United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Albuquerque, NM, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0522

Issued: April 13, 2018

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 January 9, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 19, 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 the claim.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an injury on 

August 1, 2016 in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The record provided the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its October 19, 2016 decision. The 

Board’s review is limited to the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Therefore, the Board 

lacks jurisdiction to review this evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 17, 2016 appellant, then a 27-year-old postal support employee sales services 

and distribution clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 1, 2016 

she injured her back while in the performance of duty. She alleged that she was “lifting advos and 

felt a sharp pain in back.” Appellant stopped work at 2:30 p.m. and returned to work the same day 

at 10:00 p.m. The employing establishment controverted the claim. 

Reports from Clare Weinrach, PA-C, certified physician assistant, were received. In her 

August 1, 2016 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Ms. Weinrach noted that appellant 

reported that she was lifting bundles of advertisements at work and felt a sharp pain in her back. 

An assessment of thoracic myofascial strain was provided. Appellant was instructed to remain off 

work the remainder of her shift. In an August 1, 2016 duty status report (Form CA-17),

Ms. Weinrach diagnosed muscle and tendon strain of unspecified wall of thorax. She indicated 

that appellant was to return to modified work on August 2, 2016 with restrictions. In an August 5, 

2016 status report, Ms. Weinrach noted that appellant stated that her lower back pain started 

bothering her last night while working. A diagnosis of strain of muscle and tendon of unspecified 

wall thorax was provided. Appellant was released to work with restrictions.

Physical therapy notes dated August 5 and 8, 2016 indicated that appellant was evaluated 

for a thoracic myofascial strain. Appellant reported that she was lifting at work when she 

experienced pain in the middle of her back.

In a September 12, 2016 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the evidence 

needed to establish her claim. Appellant was asked to provide a detailed description as to how her 

injury occurred, including details such as how heavy the item was, how far she needed to lift it, 

etc. She was also asked to provide medical evidence from a qualified physician which related a 

diagnosis and explained with medical rationale how the alleged employment incident caused an 

injury. Appellant was informed that physician assistants were not considered physicians under 

FECA unless the medical report was countersigned by a physician. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence.

In response, OWCP received reports dated September 7 and 21, 2016 from Ms. Weinrach 

and an August 8, 2016 physical therapy report. Ms. Weinrach released appellant from care on 

September 21, 2016. 

By decision dated October 19, 2016, OWCP denied the claim as fact of injury was not 

established. It found that the factual evidence was insufficient to establish that the incident 

occurred as alleged. OWCP also noted that there was no medical evidence which established a 

diagnosed condition causally related to the alleged work injury.

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, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 
3

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

OWCP regulations, at 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee) define a traumatic injury as a condition of the 

body caused by a specific event or incident or series of events or incidents within a single workday 

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

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6 An employee may establish 

that an injury occurred in the performance of duty as alleged, but fail to establish that the disability 

or specific condition for which compensation is being claimed is causally related to the injury.7

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.8 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 her subsequent course of 

action. An employee has not met his or her burden in establishing 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.9

ANALYSIS

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

on August 1, 2016, as alleged.

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

as alleged.10 On her Form CA-1, she alleged that she sustained a back injury on August 1, 2016 

 

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 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004).

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

7 Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997).

8 R.T., Docket No. 08-408 (issued December 16, 2008); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005).

9 L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

10 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997).
4

due to “lifting advos.” Appellant’s 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. She 

told Ms. Weinrach that she was lifting bundles of advertisements and had informed the physical 

therapist that she was lifting at work when she experienced back pain. Appellant’s description did 

not relate with specificity the circumstances of the injury.11 She did not explain in any detail what 

“advos” were, how many she lifted, how far she lifted the items, or their weight. Other than lifting, 

appellant also did not describe the mechanism of injury.12 

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

August 1, 2016. By letter dated September 12, 2016, 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 she failed to provide a narrative 

statement detailing the traumatic incident prior to the issuance of OWCP’s denial of her claim on 

October 19, 2016. 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.13 Thus, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof.14

As such, it is unnecessary to address the medical evidence regarding causal relationship.15

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 met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on August 1, 2016, as alleged.

 

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

12 See M.L., Docket No. 16-1723 (issued March 1, 2017). 

13 G.L., Docket No. 17-1635 (issued December 5, 2017). 

14 Supra note 11. 

15 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 19, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 13, 2018

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