United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Culver City, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0325

Issued: July 20, 2018

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 December 4, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 10, 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 this case.2

ISSUE

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

performance of duty on March 27, 2017, as alleged.

 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of OWCP’s July 10, 2017 decision and on appeal, appellant 

submitted new evidence. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its 

final decision. Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this new evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 

C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 15, 2017 appellant, then a 42-year-old postal support employee (PSE) mail 

processing clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on March 27, 2017, she 

sustained a right ankle sprain when an over-the-road (OTR) container hit her ankle. She did not 

stop work.

An undated notice from El Segundo Medical Clinic indicated a date of injury of

March 27, 2017. The notice also indicated that appellant missed a scheduled appointment on 

May 26, 2017. 

By development letter dated June 7, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim and requested that she submit a response to a form questionnaire in order to establish

that she actually experienced the incident alleged to have caused an injury and a medical report 

from her attending physician including a diagnosis, history of the injury, examination findings, 

and a rationalized opinion explaining how the reported work incident caused or aggravated her 

medical condition. The questionnaire requested that she describe the nature of her injury, how the 

injury occurred, the immediate effects of her injury, and any prior similar disability or symptoms. 

A June 1, 2017 administrative discharge letter from U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group, 

contained an illegible signature and advised that appellant was no longer under its care regarding

her ankle contusion and foot sprain diagnosis because she had missed scheduled appointments on 

May 10 and 27, and June 1, 2017. The letter indicated that she was last seen on May 19, 2017 and 

listed her last work restrictions.

Medical reports dated April 21 and May 19, 2017 from Dr. David Hantman, an attending 

Board-certified internist with U.S. HealthWorks Medical Group, indicated a date of injury of 

March 27, 2017 with diagnoses of sprain of the right ankle, unspecified ligament, subsequent 

encounter, contusion of the right ankle, subsequent encounter, strain of the right ankle, subsequent 

encounter, and joint disorder. Dr. Hantman also advised that appellant had a chronic nonindustrial 

lumbar disc displacement with constant low grade right lateral radiculopathy and sensory loss on 

the lateral right foot. He related that this condition and her known left ankle osteoarthritis could 

impact the status of her ankles. Dr. Hantman noted appellant’s work duties and indicated that he 

had reviewed a mechanism of injury as stated in her initial visit. He released her to return to 

modified work with restrictions as of April 21, 2017 and addressed her treatment plan.

In a May 3, 2017 report, Dr. Kaochoy Saechao, a physician with U.S. HealthWorks 

Medical Group Board-certified in occupational medicine, indicated that appellant was being 

evaluated for a follow-up on an injury she sustained on March 27, 2017. He noted her work duties. 

Dr. Saechao examined appellant and diagnosed sprain of the tibiofibular ligament of the right 

ankle, subsequent encounter. He advised that she was expected to reach maximum medical 

improvement on June 7, 2017. Dr. Saechao further advised that appellant could return to work 

with restrictions as of the date of his examination.

Appellant completed established patient statements on April 21, May 3 and 19, 2017 

regarding the status of her right ankle condition and development of new complaints.
3

By decision dated July 10, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the evidence of record failed to establish that the March 27, 2017 employment incident 

occurred, as alleged. It noted that she did not respond to its inquiries regarding the circumstances 

of the alleged incident. OWCP further found that the medical evidence of record did not contain 

a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the claimed employment incident.

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 first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

time and place, and in the manner alleged. Second, the employee must submit medical evidence 

to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.6

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she 

sustained a right ankle injury in the performance of duty on March 27, 2017, as alleged.

Appellant must establish all of the elements of her claim in order to prevail. She must 

prove the time, place, and manner of the alleged incident, and a resulting personal injury.7 

Appellant has not provided a sufficient description of the time, place, and manner of her alleged 

injury.8 On her Form CA-1 she stated that she sustained a right ankle sprain on March 27, 2017 

when an OTR container hit her ankle. The Board notes that appellant’s description of the traumatic 

incident is imprecise and vague and fails to provide any specific detail or evidence establishing 

 

3 Supra note 1.

 

4 C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

 

5 S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6 A.D., id.; T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

7 See generally John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997).
4

that the incident occurred as alleged.9 The information provided is therefore insufficient to 

establish that the alleged injury occurred in the performance of duty. 

On June 7, 2017 OWCP informed appellant that the evidence received to date was 

insufficient to establish that she actually experienced the incident or employment factor alleged to 

have caused an injury. Appellant was asked to respond to its factual development questionnaire 

and provide a detailed description of the alleged employment incident she believed caused her 

injury. OWCP afforded her 30 days to submit this additional evidence. Appellant did not respond 

to the questionnaire or provide any supplemental statement or detailed information surrounding 

the alleged March 27, 2017 work incident prior to the issuance of OWCP’s July 10, 2017 

decision.10 While the reports of Dr. Hantman and Dr. Saechao noted appellant’s work duties and 

a March 27, 2017 date of injury, neither physician described how the injury occurred on that date

due to a specific incident. Dr. Hantman generally noted that he had reviewed the mechanism of 

injury provided in appellant’s initial visit. The Board finds that appellant has not established that 

the traumatic injury occurred as alleged.11 Consequently, it is unnecessary to address the medical 

evidence of record.12

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 has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish an injury

in the performance of duty on March 27, 2017, as alleged.

 

9 See C.M., Docket No. 17-0627 (issued June 28, 2017); C.E., Docket No. 17-0106 (issued April 20, 2017).

10 See R.V., Docket No. 17-1286 (issued December 5, 2017); R.V., Docket No. 15-1911 (issued 

December 11, 2015).

11 See P.M., Docket No. 16-0483 (issued May 12, 2016).

12 See M.P., Docket No. 15-0952 (issued July 23, 2015); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 10, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 20, 2018

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