United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, El Paso, TX, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1678

Issued: April 21, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 6, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 22, 2019 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 OWCP’s May 22, 2019 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence. 

However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provide: “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 that an injury 

occurred on April 10, 2019 in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 10, 2019 appellant, then a 51-year-old supervisor, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that at 2:45 p.m. on that date he sustained a sprained ligament and bite to 

his left hand, as well as scratches to his left forearm, left bicep, neck, and face while in the 

performance of duty. He explained that a detainee swung a shackle, which hit his hand and that,

during a cell extraction, the detainee bit his left hand and scratched him. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, appellant’s supervisor, R.T., checked a box marked “no” indicating that appellant 

was not in the performance of duty when his injury occurred. R.T. then noted that appellant was 

struck with a chain in his hand and bitten while attempting to control a noncompliant detainee

during the removal process. Appellant stopped work on the date of injury. 

In a development letter dated April 15, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that he submitted 

no evidence to establish that the claimed April 10, 2019 employment incident occurred as alleged. 

It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish his claim. OWCP 

attached a questionnaire seeking a full description of the events and circumstances surrounding the 

employment incident and other information for his completion. It afforded appellant 30 days to 

provide the necessary information. 

In an April 10, 2019 medical report, Dr. Enrique Villalobos-Silva, Board-certified in 

emergency medicine, noted that appellant presented with pain in his right wrist and thumb and 

abrasions to his left arm caused by a detained person at his place of employment. He provided 

that as appellant attempted to control a detainee, the detainee hit him with his shackles and may or 

may not have bitten his left arm and hand. Dr. Villalobos-Silva also noted swelling in appellant’s 

right thumb. In a diagnostic report of even date, Dr. Lance Knecht, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, performed an x-ray on appellant’s right hand. He noted the remodeling of the fifth 

metacarpal from prior trauma and a healed fracture and provided that there were no acute findings. 

Based on the x-ray of appellant’s right hand, Dr. Villalobos-Silva diagnosed hand and thumb 

contusions, skin abrasion, and a possible human bite as a result of the April 10, 2019 assault. He

provided that appellant could return to work on April 14, 2019. 

In an April 26, 2019 report of work status, an injury compensation specialist for the 

employing establishment, noted that appellant returned to regular-duty work on April 14, 2019 

with no restrictions. 

By decision dated May 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the injury and/or events occurred as he 

described. It noted that he did not provide specific details of the circumstances and what 

employment-related activities caused his condition as he did not submit a signed Form CA-1 or 

respond to OWCP’s development questionnaire. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 
3

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,4that 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.5 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.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 

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.8 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.9 An employee’s statements alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in 

a given manner are of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive 

evidence.10

Pursuant to OWCP’s procedures, no development of a claim is necessary when there is a 

visible injury, even when time has been lost from work due to disability, following a serious injury 

(motor vehicle accidents, stabbings, shootings, etc.).11 The procedures provide that no 

development is necessary when the employing establishment does not dispute the facts of the case 

and there are no questionable circumstances surrounding the case. No medical report is required 

to establish a minor condition such as a laceration.12 Sound judgment should be employed in these 

 

3

Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); 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 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

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

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

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

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

11 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6(a) 

(June 2011).

12 Id.
4

cases to provide appropriate and immediate medical care for the injured worker since expeditious 

treatment for these injuries is critical.13 

ANALYSIS

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

occurred in the performance of duty on April 10, 2019. 

Appellant indicated on his claim form, that at 2:45 p.m. on April 10, 2019 he sustained a 

sprained ligament and bite to his left hand, as well as scratches to his left forearm, left bicep, neck, 

and face after a detainee swung a shackle at him and bit him during a cell extraction. While 

appellant’s supervisor checked a box marked “no” indicating that appellant was not injured while 

in the performance of duty, his explanation confirmed that the mechanism of injury was appellant

being struck in the hand by a chain and bitten by a noncompliant detainee during the removal 

process. The employing establishment provided no information to refute appellant’s statement. 

Moreover, Dr. Villalobos-Silva’s contemporaneous medical report provided a consistent history 

of injury, noted clinical findings, and diagnosed hand and thumb contusions, skin abrasion, and a 

possible human bite as a result of the April 10, 2019 assault. 

Appellant submitted a singular account of the mechanism of injury that has not been refuted 

by any evidence in the record.14 His actions surrounding the incident corroborate his description, 

as he sought medical treatment the same day after his alleged injury, presenting to the hospital

with pain in his right wrist, hand, and thumb, as well as a human bite on his left hand and scratches. 

Dr. Villalobos-Silva’s April 10, 2019 medical report also noted that appellant was injured after 

attempting to control a detainee and that the detainee struck his hand with shackles and bit his left 

hand. Thus, the Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish the

April 10, 2019 employment incident occurred as alleged.

The Board further finds that the evidence of record is sufficient to determine that 

appellant’s abrasions are causally related to the April 10, 2019 assault. OWCP’s procedures 

provide that in cases where there is a serious injury from an employment incident, and the 

employing establishment does not dispute the facts of the incident alleged, that the claim may be 

accepted for conditions even without a medical report with other more serious conditions being 

developed through obtaining medical evidence.15 Appellant indicated on his claim form, that at 

2:45 p.m. on April 10, 2019 he sustained a sprained ligament and bite to his left hand, as well as 

scratches to his left forearm, left bicep, neck, and faceafter a detainee swung a shackle at him and 

bit him during a cell extraction. The accepted employment incident was an assault in which he

was left injured and in need of emergency medical services. Upon obtaining emergency medical 

treatment, and after diagnostic testing, it was confirmed that appellant sustained skin abrasions on 

that date. The contemporaneous medical reports provide a consistent history of injury and

Dr. Villalobos-Silva, in his April 10, 2019 report, diagnosed skin abrasions directly related to the 

 

13 See E.H., Docket No. 19-1282 (issued December 23, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); 

R.T., Docket No. 08-0408 (issued December 16, 2008); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 277 (2005).

14 A.C., Docket No. 18-1567 (issued April9, 2019).

15 See supra note 11.
5

assault in which appellant had been involved. The Board finds that this evidence is sufficient to 

establish that appellant sustained skin abrasions and those conditions are causally related to the 

accepted April 10, 2019 employment incident.

Upon return of the case file OWCP shall make payment and/or reimbursement of medical 

expenses and wage-loss compensation, if any, with regard to the accepted skin abrasions. It shall 

also consider the medical evidence of record with regard to additional alleged conditions related 

to the accepted employment injury. Following such further development as deemed necessary it 

shall issue a de novo decision. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish skin abrasions while 

in the performance of duty on April 10, 2019. The Board further finds that the case is not in posture 

for decision as to additional claimed conditions due to the accepted employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 22, 2019 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: April 21, 2020

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board