United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CLEVELAND POST 

OFFICE, Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0828

Issued: December 22, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 7, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 15, 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 the case.

ISSUE

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on January 19, 2021, as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 20, 2021 appellant, than a 25-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA1-) alleging that on January 19, 2021 she twisted her left ankle as she was 

walking down steps at 1:00 p.m. while in the performance of duty. She explained that she finished 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

her relay and then called her supervisor. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s 

supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty and indicated that 

she stopped work on the alleged date of injury. 

In a narrative statement dated January 19, 2021, appellant explained that as she walked 

down steps she twisted her ankle and heard it pop. She finished her relay, but could not apply too 

much pressure to the left foot. After she finished her relay, appellant reported her injury to her 

manager and requested medical treatment.

Appellant submitted a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated January 19, 2021 from

Dr. Francis Aona, a Board-certified family practitioner, wherein he related that appellant was seen 

for a left ankle sprain, which occurred that day as she was descending stairs.

In a development letter dated January 26, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

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

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received medical reports dated January 21 and February 4 and 17, 2021 from

Dr. Kevin J. Kolovich, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Kolovich related that appellant 

twisted her ankle on a step when delivering mail on January 19, 2021. He explained that she was 

treated at a hospital emergency room on January 19, 2021 and was placed in an Ace wrap and air 

cast for support.

OWCP also received letters dated January 21 and February 4, 2021 from Michael W. 

Koening, a physician assistant, which stated that appellant was seen at the clinic and excused from 

work.

In a letter dated February 2, 2021, appellant’s supervisor, Postmaster K.L., controverted

appellant’s claim. She related that she had observed appellant on her route until 1:52 p.m. While 

appellant related that she twisted her ankle at approximately 1:00 p.m., she did not deliver mail to 

that address until 2:17 p.m. K.L. noted that appellant called the employing establishment at 2:40 

p.m. to report that she twisted her ankle. She related that she took photographs of appellant’s ankle 

and that appellant did not have any difficulty twisting her ankle for the photographs. K.L. also 

related that the resident did not see appellant limp nor use the steps. She submitted photographs 

of several homes with steps and pictures of appellant’s ankle.

Appellant submitted a response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, which was 

received on February 6, 2021. She attested that on January 19, 2021, after she delivered mail, and 

as she descended stairs, she twisted her ankle on the second to last step. Appellant explained that

she limped the rest of her relay and when she got back to her truck she used her telephone to call 

her supervisor, she also explained that, as she was in training, she was not allowed to carry her cell 

phone on her route. She related that she sought treatment at the hospital after her supervisor arrived 

and took pictures.

By decision dated March 15, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that appellant 

had not established that the January 19, 2021 incident occurred,as alleged. It concluded, therefore, 

that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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,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 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 and place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment 

incident caused a personal injury.6

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.7 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.8

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 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).

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

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 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).

7

See J.M., Docket No. 19-1024 (issued October 18, 2019); M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April9, 2019).

8

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

ANALYSIS

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on January 19, 2021, as alleged. 

Appellant has consistently reported that on January 19, 2021 she twisted her left ankle as 

she walked down steps while in the performance of duty. She has explained that she finished her 

relay and then called her supervisor to inform her of the injury. Appellant stated that she did not 

call right away because she was not allowed to carry her cell phone on her route as a trainee and 

her telephone was in her truck. She submitted a detailed account of the January 19, 2021 

employment incident in her response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, received on 

February 6, 2021, which was consistent with the account she provided on her claim form. The 

evidence of record also establishes that appellant thereafter sought immediate medical care on 

January 19, 2021 for her left ankle.

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

her course of action, and the medical evidence she submitted regarding her care on January 19, 

2021 and thereafter. 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.

9

 The Board, thus,finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish 

that the January 19, 2021 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.

As appellant has established that the January 19, 2021 employment incident factually 

occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 10 Since OWCP 

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

The Board, therefore, will set aside OWCP’s March 15, 2021 decision and remand the case for 

consideration of the medical evidence of record.11 After such further development as deemed 

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

of proof to establish an injury causally related to the accepted January 19, 2021 employment 

incident.

CONCLUSION

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on January 19, 2021, as alleged. The Board further 

finds that this case is not in posture for decision regarding whether she has established an injury 

causally related to the accepted January 19, 2021 employment incident.

9

See supra note 8.

10 See M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020); C.M.,Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

11 S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 15, 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: December 22, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board