United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tucson, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0523

Issued: September 12, 2018

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 January 17, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 8, 2017 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 the claim.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic left 

lower extremity injury in the performance of duty on July 17, 2017, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 The record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its September 8, 2017 decision. 

The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was in the case record at the time of OWCP’s final decision. 

Therefore, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 19, 2017 appellant, then a 50-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 17, 2017, while at work, a large, heavy box fell on 

her left leg, causing a knee injury. She did not stop work at the time of the injury.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a July 19, 2017 urgent care report by

Dr. A. Cohen.3 This report noted a history of an unspecified July 17, 2017 left knee injury, with 

increased symptoms after pushing boxes on July 19, 2017. On examination appellant had an 

antalgic gait favoring the left lower extremity, mild abrasions over the left patella and lateral aspect 

of the left knee, and an ecchymosis of the left anterior thigh. Her diagnoses were listed as left knee 

sprain, left knee abrasion, and contusion of left thigh and she was returned to full-duty work.

By development letter dated July 28, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the type of 

additional factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim. It provided her with a 

questionnaire and asked her to provide a detailed statement describing the July 17, 2017 

employment incident, factual corroboration of the July 17, 2017 employment incident, and a report 

from her physician explaining how and why that incident would cause the claimed injury. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to provide the necessary evidence.

In response, appellant submitted a July 17, 2017 urgent care report and a state

compensation form signed by Serena Ling, a physician assistant. Ms. Ling related appellant’s 

account of “working with heavy boxes earlier that day.” Appellant also provided a July 17, 2017 

work status note signed by Ms. Ling and countersigned by Dr. Cohen. Dr. Cohen prescribed a left 

knee brace and over-the-counter anti-inflammatory medication. 

By decision dated September 8, 2017, OWCP denied the claim as fact of injury was not 

established. It found that the evidence of record was insufficient to corroborate that the claimed 

July 17, 2017 employment incident occurred as alleged. OWCP further found that appellant 

offered inconsistent accounts of how she was injured. On her claim form, appellant alleged that a 

heavy box fell on her leg, but stated in a July 19, 2017 examination that her symptoms were caused 

by pushing boxes.

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 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 Dr. Cohen’s medical credentials could not be verified. 

4 Supra note 1.
3

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

OWCP must determine whether fact of injury has been established. First, an employee has the 

burden of proof to demonstrate the occurrence of an injury at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.7 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical evidence, to 

establish a causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged disability and/or 

condition for which compensation is claimed.8

OWCP cannot accept fact of injury if there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to 

seriously question whether the specific event or incident occurred at the time, place, and in the 

manner alleged, or whether the alleged injury was in the performance of duty,9 nor can OWCP 

find fact of injury if the evidence of record fails to establish that the employee sustained an “injury”

within the meaning of FECA. 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, as alleged, 

but the employee’s statements must be consistent with surrounding facts and circumstances and 

her subsequent course of action.10 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 cast doubt on an employee’s statements in determining 

whether he or she has established the claim.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she sustained a traumatic left lower 

extremity injury in the performance of duty on July 17, 2017, as alleged.

The evidence of record casts serious doubt on the validity of appellant’s claim as the 

inconsistencies in her statements fail to establish that the July 17, 2017 employment incident 

occurred, as alleged.12

 

5 Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005); Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003). 

6 See Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

7 David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); Delphyne L. Glover, 51 ECAB 146 (1999). 

8 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Shirley A. Temple, 48 ECAB 404, 407 (1997). 

9 H.H., Docket No. 18-0177 (issued May 17, 2018); A.S., Docket No. 16-0735 (issued November 3, 2016); Elaine

Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

10 See Gene A. McCracken, Docket No. 93-2227 (issued March 9, 1995); Joseph H. Surgener, 42 ECAB 541, 

547 (1991). 

11 H.H., supra note 9. See Constance G. Patterson, 42 ECAB 206 (1989).

12 See W.M., Docket No. 17-0837 (issued December 27, 2017). 
4

Appellant provided three different accounts of how she sustained the claimed left leg 

injury. In her July 19, 2017 Form CA-1, she alleged that, on July 17, 2017, a large box fell on her 

left leg. In seeking treatment, appellant provided inconsistent descriptions as to how the incident 

occurred.13 She asserted during a July 17, 2017 examination that she injured her leg while 

performing unspecified tasks with heavy boxes. Dr. Cohen’s July 19, 2017 report related 

appellant’s account of increased symptoms after pushing boxes at work that day. These vague, 

conflicting accounts of the mechanism of injury cast doubt on the validity of the claim.14 

Therefore, the Board finds that the factual evidence of record is insufficient to establish the claimed 

July 17, 2017 employment incident occurred in the manner alleged.

15

By development letter dated July 28, 2017, OWCP provided a questionnaire to appellant 

and requested that she submit additional factual and medical evidence explaining how she 

sustained an injury to her left lower extremity on the date in question. Appellant failed to submit 

the requested evidence.16 Therefore, the Board finds that there is insufficient evidence of record 

to meet her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, as 

alleged.17 

On appeal appellant contends that the evidence of record is sufficient to establish her claim. 

As noted above, she did not submit sufficient factual evidence to establish that the claimed July 17, 

2017 employment incident occurred 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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish a traumatic left 

lower extremity injury in the performance of duty on July 17, 2017, as alleged. 

 

13 See A.M., Docket No. 08-1837 (issued February 9, 2009). 

14 H.H., supra note 9.

15 Id. 

16 See H.B., Docket No. 18-0278 (issued June 20, 2018). 

17 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs dated September 8, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: September 12, 2018

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