United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Boonsboro, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0716

Issued: September 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 19, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal of the February 4, 2019 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 that she sustained 

a left shoulder injury on November 16, 2018 in the performance of duty, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the February 4, 2019 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 November 20, 2018 appellant, then a 64-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 16, 2018 she sustained a right shoulder strain when 

she missed a step at the loading dock and fell on the pavement while in the performance of duty. 

On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment indicated that she was in the 

performance of duty when the incident occurred. Appellant stopped work the date of injury. 

OWCP received a work injury and work status medical report dated November 17, 2018 

from Dr. Gaylen Johnson, a Board-certified physician specializing in occupational medicine. 

Dr. Johnson noted that appellant experienced pain when moving her right arm and recommended 

that she remain off work until an orthopedic consultation. 

A November 19, 2018 x-ray of the right shoulder, performed by Dr. Harris Elliot Orzach, 

a Board-certified radiologist, demonstrated a bony fragment consistent with a bony Bankart lesion. 

Dr. Orzach recommended that appellant undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan for 

further evaluation. In a report dated November 20, 2018, Dr. Johnson agreed with Dr. Orzach’s

x-ray findings and noted that he would refer appellant to an orthopedic specialist for further 

evaluation. 

On December 14, 2018 Dr. Scott Worrell, a Board-certified orthopedic specialist, ordered 

an MRI scan of appellant’s right shoulder and noted diagnoses of contusion, displaced fracture and 

pain of the right shoulder. 

In a December 20, 2018 attending physician’sreport (Form CA-20), Dr. Worrell diagnosed 

a fracture of the glenoid cavity of appellant’s right shoulder. He noted an injury date of 

November 16, 2018 and checked a box marked “yes” indicating that the diagnosed condition was 

caused or aggravated by the November 16, 2018 slip and fall directly on her right shoulder. 

Dr. Worrell opined that appellant was totally disabled for the period November 16, 2018 through 

January 21, 2019. 

In a December 31, 2018 development letter, OWCP noted that, when appellant’s claim was 

received, it appeared to be a minor injury that resulted in minimal or no lost time from work. Based 

on this criteria, it had administratively approved payment of a limited amount of medical expenses 

without formally considering the merits of her claim. OWCP reopened the claim as appellant had 

not yet returned to work full time and advised her of the deficiencies of her claim. It requested 

additional factual and medical evidence from her and provided a questionnaire for her completion. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

In response, appellant submitted a January 8, 2019 statement, wherein she explained that 

when going to put a tray of mail into her truck, she tripped and fell off the steps onto the blacktop 

injuring her right arm. She identified L.T. as a person who witnessed her fall and went to get her 

manager, R.W., to help her off the ground. Appellant explained that she took off from work the 

following day and administered a topical cream to her arm to relieve the pain, to no effect. She

called R.W. on Monday (November 19, 2018) and was sent to Dr. Johnson. Appellant indicated 

that she had an x-ray of her arm and was advised she had a “chipped bone.” She subsequently saw 
3

an orthopedic surgeon who ordered an MRI scan and held her off work pending the results of the 

MRI scan.

By decision dated February 4, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not submitted the necessary factual evidence to establish that the incident 

occurred as described. Specifically, it indicated that she failed to provide a reason for her delay in 

reporting her November 16, 2018 injury until November 20, 2018.

3

 OWCP explained that in order 

to substantiate the factual elements of her claim, appellant needed to respond and submit her 

answers as requested. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 of FECA,5that 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.6 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.7

To determine if an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established.8 Generally, fact of 

injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The 

first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

allegedly occurred.9 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.10

 

3 Appellant’s Form CA-1 indicated that she first provided notice of her injury on November 19, 2018.

4 Supra note 1.

5

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).

6

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 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).

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

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

10 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
4

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.11 

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 her subsequent 

course of action. 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. 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.

ANALYSIS

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

November 16, 2018 employment incident occurred as described.

On her November 20, 2018 claim form, appellant alleged that on November 16, 2018 she 

sustained a right shoulder injury when she missed a step and fell on the loading dock pavement 

while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing 

establishment acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty that day. In a 

December 31, 2018 development letter, OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence 

and provided a questionnaire for appellant’s complete. In response, appellant submitted a 

handwritten statement at the bottom of OWCP’s questionnaire where she again described the 

circumstances of her alleged November 16, 2018 work injury. Additionally, she explained that 

the reason for the three-day delay in reporting her injury to her supervisor was because she took 

time off from work following her injury. Appellant also submitted medical evidence where she 

consistently reported to her physicians a November 16, 2018 date of injury involving her right 

shoulder. 

In its February 4, 2019 decision, OWCP found that appellant had not submitted sufficient 

evidence to establish that the claimed event occurred as she described and noted that appellant 

failed to provide a reason for her delay in reporting her November 16, 2018 injury until 

November 20, 2018. However, the Board finds that the evidence does not contain inconsistencies 

sufficient to cast serious doubt on appellant’s version of the occurrence of the employment 

incident. As noted, 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.12 

The Board finds that appellant’s reasoning for the delay in reporting her claimed November 16, 

2018 injury has not been refuted by strong or persuasive evidence and there are no inconsistencies 

to cast doubt on her version of the employment incident.13 Therefore, the Board finds that 

 

11 C.R., Docket No. 18-1332 (issued February 13, 2019); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005).

12 Id.

13 C.V., Docket No. 15-0615 (issued September 13, 2016).
5

appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that the November 16, 2018 employment 

incident occurred as described.

As appellant has established that the November 16, 2018 employment incident occurred as 

alleged, further consideration of the medical evidence is necessary.14 For these reasons, the case 

will be remanded to OWCP to evaluate the medical evidence and determine whether she sustained 

a medical condition or disability causally related to the accepted November 16, 2018 employment 

incident.15 After any further development as it deems necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 4, 2019 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision.

Issued: September 13, 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

 

14 M.D., Docket No. 18-1365 (issued March 12, 2019).

15 See Constance G. Patterson, 41 ECAB 206 (1989); Thelma S. Buffington, 34 ECAB 104 (1982).