United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Beverly Hills, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1658

Issued: May 2, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 29, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 13, 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 her burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on April 9, 2018, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the August 13, 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 June 7, 2018 appellant, then a 54-year-old carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that, on April 9, 2018, she injured her back while in the performance of duty.

In an April 9, 2018 work status report form and report, Dr. John Barone, an examining 

physician specializing in occupational medicine, diagnosed acute appendicitis and estimated one 

day of temporary total disability. In the April 9, 2018 report, he indicated that appellant related 

feeling something push on her belly while lifting tubes full of mail and that, when the pain did not 

go away, she notified her supervisor. The supervisor reported that appellant noticed lower 

abdominal pain while she was at work and there was no prior history of acute or cumulative trauma 

to the abdomen.

Dr. Barone, in follow-up reports dated April 10, 17, May 8, June 6, and 19, 2018, provided 

physical examination findings. He diagnosed lumbar strain on April 10 and June 19, 2018 and 

lower back muscle, fascia, and tendon strain on April 17, May 8, and June 6, 2018. Under history 

of injury, Dr. Barone noted an April 9, 2018 injury date, an improving condition, and that appellant

was on modified duty. Appellant complained of lumbosacral area pain which she described as 

sharp, intermittent, and moderately severe. Dr. Barone detailed appellant’s job duties, length of 

employment, and hours worked. On June 19, 2018 he reviewed x-ray interpretations of the lumbar 

and hip areas, which he found to be normal. 

By development letter dated July 13, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to provide the requested evidence. In response to its development letter, appellant submitted 

evidence including reports dated June 27, July 18, and 26, 2018 from Dr. Barone who noted that 

she was seen for a follow-up on an April 9, 2018 injury and that her condition was improving as 

expected. She continued having complaints of limited back range of motion, radiation of back 

pain, intermittent lumbosacral area pain which she described as sharp and moderately severe. 

Examination findings were unchanged from prior reports. Dr. Barone diagnosed lumbar 

radiculopathy.

By decision dated August 13, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that an injury occurred on April 9, 2018, as alleged.

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 

 

3 Supra note 1.
3

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 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.6 

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.7 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that the employment incident 

caused a personal injury.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on April 9, 2018, as alleged. 

On her Form CA-1, appellant noted that on April 9, 2018 she sustained a strain to her 

middle back. No other information or statement clarifying what employment duties were involved 

to have caused her claimed back injury on April 9, 2018 was provided. Appellant did not identify 

specific employment factors alleged to have caused her condition. She failed to provide any 

description or details of the alleged April 9, 2018 incident sufficient to determine the 

circumstances surrounding her injury.9 

The only explanation provided pertaining to the claimed September 19, 2017 traumatic 

incident was information provided by Dr. Barone who noted that appellant felt something push on 

her belly while lifting tubes full of mail. 

In a development letter dated June 15, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient as she had not sufficiently described the employment factors alleged to 

have caused her injury. It asked her to describe those alleged work factors in detail, but she did 

not respond to the request for additional specific factual information.10 Accordingly, as she failed 

to present a clear factual statement identifying specific employment factors or conditions alleged 

 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 B.F., Docket No. 09-0060 (issued March 17, 2009); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra note 4.

7 D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005).

8 C.B., Docket No. 08-1583 (issued December 9, 2008); D.G., 59 ECAB 734 (2008); Bonnie A. Contreras, supra

note 4.

9 K.S., Docket No. 17-2001 (issued March 9, 2018).

10 K.S., id.; see also K.W., Docket No. 16-1656 (issued December 15, 2016).
4

to have caused or contributed to her claimed medical condition, appellant has not met her burden 

of proof.11

As the evidence of record does not to sufficiently describe the employment incident and 

circumstances surrounding her alleged injury, the Board finds that appellant has not established 

that the traumatic injury occurred in the performance of duty on April 9, 2018, as alleged. 

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 a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on April 9, 2018, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 13, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 2, 2019

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

 

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