or she may reasonably be expected to be in connection with the employment; and 

(3) while he or she was reasonably fulfilling the duties of his or her employment, or engaged in 

doing something incidental thereto.5

This alone is insufficient to establish entitlement to benefits for compensability. The 

concomitant requirement of an injury arising out of the employment must be shown, and this 

encompasses not only the work setting, but also a causal concept, the requirement being that the 

employment caused the injury in order for an injury to be considered as arising out of the 

employment, the facts of the case must show some substantial employing establishment benefit 

is derived or an employment requirement gave rise to the injury.6

Assaults arise out of the employment either if the risk of assault is increased because of 

the nature or setting of the work or if the reason for the assault was a quarrel having its origin in 

 

2 Minnie N. Heubner (Robert A. Heubner), 2 ECAB 20 (1948); Christine Lawrence, 36 ECAB 422 (1985).

3

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

4 Denis F. Rafferty, 16 ECAB 413 (1965).

5 Carmen B. Gutierrez (Neville R. Baugh), 7 ECAB 58 (1954).

6 See Eugene G. Chin, 39 ECAB 598 (1988).
4

the work. Assaults for private reasons do not arise out of the employment unless, by facilitating 

an assault that would not otherwise be made, the employment becomes a contributing factor.7

The Board has held that when animosity or a dispute which culminates in an assault is 

imported into the employment from a claimant’s domestic or private life, the assault does not 

arise in the performance of duty.8

ANALYSIS

On October 17, 2016 appellant was seated in his postal delivery vehicle on his assigned 

route when an unknown male assailant punched him on the right side of his face. The local 

Sheriff’s Office arrested the assailant for battery and he was transported to a nearby hospital for 

treatment and was later released. In a December 5, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s 

traumatic injury claim finding that the October 17, 2016 assault “was due to personal issues,”

and therefore, it did not arise in the performance of duty.

The Board finds that appellant’s injury on October 17, 2016 did not arise in the course of 

his federal employment, and that he did not establish a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty on that date, as alleged.

The evidence of record reveals that, at the time of the assault on October 17, 2016, 

appellant was engaged in the performance of his usual employment duties, i.e., delivering mail 

on his usual mail route. However, time, place, and manner are not alone sufficient to establish 

entitlement to compensation. Appellant must also establish that his injury arose out of his

employment or that a factor of his employment gave rise to the assault.9

The evidence of record does not establish that appellant’s employment contributed to or 

facilitated the October 17, 2016 assault. The increased risk of injury arose from a reported 

personal exchange between him and a woman on his delivery route, which was imported into the 

workplace.10 Appellant’s injury did not arise from the type of work he was required to perform. 

Rather, it was the result of personal animosity that arose out of nonwork-related comments of a 

personal and private nature he allegedly made to a woman on his delivery route. The record 

contains an October 17, 2016 police report which indicated that the woman told the investigating 

officer that a few days earlier appellant commented that “she was pretty and [he] wanted to go 

insider her residence with her.” She later informed her boyfriend of the alleged incident, which 

ultimately led to her boyfriend assaulting appellant on October 17, 2016. The Board notes that 

 

7 A. Larson, The Law of Workers’ Compensation § 8.00 (2006); see also R.S., 58 ECAB 660 (2007).

8 S.S., Docket No. 13-0318 (issued March 26, 2013).

9 See supra notes 6 and 7.

10 See supra note 8.
5

appellant did not provide a statement to OWCP denying that he made the comments reported by 

the girlfriend of the assailant.11

The Board has on numerous occasions found that OWCP properly denied coverage for an 

assault that arose from animosity which precipitated the assault and was imported into the 

employment. For example, in Agnes V. Blackwell, the employee sustained an injury following 

an assault by a coworker with whom she had been romantically involved outside of work.12 The 

Board denied coverage under FECA, finding that the altercation arose out of a prior personal 

relationship between the employee and her coworker. The Board found that the animosity which 

precipitated the assault was imported into the employment from the prior private relationship 

between the parties and not out of or in the course of their employment. Similarly, in B.T., 

coverage was denied to a claimant because it was determined that the assault she suffered 

stemmed from a personal relationship with her ex-boyfriend which was imported into the 

workplace.13 In M.B., the claimant was assaulted by her former husband and coverage was 

denied despite the fact that he also was a coworker because it was determined that the assault 

occurred due to animosity flowing from the private relationship imported into the workplace.14

The Board acknowledges that the instances of personal animosity which were imported 

into the workplace in the above-noted cases arose directly between each claimant and her 

assailant. While appellant did not have a personal relationship with the assailant, it was his 

personal relationship with the assailant’s girlfriend, albeit brief in nature, which created the 

animosity which was imported into the employment from his private life and ultimately led to 

the October 17, 2016 assault for which coverage was claimed.15 Therefore, appellant did not 

establish a traumatic injury in the performance of duty on October 17, 2016, as alleged.

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of the Board’s 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 met his burden of proof to establish an injury in 

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

 

11 The October 17, 2016 Sheriff’s incident/investigation report indicated that after the assailant accused appellant 

of making “sexual comments to his girlfriend ... he told [the assailant] that he did not make any comments to [his 

girlfriend].”

12 44 ECAB 200 (1992).

13 Docket No. 15-0786 (issued June 10, 2015).

14 Docket No. 15-0215 (issued April 24, 2015).

15 See supra note 8.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 5, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 6, 2018

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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