United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Des Moines, IA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0600

Issued: August 31, 2021

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 March 8, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 19, 2021 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 his burden of proof to establish that a traumatic 

incident occurred in the performance of duty on December 16, 2020, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the February 19, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “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 January 5, 2021 appellant, then a 39-year-old rural carrier associate filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 16, 2020 he cracked his ribs when he lost 

control of his vehicle on an icy road and was involved in a motor vehicle accident while in the 

performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s supervisor, E.M.,

acknowledged that appellant was injured while in the performance of duty and noted that his 

knowledge of the facts about the injury conformed with appellant’s statements. Appellant stopped 

work and sought medical treatment on the alleged date of injury.

In a continuation of pay (COP) nurse report dated January 11, 2021, Cynthia Coleman, a

registered nurse, indicated that appellant stopped work on December 16, 2020 after he was 

involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident and was medically treated. Ms. Coleman 

contacted him by telephone and was informed that he continued to have pain in the right rib area 

and indicated that he could not move his right arm. Appellant reported not being able to work due 

to pain and also because he did not have a car due to his motor vehicle accident. Ms. Coleman 

communicated with appellant’s supervisor, E.M. on January 7, 2021 who noted that appellant was 

released to work on December 23, 2020 pursuant to the medical records received, but had car 

issues since appellant’s work vehicle was damaged in the motor vehicle accident. She noted that 

the COP case would be closed as appellant had not returned to work. 

In a development letter dated January 14, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to provide the necessary information. No response was received.

By decision dated February 19, 2021, 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 concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to 

establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has 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 Supra note 1.

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); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).
3

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

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 in establishing the occurrence of an 

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

the claim.11 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 prima facie case has been established. 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

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

employment incident occurred in the performance of duty on December 16, 2020, as alleged.

The record establishes that on December 16, 2020 appellant lost control of his vehicle on 

an icy road and had a motor vehicle accident while in the performance of duty. He reported 

sustaining a rib injury. Appellant’s supervisor, E.M., acknowledged on the Form CA-1 that 

appellant’s injury occurred in the performance of duty and that his knowledge of the facts about 

this injury conformed with the statements of the employee. Additionally, in a COP nurse report 

 

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).

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

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

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

11 See V.J., Docket No. 19-1600 (issued March 13, 2020); E.C., Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019).

12 See M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).
4

dated January 11, 2021, Ms. Coleman, the interventional nurse, noted that appellant stopped work 

on December 16, 2020 after he was involved in a motor vehicle accident at work and was medically 

treated. Appellant reported continued pain in the right rib area and indicated that he could not 

move his right arm. Ms. Coleman reported communicating with appellant’s supervisor, E.M., on 

January 7, 2021 who noted that appellant was released to work on December 23, 2020 pursuant to 

the medical records received, but appellant had car issues since his work vehicle was damaged in 

the accident. 

The injuries appellant claimed are consistent with the facts and circumstances he set forth, 

statements from supervisor, and his course of action. As noted above, the 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.13 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.14 The Board thus finds that 

appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that the December 16, 2020 employment incident 

occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.

As appellant has established that the December 16, 2020 employment incident factually 

occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury.15 As OWCP 

found that he had not established an employment incident, the case will be remanded for OWCP 

to determine whether appellant sustained an injury casually related to the accepted employment 

incident. Following any further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision.

CONCLUSION

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

December 16, 2020 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. The 

Board further finds that the case is not in posture for decision regarding whether appellant 

sustained an injury causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

 

13 Supra note 10.

14 See supra note 12.

15 See M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April 10, 2020); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 19, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: August 31, 2021

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