United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1281 

Issued: September 16, 2015 

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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 18, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 4, 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 over 

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a back injury in 

the performance of duty on January 16, 2015. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 On appeal, appellant indicates that she provided evidence to the employing establishment, but which was 

submitted to OWCP after the March 4, 2015 decision. The Board’s review is limited to evidence that was before 

OWCP at the time of the final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Appellant may submit new evidence to OWCP 

along with a request for reconsideration, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 28, 2015 appellant, then a 37-year-old letter carrier, filed a Form CA-1 

(traumatic injury claim) alleging that she sustained a back injury on January 16, 2015. She 

submitted a brief undated statement that her truck had broken down for two days, and she had to 

load her mail satchel and walk three to four blocks to deliver the mail. Appellant stopped work 

on January 16, 2015 and returned to work on January 27, 2015. On the reverse side of the claim 

form, her supervisor stated that appellant had told management of back pain several days before 

the alleged incident. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence including a form report dated January 16, 2015 

indicating that she was treated by Dr. Jessica Wyant, Board-certified in emergency medicine, 

with a diagnosis of low back pain and thoracic spine strain. In a note dated January 20, 2015, 

Dr. Laura Asher, a family practitioner, indicated that appellant was unable to work from 

January 18 to 27, 2015. The record also contains a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated 

January 20, 2015 from an internist diagnosing back pain and thoracic spine sprain.3 The report 

indicated that appellant could return to light duty on January 27, 2015. 

OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual and medical evidence in a letter 

dated January 30, 2015. As to factual evidence, it noted that it was not clear whether she was 

claiming an injury during a single workday (traumatic injury) or over more than a single 

workday (an occupational disease or illness). Appellant was instructed to provide a detailed 

description of how the injury occurred and other relevant details. In addition, OWCP indicated 

that she should submit supporting medical evidence with an opinion on causal relationship 

between a diagnosed condition and the work incident. 

In a report dated February 9, 2015 from Dr. Christina Hunter, an internist, it was noted 

that appellant was seen on that day for low back pain and referred for physical therapy. 

By decision dated March 4, 2015, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

that appellant had not submitted sufficient factual and medical evidence to establish the claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides for the payment of compensation for “the disability or death of an 

employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.”4 The 

phrase “sustained while in the performance of duty” in FECA is regarded as the equivalent of the 

commonly found requisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising out of an in the course of 

employment.”5 An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing that 

he or she sustained an injury while in the performance of duty.6 In order to determine whether 

 3

 The signature of the physician is illegible. 

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

5 Valerie C. Boward, 50 ECAB 126 (1998). 

6 Melinda C. Epperly, 45 ECAB 196, 198 (1993); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.115. 
3

an employee actually sustained an injury in the performance of duty, OWCP begins with an 

analysis of whether “fact of injury” has been established. Generally “fact of injury” consists of 

two components which must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component to be established is that the employee actually experienced the employment incident 

which is alleged to have occurred. The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury, and generally this can be established only by medical evidence.7 

OWCP procedures recognize that a claim may be accepted without a medical report when 

the condition is a minor one which can be identified on visual inspection.8

 In clear-cut traumatic 

injury claims, such as a fall resulting in a broken arm, a physician’s affirmative statement is 

sufficient, and no rationalized opinion on causal relationship is needed. In all other traumatic 

injury claims, a rationalized medical opinion supporting causal relationship is required.9

 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, OWCP found that appellant did not establish the factual element of 

her claim. Appellant had filed a traumatic injury claim alleging an injury on January 16, 2015 

when she had to carry a mail satchel. The narrative statement she provided offered little 

description of the alleged incident or other relevant details. OWCP asked appellant to provide a 

detailed description of how the injury occurred in its January 30, 2015 letter. It was noted, for 

example, that she had referred to her truck had broken down for two days, and it was not clear 

whether she was alleging an injury that had been produced over one day or two days.10 

Appellant did not submit an additional statement on the alleged employment incidents. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish her claim and this includes providing a 

detailed description of the alleged employment incident or incidents.11 In this case appellant 

failed to respond to a request for a sufficient description of the incident and she has not 

established that the incident occurred as alleged.12 

OWCP therefore properly denied the claim for compensation. The Board need not 

address the medical evidence, in this appeal. 

 7 See John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 357 (1989). 

8

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(c) (January 2013). 

9 Id., Chapter 2.805.3(d) (January 2013). Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence that is based 

on a complete factual and medical background, of reasonable medical certainty and supported by medical rationale 

explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant. Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317, 319 (2004). 

10 A traumatic injury is an injury caused by an incident or incidents within a single workday or shift. An 

occupational disease or illness is a condition produced by the work environment over more than one workday or 

shift. 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee) and (q). 

11 See J.M., Docket No. 14-1809 (issued December 23, 2014). 

12 Id. 
4

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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish a back injury 

in the performance of duty on January 16, 2015. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated March 4, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 16, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board