United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Honesdale, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0314

Issued: June 30, 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

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 22, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 18, 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

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on October 6, 2019, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its November 18, 2019 decision. 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 8, 2019 appellant, then a 47-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on the morning of October 6, 2019 she pulled a muscle 

under her left shoulder blade while in the performance of duty. She explained that her injury 

occurred when she was lifting a package marked as heavy out of her long-life vehicle (LLV) to 

deliver to a client’s porch. Appellant indicated that she pulled a muscle under her left shoulder 

blade and experienced muscle spasms as a result. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s 

supervisor acknowledged that she was injured in the performance of duty, but controverted 

appellant’s claim as she had not submitted any medical evidence in support of her claim. Appellant 

did not stop work.

In an attached personal statement of even date, appellant explained that during the morning 

of October 6, 2019 she was delivering a package, but could not recall the address where she 

delivered it. The package was marked as heavy and when she tried to lift it out of her LLV, she 

felt a pull in her back. Appellant completed her work and used ice, heat, and ibuprofen to treat her 

pain that day, as well as the following day. When she returned to work on October 8, 2019, she

tried to lift a tote to place in her vehicle when she experienced back spasms. After completing her 

route, appellant notified her postmaster of her injury. 

In a development letter dated October 15, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

establish her claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion regarding the events and 

circumstances surrounding the alleged October 6, 2019 employment incident. OWCP also

requested further information concerning appellant’s October 8, 2019 injury. It afforded her 30 

days to provide the necessary information. 

In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment provide additional information regarding appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of appellant’s 

statements, as well as a record of her deliveries made on October 6, 2019. It afforded the 

employing establishment 30 days to respond. 

In an October 8, 2019 medical report, Dr. Ramesh Pandit, Board-certified in internal 

medicine, reported that appellant presented with back pain that began two days prior after turning 

and lifting a heavy package while delivering mail. He diagnosed thoracic back pain and opined 

that her injury was likely a sprain. Dr. Pandit provided appellant with treatment instructions and 

recommended she stay out of work for a week. 

Physical therapy treatment notes dated October 10 and 14, 2019 noted evaluations of 

appellant for pain in her thoracic spine. Appellant described the October 6, 2019 incident in which 

she picked up a heavy object and turned to the right when she first felt a pull in her upper back. 

She subsequently felt spasms in her back on October 8, 2019 when she went to load a tote into her 

vehicle. 

In an October 15, 2019 medical report, Dr. Pandit reported that appellant’s thoracic back 

pain had improved with treatment, but had not returned to baseline. 
3

In an October 16, 2019 duty status report (Form CA-17) with an illegible signature,

appellant was diagnosed with thoracic back pain. Her injury was described as a sprain that 

occurred while she was lifting a box/mail. 

In physical therapy treatment notes dated October 16 and 18, 2019, provided updates for 

the treatment of appellant’s thoracic back pain. 

In an October 21, 2019 diagnostic report, Dr. Peter Furicchia, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, performed an x-ray of appellant’s thoracic spine and noted that she had been 

experiencing pain in her back after lifting something heavy on October 6, 2019. He found no 

evidence of an acute fracture and provided that her x-ray was otherwise unremarkable. 

In an October 21, 2019 medical report, Dr. Pandit evaluated appellant during a follow-up 

appointment related to her back pain. He explained that her symptoms had since resolved with 

therapy and treatment. In a medical note of even date, Dr. Pandit cleared appellant to return to 

work without restrictions. 

In an October 22, 2019 letter, the employing establishment noted that appellant’s inability 

to recall the address, time, or weight of the package she alleged caused her injury cast doubt on

the validity of her claim. It also argued that the medical evidence she submitted was insufficient

to establish her claim as it failed to provide a diagnosis or a well-reasoned medical opinion as to 

how her claimed injury was work related. 

By decision dated November 18, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the injury and/or events 

occurred as he described. It explained that appellant had not provided a response to its 

development questionnaire and had not otherwise established the time or location of her injury or 

the size and weight of the object she was handling. OWCP further noted that she had not submitted 

medical evidence that established a diagnosed medical condition causally related to an 

employment injury or event and, therefore, fact of injury had not been established.

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 

 

3

Id.

4

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).

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).
4

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 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.10 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish the occurrence of an 

injury when there are inconsistencies in the evidence that 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 sufficient doubt on an employee’s 

statements in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.11 An employee’s 

statements 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.12

Second, the employee must submit medical evidence to establish that the employment 

incident caused a personal injury.13

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.14 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable 

medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the 

 

6 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).

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 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667, 67-71 (1987).

11 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002); L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016).

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

13 A.D., Docket No. 17-1855 (issued February 26, 2018); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

14 A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).
5

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by 

the claimant.15

ANALYSIS

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

October 6, 2019 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

Appellant’s October 8, 2019 Form CA-1 alleged that she pulled a muscle under her left 

shoulder blade and experienced muscle spasms after lifting a heavy package out of her LLV on 

the morning of October 6, 2019. 

In her October 6, 2019 statement, appellant explained that she felt a pull in her back that

morning after lifting a package marked as “heavy.” After returning to work on October 8, 2019 

and experiencing back spasms, she notified her postmaster of her injury claim. Appellant also 

reported the date and mechanism of the claimed October 6, 2019 injury in a consistent manner to 

her medical providers. In medical reports dated from October 8 to 21, 2019, Dr. Pandit indicated 

that he evaluated appellant for back pain related to an October 6, 2019 incident in which she turned 

and lifted a heavy package while she was at work. Further, in Dr. Furicchia’s October 21, 2019 

diagnostic report, he noted that appellant’s thoracic back pain was due to an October 6, 2019 

incident in which she lifted something heavy. Appellant also submitted physical therapy treatment 

notes dated from October 10 to 18, 2019 in which she was evaluated for her thoracic back pain 

related to the October 6, 2019 employment incident in which she lifted a heavy package and turned 

right. 

Appellant’s description of the employment incident is not contradicted by her medical 

reports or any other evidence of record. While she did not recall the exact time of her injury, 

appellant consistently contended that her injury occurred during the morning of October 6, 2019 

when she lifted a heavy package out of her LLV. Moreover, she contemporaneously sought 

medical treatment after the claimed employment incident. Appellant’s description of the 

employment incident is not contradicted by her medical reports or any other evidence of record. 

The employing establishment contended that appellant had not provided the address, time, or 

weight of the package that caused her injury, however it never disputed that the injury occurred,

and on the reverse side of appellant’s Form CA-1, it acknowledged that appellant was injured 

while in the performance of duty. Appellant’s account of the alleged incident is consistent with 

the surrounding facts and circumstances and her subsequent course of action does not cast doubt 

on the validity of the claim. Thus, the Board finds that given the above-referenced evidence, she 

has alleged with specificity that the incident occurred at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged.16

 

15 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).

16 D.R., Docket No. 19-0072 (issued June 24, 2019).
6

As appellant has established that the October 6, 2019 employment incident factually 

occurred, the issue is thus whether this accepted incident caused an injury.17 The Board will, 

therefore, set aside OWCP’s November 18, 2019 decision and remand the case for consideration 

of the medical evidence. Following this and other such further development as may deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision addressing whether appellant has met her burden 

of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted employment 

incident.18

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has established that the October 6, 2019 employment 

incident occurred, as alleged. The Board further finds that the case is not in posture for decision 

with regard to whether appellant has established an injury causally related to the accepted 

employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 18, 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: June 30, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

17 Supra note 13.

18 Id.