United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

Z.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, OAKLAND POST 

OFFICE, Oakland, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0449

Issued: September 17, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 24, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 25, 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.

ISSUE

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

performance of duty on May 2, 2019, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 10, 2019 appellant, then a 46-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on May 2, 2019 at 2:48 p.m., she sustained injuries to her arms, legs, 

and knees when she tripped on uneven pavement and fell onto the left side of her body while in 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

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

controverted appellant’s claim indicating that the notice of injury was not received until October 9, 

2019, more than 30 days following the alleged injury. It also checked a box marked “No”

indicating that appellant was not in the performance of duty when her injury occurred. Appellant 

stopped work on August 7, 2019.

In an accompanying May 3, 2019 statement, appellant asserted that she fell on May 2, 2019 

while in the performance of duty. She indicated that, following the fall, she went home, took pain 

medication, and rested; however, the following morning she had pain in her arms, legs, and knees

as a result of the fall. Appellant further noted that she did not need medical services at that time

and would not be filing a claim “[a]t this time.”

In a letter dated October 10, 2019, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim for continuation of pay as she did not meet the 30-day filing requirement, noting that 

appellant filed her CA-1 form 160 days after the alleged incident. In a separate letter of even date, 

appellant’s supervisor, M.K., challenged appellant’s claim, asserting that appellant did not notify 

management of her injury until October 9, 2019. The supervisor noted that appellant had a separate 

work-related injury on August 7, 2019,

2

and had not been working since that date. M.K. further 

indicated that appellant had a history of falling, “industrial” accidents, and irregular attendance. 

The supervisor asserted that appellant did not want to deliver mail and was abusing the system.

In a development letter dated October 24, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. The questionnaire specifically inquired about her 

delayed notification of the alleged injury to the employing establishment. It afforded appellant 30 

days to respond. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated November 25, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the May 2, 2019 employment incident occurred 

as alleged. 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 FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including 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,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 

 

2 The Board notes that the record does not contain evidence related to the referenced August 7, 2019 employment 

incident. 

3 Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 
3

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 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, place, and in the manner alleged. Second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence.7 

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, but the employee’s statements must 

be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her subsequent course of 

action.8 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof of establishing the occurrence of an 

injury when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity 

of the claim. 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, if otherwise unexplained, cast serious doubt on an employee’s statements 

in determining whether a case has been established. 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

ANALYSIS

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

performance of duty on May 2, 2019, as alleged. 

To establish a claim for compensation in a traumatic injury claim, an employee must submit 

a statement that explains how the claimed injury occurred.10 Appellant has provided a detailed 

description on the claim form and in a narrative statement as to how the alleged May 2, 2019 

incident occurred, explaining that she fell when stepping on uneven pavement while in the 

performance of duty as a city carrier. Her description on the claim form and in her narrative

statement were consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances. Although the employing 

establishment controverted the claim due to appellant’s delay in filing the claim form and her 

 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8 See J.M., Docket No. 19-1024 (issued October 18, 2019); M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019).

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

10 B.L., Docket No. 20-0394 (issued July 17, 2020); R.B., Docket No. 19-1026 (issued January 14, 2020).
4

history of other “industrial” accidents, appellant explained that after self-medicating immediately 

following the claimed May 2, 2019 employment incident, she did not require medical services and

noted that she would not file a claim “[a]t this time.” The employing establishment has not 

presented strong or persuasive evidence to refute appellant’s statements or her subsequent course 

of action.

11

 Thus, the Board finds that appellant’s statements stand and establish that an 

employment incident occurred on May 2, 2019, as alleged.

As appellant has established that the May 2, 2019 employment incident factually occurred, 

the question becomes whether this incident caused an injury. The Board will, therefore, remand 

the case for any necessary further development, to be followed by a de novo decision on the issue 

of whether appellant has sustained medical condition causally related to the accepted May 2, 2019 

employment incident.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that an injury

occurred in the performance of duty on May 2, 2019, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 25, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 17, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 Supra note 9.