United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0473

Issued: August 9, 2019

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 27, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 16, 2018 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 a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on September 16, 2018, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 16, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 17, 2018 appellant, then a 56-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained a right wrist injury on September 16, 2018

while in the performance of duty. He stated that he was injured when he fell down steps while 

carrying a large box. Appellant stopped work on the date of the claimed injury and has not 

returned. 

In an undated attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. David Edelstein, a 

Board-certified orthopedic hand surgeon, diagnosed right distal radius fracture and opined that 

appellant’s diagnosis was causally related to his fall on September 16, 2018. 

On September 17, 2018 Dr. Edelstein opined that appellant was unable to return to work 

for approximately six weeks. 

In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated September 21 and October 2, 2018,

Dr. Edelstein opined that appellant was not capable of returning to work. 

In an October 2, 2018 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Edelstein asserted 

that appellant had a right wrist fracture and was not able to perform his regular job until 

December 17, 2018. 

In a October 16, 2018 development letter, OWCP indicated that when appellant’s claim 

was first received it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from 

work. It notified him that it had now reopened the claim for formal consideration of the merits,

requested additional evidence, and provided a factual questionnaire for his completion. The 

questionnaire inquired as to what caused appellant to fall, if he had any history of fainting spells, 

heart conditions, or epileptic seizures, and/or any hazards or special conditions at work that caused 

or contributed to his injury (e.g., normal office furnishing, a slippery floor, etc.) or if he struck 

anything (e.g., a chair, a wall, a desk, etc.) when he fell. OWCP afforded him 30 days to respond.

Appellant subsequently submitted duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated October 15 and 

26, 2018 from Dr. Edelstein who continued to opine that appellant was not capable of regular 

work. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated November 9, 2018, Dr. Edelstein released 

appellant to full-time, regular duty effective November 12, 2018. 

By decision dated November 16, 2018, OWCP denied the claim, finding that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish that the injury and/or events occurred in the performance of 

duty on September 16, 2018, as alleged. It noted that it was unclear as to what caused appellant 

to fall as he failed to respond to the factual inquiries and, therefore, had not established the factual 

component of his claim. 
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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, as 

alleged, and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally 

related to the employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every

compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established.7 

Generally, fact of injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with 

one another. First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually 

experienced the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.8 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.9

Appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of a detailed description of the 

employment factors which he or she believes caused or adversely affected a condition for which 

compensation is claimed.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic

injury in the performance of duty on September 16, 2018, as alleged.

The only explanation that appellant provided pertaining to the claimed traumatic incident 

was the limited statement noted in his Form CA-1 where he alleged that he fractured his right wrist 

after he “fell down steps while carrying a large box” at 4:00 a.m. on September 16, 2018. By 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8 L.T., Docket No. 18-1603 (issued February 21, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 P.T., Docket No. 14-0598 (issued August 5, 2014).
4

failing to sufficiently describe the employment incident and circumstances surrounding his alleged 

injury, he has not established that the traumatic injury occurred at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged.11 In a March 12, 2018 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual 

information needed to establish his claim. The letter’s attached questionnaire included questions 

regarding the alleged traumatic event itself and if he had any medical conditions or special work 

conditions or hazards that caused or contributed to his injury. Appellant did not respond to 

OWCP’s request for additional factual information.12 Accordingly, the Board finds that he has not 

met his burden of proof.13

As appellant has not established the factual element of his claim, the Board need not 

address whether the medical evidence of record is sufficient to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the employment incident, as alleged.

14

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 an injury in the 

performance of duty on September 16, 2018, as alleged.

 

11 Id.

12 K.S., Docket No. 17-2001 (issued March 9, 2018); see also K.W., Docket No. 16-1656 (issued 

December 15, 2016).

13 See D.C., Docket No. 18-0082 (issued July 12, 2018); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).

14 See R.L., Docket No. 17-1670 (issued December 14, 2018); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 16, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 9, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board