United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Framingham, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0033

Issued: June 13, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 4, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 20, 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 to consider 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 July 16, 2018, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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 August 1, 2018 appellant, then a 57-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 16, 2018 he sustained head and neck injuries when 

the trainer he was shadowing flung open the back door of the truck, which struck him on the head,

while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on July 27, 2018 and did not return. S.P., a 

supervisor, controverted the claim, indicating that he did not witness the event and contending that 

appellant did not report the claim until “unsatisfactory performance was discussed” on 

July 27, 2018. 

OWCP received an August 6, 2018 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) from

Dr. David Gdula, a Board-certified internist. Dr. Gdula noted that appellant had hit his head on 

the door of a mail truck. He diagnosed cervicalgia. 

On August 9, 2018 R.F., an employing establishment health and resource management 

representative, explained that on July 30, 2018 she spoke with appellant, who indicated that when 

he exiting the back of the truck, he was hit by the door. She explained that W.H., the carrier 

assigned to train appellant, also provided a statement. R.F. noted that W.H. indicated that appellant 

“never mentioned anything to him about hitting his head.” She also noted that W.H. asked 

appellant if he had “any questions, thoughts or concerns about the day and again never mentioned 

to him that he may have gotten injured.” R.F. indicated that W.H.’s statement contradicted 

appellant’s allegations. She noted that appellant also stated that “the impact was so hard that he 

saw stars.” R.F. argued that, if the injury occurred as appellant alleged, “it would seem likely that 

when the trainer lifted the door open [appellant] would be right in front of him and would have 

noticed [appellant].” She further indicated that he continued to work without any issues until 

July 27, 2018, when he sought medical treatment.

In an August 8, 2018 statement, W.H. indicated that he was tasked with training appellant 

on July 16, 2018. He explained that, during the course of the day, appellant entered and exited the 

rear of the truck. W.H. advised that he provided a path for appellant, which continued to clear

throughout the day, as mail and parcels were removed from the vehicle. He noted that, at one point 

in the day, appellant made a noise getting in; however, he did not say anything and “never 

mentioned hitting his head.” W.H. also noted that on the return he asked appellant “if [appellant]

had any questions, thoughts or concerns about the day and again never mentioned to me that he 

may have gotten injured.” 

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

evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that he actually experienced the incident alleged 

to have caused the injury. It requested additional factual and medical evidence and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to provide the necessary 

evidence. 

OWCP received a July 27, 2018 progress note and a work excuse from Dr. Gdula, who 

diagnosed cervicalgia and requested that appellant be excused from work until August 6, 2018,
3

due to a head/neck injury. It also received a resignation/transfer form signed by appellant on 

August 21, 2018.

By decision dated September 20, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

finding that he had not established that a specific employment event occurred, as alleged, and,

therefore, had not established the factual component of his claim. It explained that he had not 

responded to its questionnaire and it was unable to accept that the injury occurred, as alleged, since 

the evidence supported that there were inconsistent statements as to how the injury occurred.

OWCP further noted that appellant had not submitted medical evidence that established a 

diagnosed medical condition causally related to an employment injury or event and, therefore, fact 

of injury had not been established.

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,4that 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.5 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.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 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, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to establish that the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.9

An injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact that 

an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, but the employee’s statements must 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); 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 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

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

7 See C.C., Docket No. 17-1722 (issued July 5, 2018); B.F., Docket No. 09-0060 (issued March 17, 2009). 

8 R.E., Docket No. 17-0547 (issued November 13, 2018); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover,

51 ECAB 146 (1999).

9

Id.; see also John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
4

be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his subsequent course of action.10 

The employee has not met his burden of proof to establish the occurrence of an injury when there 

are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim. 

Such circumstances 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 sufficient doubt on an employee’s statements in determining 

whether a prima facie case has been established.11 

ANALYSIS

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

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

By development letter dated August 15, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant respond to 

its questionnaire and provide detailed information describing the alleged employment incident he 

believed caused his head injury. However, appellant did not respond to the request for factual 

information. As such, the record lacks sufficient factual evidence to establish specific details of 

how the claimed injury occurred.12 Appellant’s failure to respond to the questionnaire is especially 

important in light of the statement provided by W.H., who indicated that appellant made a noise 

getting in the vehicle; however, appellant did not say anything, and “never mentioned hitting his 

head” even when he was asked directly at the end of the training day whether he had any concerns.

The Board also notes that appellant did not seek immediate medical treatment for the alleged neck 

and head injury, did not stop work or file the notice of injury until after performance issues were 

discussed with management.

13

 These inconsistencies cast serious doubt on appellant’s claim. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof.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 a traumatic 

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

 

10 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667-71 (1987).

11 See M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).

12 M.F., supra note 10.

13 Supra note 11.

14 See D.C., Docket No. 18-0082 (issued July 12, 2018); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006). 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 20, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 13, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board