United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL ADVISORY CENTER, 

FORT McCOY, Sparta, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-2009

Issued: March 22, 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 August 25, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 27, 2017 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 his burden of proof to establish that he sustained 

left foot, hand, and wrist injuries in the performance of duty on February 3, 2017, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. The Board is precluded from reviewing 

evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision. Thus, the Board may not consider the 

new evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 3, 2017 appellant, then a 46-year-old supervisory staff administrator, filed a 

notice of traumatic injury (Form CA-1) alleging that, at 6:45 a.m. on that date, he fell in the lobby 

of his duty station, sustaining “wrist, hand, and foot” injuries.”

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a February 3, 2017 urgent care center report 

from Dr. Douglas Woodward, Board-certified in internal medicine and family practice. 

Dr. Woodward related that appellant “was standing on a ladder that slipped and fell 12 feet to the 

ground,” with the onset of left hand and wrist pain and “to the left second and third toes from 

where the ladder struck his boots.” He noted appellant’s history of active thrombocytopenia. On 

examination Dr. Woodward observed contusion and swelling of the left second and third toes, 

snuff box tenderness of the left wrist, and tenderness of the left hand. He obtained x-rays of 

appellant’s left hand and wrist and the left second and third toes which were negative for fracture. 

Dr. Woodward diagnosed left hand and wrist pain, and contusion of the left second and third toes. 

He ordered application of a thumb spica cast, and “buddy taping” of the left second and third toes. 

By development letter dated February 17, 2017, OWCP informed him that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish that he actually experienced the incident or employment 

factor alleged to have caused injury, and that a physician’s opinion explaining how the alleged 

injury caused a diagnosed condition had not been received. It provided a development 

questionnaire for his completion and requested that he submit a response in order to substantiate 

the factual basis of his claim. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP requested that appellant submit a detailed factual statement corroborating the 

alleged February 3, 2017 work incident, and a medical report from his attending physician which 

explained how and why that event would have caused the claimed injuries. It afforded appellant 

30 days to submit such evidence.

In response, appellant provided a February 17, 2017 follow-up report from Dr. Woodward, 

who related that appellant’s contusions to his left second and third toes had resolved, but that his 

left wrist remained symptomatic. On examination Dr. Woodward elicited mild pain in the 

proximal left hand with lateral movement of the left hand. He diagnosed left hand and wrist pain.

Dr. Woodward also restricted lifting, pulling, and pushing to five pounds with the left arm. 

Appellant was directed to wear a prescribed splint “while at work and with activities at home.”

By decision dated March 27, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as fact of injury had 

not been established. It found that appellant submitted insufficient factual evidence to establish 

that the injury occurred in the performance of duty on February 3, 2017. OWCP noted that 

appellant failed to respond to the February 17, 2017 request for additional evidence describing the 

alleged fall, or any witness statements corroborating the incident.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 

disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is 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 an employee sustained a traumatic 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 that must be considered conjunctively. First, the employee 

must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment 

incident that is alleged to have occurred.6 An employee has not met his or her burden of proof of 

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.7 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.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 or 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.10

 

3

Id.

4

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 See Irene St. John, 50 ECAB 521 (1999); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

6 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

7 S.N., Docket No. 12-1222 (issued August 23, 2013); Tia L. Love, 40 ECAB 586, 590 (1989).

8 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003).

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

10 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002); L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016).
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained 

left foot, hand, and wrist injuries in the performance of duty on February 3, 2017, as alleged.

Appellant claimed that he sustained work-related wrist, hand, and foot injuries when he 

fell in the lobby of his duty station on February 3, 2017 at 6:45 a.m. While a February 3, 2017 

medical report relates his account of falling from a ladder while at work, there is no corroboration 

of this incident. Appellant subsequently submitted additional medical evidence, but did not 

provide the requested factual statement or other evidence to corroborate the claimed February 3, 

2017 fall. OWCP denied the claim, finding that he failed to establish fact of injury as he failed to 

provide sufficient factual evidence to establish that the claimed February 3, 2017 work incident 

occurred as alleged. 

By letter dated February 17, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant respond to its factual 

development questionnaire and provide a more detailed description of the alleged employment 

incident in order to establish the factual element of his claim. Appellant did not respond to the 

questionnaire, nor did he provide any supplemental statement or detailed information surrounding 

the alleged February 3, 2017 work incident.11 The evidence of record does not contain a detailed 

account of the alleged injury sufficient to establish that the incident occurred at the time, place, 

and in the manner alleged.

As appellant failed to submit sufficient factual evidence to establish that the claimed 

February 3, 2017 work incident occurred at the time, place, and in the manner alleged, he has failed 

to meet his burden of proof.

12

 Consequently, the Board need not address the secondary issue of 

causal relationship.13

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 his burden of proof to establish that he sustained 

left foot, hand, and wrist injuries on February 3, 2017 in the performance of duty, as alleged.

 

11 R.V., Docket No. 17-1286 (issued December 5, 2017). 

12 Supra note 5.

13 Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).
5

ORDER

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

Programs dated March 27, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: March 22, 2018

Washington, D

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