United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, HEADQUARTERS 

FACILITY SERVICES, Washington, DC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0009

Issued: May 24, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 1, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 3, 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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the August 3, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence and appellant 

submitted 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on April 4, 2018, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 7, 2018 appellant, then a 63-year-old maintenance supervisor, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, at 11:59 p.m. on April 4, 2018, he sustained head/skull 

injuries when a radio cabinet fell off a wall and struck his head. He stopped work on April 5, 2018.

The employing establishment issued an authorization for examination and/or treatment 

(Form CA-16) on April 5, 2018, which indicated that appellant was authorized to seek medical 

treatment for injury to the skull/top of head. 

In a statement dated May 23, 2018, D.D., a supervisor maintenance H2, related that at 

approximately 12:22 a.m. on April 5, 2018, he heard a loud crash while he was taking radios from 

employees. He felt something hit his lower calf, and he turned to see appellant holding his hands 

over his head and running towards the door. He asked appellant if he was okay and observed that 

a radio cabinet had fallen off the wall. D.D. checked on appellant to ensure he was not bleeding, 

asked him if he was alright, and instructed him to go sit down and inform his manager what had 

just occurred. 

On May 29, 2018 appellant was seen by Dr. Carolyn A. Hammett, a Board-certified 

internist, who indicated that appellant was receiving medical treatment. Dr. Hammett noted that

appellant was unable to work for the period May 1 through June 29, 2018. 

In a development letter dated July 2, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that when his claim 

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

work. It noted that the employing establishment did not controvert continuation of pay or 

challenge the merits of the case and payment of a limited amount of medical expenses was 

administratively approved. However, the merits of the claim had not been formally considered 

and appellant’s claim was being reopened because he had not returned to full-time work. OWCP 

explained the additional factual and medical evidence needed and requested that he respond to a 

factual development questionnaire. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence. 

In response to OWCP’s request appellant submitted an April 5, 2018 visit summary report 

from Dr. Enoh E. Akpandak, Board-certified in family medicine, a May 1, 2018 progress note 

from Dr. Hammett, physical therapy notes for the period May 2 through July 25, 2018 from 

Thuy N. Plater, a physical therapist, a May 1, 2018 x-ray interpretation of the cervical spine, and 

an April 5, 2018 computerized tomography (CT) scan of the brain. 

In an April 5, 2018 report, Dr. Akpandak noted that appellant was seen for complaints of 

neck pain. Appellant related that while he placing a radio into a cabinet at work the cabinet fell 

on his head. Physical examination findings were provided. Dr. Akpandak diagnosed closed head 

injury, headache, neck pain, work-related injury.
3

Dr. Hammett, in May 1, 2018 progress report, noted that appellant presented with a head 

injury and that he was released to return to work that day. Appellant complained of neck pain 

when turning his head to the right. Dr. Hammett assessed neck pain. 

In progress notes dated July 9, 2018, Dr. Hammett diagnosed neck pain and provided 

physical examination findings. In a verification of treatment form dated July 9, 2018,she indicated 

that appellant was disabled from work from July 9 to 31, 2018.

By decision dated August 3, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury, claim 

finding that he had not submitted factual evidence sufficient to establish that the April 4, 2018 

employment incident occurred, 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 

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 

each 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 evidence, generally only in the form of medical 

evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.8

An employee’s statement alleging 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 in order to establish the fact 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4

J.R., Docket No. 18-1079 (issued January 15, 2019); C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Bonnie A. 

Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006).

5 See C.R., Docket No. 18-1332 (issued February 13, 2019); S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007).

6 See S.W., Docket No. 18-1653 (issued March 12, 2019); C.C., Docket No. 17-1722 (issued July 5, 2018); B.F., 

Docket No. 09-0060 (issued March 17, 2009).

7 M.M., Docket No. 18-0769 (issued September 10, 2018); D.B., 58 ECAB 464 (2007); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 

137 (2005).

8 W.C., Docket No. 18-1651 (issued March 7, 2019); M.M., id.; John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

9 A.C., Docket No. 18-1567 (issued April 9, 2019); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005).
4

that an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, as alleged, but the employee’s 

statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action.10 An employee has not met his or her 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.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that the 

April 4, 2018 employment incident occurred as alleged. 

On his claim form, appellant indicated that, on April 4 2018, he sustained head/skull 

injuries when a radio cabinet fell off a wall and struck his head. D.D., a witness to the incident

indicated that he was collecting radios from employees during the night shift of April 4 to 5, 2018 

when he heard a loud crash and felt something hit his calf. He saw that a radio cabinet had fallen 

off a wall and witnessed appellant holding his hands over his head. D.D. asked appellant if he was 

okay and instructed him to first sit down and then tell his manager what had occurred. On the 

reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment indicated that the injury occurred in 

the performance of duty. 

The Board finds that appellant’s description of the incident on the Form CA-1 and the 

witness statement from D.D. are sufficient to establish that the April 4, 2018 employment incident 

occurred at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. Appellant provided a singular account 

of the mechanism of injury that has not been refuted by any evidence in the record.12 The medical 

evidence of record also substantiated his description of the April 4, 2018 incident. In an April 5, 

2018 report, Dr. Akpandak reported a history of injury of that appellant was placing a radio into a 

cabinet at work when the cabinet fell on his head. In addition, appellant’s action surrounding the 

incident corroborate his description. He stopped work and sought medical treatment the morning 

of April 5, 2018. As noted above, a claimant’s statement that an injury occurred at a given time,

place, and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or 

persuasive evidence.13 The Board finds, therefore, that appellant has established that the April 4, 

2018 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

As appellant has established that the April 4, 2018 employment incident factually occurred, 

the question becomes whether this incident caused an injury.14 The Board will, therefore, set aside 

 

10 A.C., id.; Joseph H. Surgener, 42 ECAB 541, 547 (1991). 

11 A.C., supra note 9; Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

12 See S.W., Docket No. 17-0261 (issued May 24, 2017) (the Board found that OWCP improperly determined that 

the alleged employment incident did not occur when appellant provided consistent accounts of the claimed incident 

and there was no evidence to refute her detailed description); see also J.L., Docket No. 17-1712 (issued 

February 12, 2018). 

13 Supra note 9. 

14 See Willie J. Clements, 43 ECAB 244 (1991).
5

OWCP’s August 3, 2018 decision and remand the case for consideration of the medical evidence. 

Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a 

de novo decision addressing whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted employment incident and any attendant 

disability.15

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that the April 4, 

2018 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. The Board further 

finds, however, that this case is not in posture for a decision with regard to whether appellant has 

established causal relationship between his diagnosed conditions and the accepted April 4, 2018 

employment incident.

 

15 The Board notes that the employing establishment issued appellant a signed authorization for examination and/or 

treatment (Form CA-16) authorizing medical treatment. The Board has held that where an employing establishment 

properly executes a Form CA-16 authorizing medical treatment related to a claim for a work injury, the form creates 

a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the examination/treatment 

regardless of the action taken on the claim. See Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003). The period for which 

treatment is authorized by a Form CA-16 is limited to 60 days from the date of issuance, unless terminated earlier by 

OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 3, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: May 24, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board