United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Roanoke, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1749

Issued: September 9, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 August 19, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 5, 2019 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that a right ankle

injury occurred in the performance of duty on July 9, 2018 as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 13, 2018 appellant, then a 33-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 9, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. he sprained his right ankle 

when walking on a walkway while in the performance of duty. He explained that he stepped on 

an unsecured stone, which flipped and caused him to roll his ankle and fall to the ground. 

Appellant noted that he was in pain and tried to walk it off, but after the pain continued, he called 

his immediate supervisor to report the injury. On the reverse side of the claim form, his supervisor 

acknowledged that appellant was in the performance of duty when the injury occurred and 

provided a statement explaining that he stepped on a stone step that rocked over and caused him 

to roll his ankle. Appellant stopped work on September 13, 2018. 

In a September 13, 2018 occupational medicine report of injury, Dr. Joseph Coates, Boardcertified in family medicine, noted that appellant rolled his right ankle while delivering mail on 

July 9, 2018. He diagnosed a right anterior tibialis sprain. In an attending physician’s report (Form 

CA-20) of even date, Dr. Coates diagnosed a right ankle sprain and right anterior tibialis sprain as 

a result of rolling his ankle in July 2018. He checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that 

appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by the employment activity described to him. In 

a September 13, 2018 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Coates provided work restrictions in 

relation to appellant’s injuries.

In a September 14, 2018 medical note, Dr. Marc Platt, a Board-certified podiatrist, 

discussed the pain appellant experienced in his lower leg and ankle. He diagnosed a moderate 

right ankle sprain with a possible syndesmotic injury. Dr. Platt provided a sports ankle brace to 

support his ankle and recommended that he remain out of work for an additional two and a half 

weeks as he underwent physical therapy. In a medical note of even date, he advised that appellant 

remain out of work due to the July 9, 2018 right ankle and lower leg injury. 

Appellant also submitted a position description detailing his duties and responsibilities as 

a city carrier.

In a development letter dated October 2, 2018, 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 to provide further details 

regarding the circumstances of the claimed July 9, 2018 employment incident. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. Appellant did not respond to the development 

questionnaire. 

OWCP received a September 13, 2018 progress note from Dr. Coatesin which he discussed 

appellant’s July 9, 2018 right ankle injury and noted that he experienced immediate pain and 

swelling as a result. Appellant informed him that he had rolled his right ankle in July while 

delivering mail when he stepped off a porch onto an unsecured rock slate, that he kept on working, 
3

but it had started to cause him a lot of pain. Dr. Coates noted that he indicated that he had no prior 

problems with his ankle. He diagnosed right ankle pain due to a work-related injury and opined 

that he likely suffered an ankle sprain two months prior. 

In a September 13, 2018 diagnostic report, Dr. Ricardo Riego de Dios, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, performed an x-ray of appellant’s right ankle which revealed no evidence 

of an effusion, fracture, or dislocation. 

In a September 14, 2018 medical report, Dr. Platt recounted appellant’s history of injury to

his right ankle on July 9, 2018 when he was walking on the job and stepped on a slate rock that 

moved, causing him to slip and twist his ankle. Appellant indicated that he immediately called the 

employing establishment, informed them of his injury, and was told that, if he came back without 

completing his route, he would be fired. He reported that he therefore stayed on his route. Upon 

evaluation, Dr. Platt diagnosed a moderate right ankle sprain and provided him with a plan of 

treatment for his injury. 

In a September 24, 2018 medical report, Anna Weaver, a nurse practitioner, and Nancy

Huffman, a registered nurse, noted that appellant injured his right ankle on July 9, 2018 while he 

was at work when he stepped on slate stone and his ankle rotated. It was also noted that appellant 

had pain and swelling since his injury.

In a September 27, 2018 physical therapy note, Ashley Kopso, a physical therapist, 

discussed appellant’s progress with treatment in relation to his moderate right ankle sprain and 

related symptoms. 

In October 5, 2018 medical reports, Dr. Platt noted that he had reevaluated appellant’s right 

ankle and his injury had improved with physical therapy and ice. He recommended that appellant 

continue his physical therapy, continue to use his ankle brace, and advised that he remain out of 

work until he was to be reevaluated at the end of October. 

By decision dated November 5, 2018, 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 explained that he had not provided additional factual information with regard to the 

immediate effect of his injury, what he did immediately after his injury, and whether he had any 

other conditions or disabilities prior to the date of injury. OWCP noted that appellant had not 

provided information regarding the late submission of his claim. It also found that he had not 

submitted medical evidence to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the 

claimed work injury or event. 

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. Physical therapy notes dated from 

October 1 to 10, 2018, detailed appellant’s treatment for his moderate right ankle sprain. 

On April 19, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

November 5, 2018 decision. Attached to his reconsideration request, he submitted a series of 

medical reports dated from November 1 to December 12, 2018 from Dr. Platt. In his reports,

Dr. Platt noted treatment for appellant’s right ankle injury. These notes indicated that appellant 

informed Dr. Platt that his supervisor stated that he needed to be 100 percent healed before he 

could return to work without restrictions. An attached November 27, 2018 magnetic resonance 
4

imaging scan of appellant’s right ankle revealed synovitis of the posterior tibial tendon and 

peroneus longus tendon. In his December 12, 2018 report, Dr. Platt opined that appellant would 

be able to return to work without restrictions as of that day. 

By decision dated June 5, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.

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 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 subsequent course of action.10 

The employee has not met his burden of proof in establishing the occurrence of an injury when 

 

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); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

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).
5

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 sufficient doubt on an employee’s statements in determining 

whether a prima facie case has been established.12 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.13

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that the July 9, 2018 

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

Appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that he sustained a right ankle injury on 

the morning of July 9, 2018 when he rolled his ankle and fell to the ground while in the 

performance of duty. He has provided a single account of the mechanism of injury which has not 

been refuted by any evidence of record. As noted, 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.14 On the reverse side of his claim form, appellant’s 

supervisor acknowledged that the alleged injury occurred in the performance of duty and indicated

that his knowledge of the facts about the injury agreed with appellant’s statement that he rolled his 

ankle when he stepped on a stone step that rocked over causing him to fall to the ground. 

Contemporaneous medical reports from Drs. Coates and Platt consistently noted that appellant was 

treated for a work-related right ankle injury that had been sustained on July 9, 2018 when he rolled 

his ankle on a stone while delivering mail. The Board therefore finds that appellant has established 

that the July 9, 2018 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

As appellant has established that the July 9, 2018 employment incident occurred in the 

performance of duty as alleged, the question becomes whether this incident caused an injury.15 As 

OWCP found that appellant had not established fact of injury, it did not evaluate the medical 

evidence. Thus, the Board will set aside OWCP’s June 5, 2019 decision and remand the case for 

consideration of the medical evidence of record.16 After such further development as deemed 

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

of proof to establish an injury causally related to the accepted July 9, 2018 employment incident.17

 

11 See E.C., Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019).

12 P.M., Docket No. 15-1338 (issued September 13, 2016).

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

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017).

17 P.S., Docket No. 19-1818 (issued April 14, 2020).
6

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that the July 9, 2018

employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. The Board further finds that 

this case is not in posture for decision, however, with regard to whether he has established an injury 

causally related to the accepted July 9, 2018 employment incident. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 5, 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: September 9, 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