United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Doylestown, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0713

Issued: July 11, 2022

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, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 12, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from October 21, 2019 and 

February 10, 2020 merit decisions 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the Board’s Rules of 

Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In support of his oral 

argument request, appellant asserted that oral argument should be granted as he was treated by a licensed practitioner

and that is why his claim was denied. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies his request for oral argument 

because this matter requires an evaluation of the medical evidence required. As such, the arguments on appeal can be 

adequately addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would further 

delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied, and 

this decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board. 
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has established a traumatic injury in the performance of duty 

on August 13, 2019 as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 3, 2019 appellant, then a 54-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 13, 2019 he injured his knee when he fell into 

a hole in a lawn while delivering mail. He stopped work on August 14, 2019. On the reverse side 

of the claim form appellant’s supervisor contended that appellant was not in the performance of 

duty when injured, asserting that appellant’s claim was in retaliation for his termination from 

employment.

In a September 6, 2019 letter of controversion, appellant’s supervisor asserted that 

appellant “appeared fine” when walking into the building the night of the alleged injury and 

submitted corroborating witness statements from three of appellant’s coworkers. He also noted 

that an onsite investigation was conducted and no holes in the property were seen. The supervisor

further contended that on August 13, 2019 appellant had received his 30-day evaluation of all 

unsatisfactory marks and it was determined that he would be released from employment. He noted 

that appellant’s last day of work was August 14, 2019, he was not notified of appellant’s alleged 

injury until August 26, 2019, and the Form CA-1 was not filed until September 5, 2019. 

In an August 23, 2019 letter, appellant explained that he was injured on August 13, 2019 

while delivering mail at a specific address. He noted that the injury occurred at approximately 

6:00 p.m. when he was crossing a lawn to deliver mail to the next residence. As he walked across 

the lawn, appellant “stumbled into a hole or crevice in the ground and hit the ground with extensive 

force landing on [his] knees before falling completely on the lawn.” He related that he was able 

to stand and continue to the next house before returning to his vehicle, but the next day awoke to 

“intense and excruciating knee pain.” Appellant explained that he did not call off work because 

he was only scheduled to attend a safety refresher course that day. After the class ended, he sought 

treatment at an urgent care facility. 

In an accompanying affidavit dated September 13, 2019, appellant again asserted that on 

August 13, 2019 he was assigned to Doylestown City Route 5 and that, at approximately 5:45 p.m.

on that date, he walked across a lawn to deliver mail. He explained that, at approximately 6:00 

p.m., having delivered the mail at that particular address, he was walking back across the lawn 

“when [his] right leg dropped into a hole, crevice, or divot, at which time [he] lost [his] balance 

and fell forcefully against the ground.” After the fall, appellantlaid startled by the force for several 

seconds, but was then able to stand and cautiously continue his work. The next day, he awoke to 

excruciating pain and swelling in his right knee. Although he was in pain, appellant sought 

treatment at an urgent care facility where he was diagnosed with a right knee contusion. His knee 

was immobilized in a brace and he was given discharge and follow-up instructions. Appellant

continued to experience intense pain and swelling in his right knee, such that he could not walk. 

On August 23, 2019 he was transported by ambulance to a hospital. 
3

In support of his claim, appellant submitted medical evidence including reports dated

August 14 and 21, 2019 from Gretchen L. O’Donnell and Christina S. Knecht, physician 

assistants. Ms. O’Donnell reported that on August 13, 2019 he fell into a hole in a yard while 

delivering mail. She diagnosed right knee contusion. Ms. Knecht repeated these findings and 

provided work restrictions. 

Discharge instructions dated August 23, 2019 documented that appellant sought medical 

attention at an emergency room for right knee pain. Dr. Anne Marie Kuchera, an osteopath, treated 

him and diagnosed right knee injury. 

Multiple right knee x-rays dated August 23, 2019 showed progressive narrowing of the 

joint space consistent with multi-compartmental osteoarthritis. These x-rays also demonstrated

moderate-to-severe multi-compartmental right knee osteoarthritis, which had developed since 

2008 as well as a small suprapatellar effusion.

On September 10, 2019 appellant underwent a right knee magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan, which demonstrated severe degeneration and tearing of the posterior horn of the lateral 

meniscus, as well as very extensive full-thickness cartilage wear with mild subchondral bone 

marrow edema. The MRI scan also demonstrated small tear of the medial meniscus and partial 

thickness cartilage wear and severe partial-thickness cartilage wear in the patellofemoral 

compartment. The MRI scan further demonstrated large tri-compartmental osteophytes causing 

severe impingement on the anterior cruciate ligament, multiple ossific bodies, and joint effusion.

In a September 16, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

Appellant subsequently submitted a September 25, 2019 response, wherein he provided 

additional details further describing the alleged employment incident. He noted the location of the 

alleged incident and reiterated that he was carrying mail alone while in the performance of duty 

on the date of injury. Appellant asserted that his prior statement was a truthful, accurate account 

of his injury and disputed the statements provided by the employing establishment. 

On September 26, 2019 Dr. Matthew Lorei, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

completed an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) and described appellant’s history of 

falling on a lawn while delivering mail. He diagnosed degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the 

right knee. Dr. Lorei checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that this condition was caused or 

aggravated by appellant’s employment activities.

By decision dated October 21, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,

finding that he failed to submit medical opinion evidence establishing that his diagnosed DJD of 

the right knee was causally related to the accepted August 13, 2019 employment incident.

On November 12, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. He argued that the August 14 

and 21, 2019 reports of Ms. O’Donnell and Ms. Knecht were competent to establish causal 

relationship between his diagnosed conditions and the August 13, 2019 employment incident. 

Appellantresubmitted the August 14 and 21, 2019 reports and provided copies of state regulations 

regarding physician assistants.
4

By decision dated February 10, 2020, OWCP modified its October 21, 2019 decision to 

find that appellant had not established that the August 13, 2019 employment incident occurred as 

alleged. Thus, it concluded that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined 

by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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,3that 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.4 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.5

To determine if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Generally, fact of 

injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The 

first component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that 

allegedly occurred.6 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.7

To establish that an injury occurred as alleged, the injury need not be confirmed by 

eyewitnesses, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the surrounding facts and 

circumstances and his or her subsequent course of action.8 In determining whether a case has been 

established, such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury, and 

failure to obtain medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast serious doubt on the 

employee’s statements. The employee has not met his or her burden when there are such 

inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt on the validity of the claim. 9 An 

3

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 T.M., Docket No. 19-0380 (issued June 26, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

S.W., Docket No. 17-0261(issued May 24, 2017).

9 D.F., Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 17, 2022); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).
5

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. 10

ANALYSIS

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on August 13, 2019 as alleged.

On his September 3, 2019 Form CA-1, appellant alleged that on August 13, 2019 he injured 

his knee when he fell into a hole in a lawn while delivering mail. He stopped work on 

August 14, 2019. In an August 23, 2019 letter, appellant explained that he was injured on 

August 13, 2019 while delivering mail at a specific address. He noted that the injury occurred at 

approximately 6:00 p.m. when he was crossing a lawn to deliver mail to the next residence. As 

appellant walked across the lawn, he “stumbled into a hole or crevice in the ground and hit the 

ground with extensive force landing on [his] knees before falling completely on the lawn. ” He

related that he was able to stand and continue to the next house before returning to his vehicle, but 

the next day awoke to “intense and excruciating knee pain.” Appellant explained that he did not 

take a day off work because he was only scheduled to attend a safety refresher course that day. 

After the class ended, he sought treatment at an urgent care facility. 

In an accompanying affidavit dated September 13, 2019, appellant again asserted that on 

August 13, 2019 he was assigned to Doylestown City Route 5 and that, at approximately 5:45 p.m.

on that date, he walked across a lawn to deliver mail. He explained that, at approximately 6:00 

p.m., having delivered the mail at that particular address, he was walking back across the lawn 

“when [his] right leg dropped into a hole, crevice, or divot, at which time [he] lost [his] balance 

and fell forcefully against the ground.” After the fall, appellantlaid startled by the force for several 

seconds, but was then able to stand and cautiously continue his work. The next day, he awoke to 

excruciating pain and swelling in his right knee. Although he was in pain, ap pellant sought 

treatment at an urgent care facility where he was diagnosed with a right knee contusion. His knee 

was immobilized in a brace and he was given discharge and follow-up instructions. Appellant

continued to experience intense pain and swelling in his right knee, such that he could not walk. 

On August 23, 2019 he was transported by ambulance to a hospital. 

Appellant also submitted medical evidence, including August 14 and 21, 2019 reports from 

physician assistants, relating his history of injury. 

As explained above, to establish that an injury occurred as alleged, the injury need not be 

confirmed by eyewitnesses, but the employee’s statements must be consistent with the surrounding 

facts and circumstances and his or her subsequent course of action.11 An employee’s statements 

10 D.F., id.;see also M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67(2007).

11 Supra note 8. 
6

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

Appellant has consistently stated that on August 13, 2019 he injured his knee when he fell 

into a hole in a lawn while delivering mail. There are no inconsistences that cast serious doubt on 

appellant’s claim. The Board, thus, finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish 

that a traumatic incident occurred in the performance of duty on August 13, 2019, as alleged.

As appellant has established that an incident occurred in the performance of duty on 

August 13, 2019 as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 13 As 

OWCP found that he had not established fact of injury, it did not evaluate the medical evidence. 

The case must, therefore, be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence of record.14 After 

this and other 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 August 13, 2019 employment incident, and payment for any attendant disability.

CONCLUSION

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on August 13, 2019 as alleged. The Board, however,

further finds that the case is not in posture for decision with regard to causal relationship. 

12 D.F., supra note 9; see also M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-

67 (2007).

13 D.F., id.; M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020);C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

14 D.F., id.; L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016);Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 21, 2019 and February 10, 2020 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside. The case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: July 11, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board