United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MILWAUKEE POST 

OFFICE, Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0898

Issued: December 6, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 18, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 21, 2022 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 met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury in 

the performance of duty on November 18, 2021, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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 December 6, 2021 appellant, then a 61-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 18, 2021 she sustained a swollen chest and 

experienced breast pain when a “[r]oll towel cover broke off .... [d]rying hands” while in the 

performance of duty. She did not stop work. On the reverse side of the form, appellant’s 

immediate supervisor contended that the claimed injury did not occur in the performance of duty.

In a December 6, 2021 letter, an occupational health specialist for the employing 

establishment advised that it was challenging appellant’s claim because she failed to establish the 

fact of injury on November 18, 2021. The specialist related that, while drying her hands, a roll 

towel dispenser cover broke off and struck appellant, causing a swollen chest and breast pain. He 

advised that all dispenser covers are made of plastic and weigh less than three pounds.

In a December 8, 2021 note, Dr. John R. Brill, a Board-certified family medicine specialist, 

indicated that appellant had been under his care since November 18, 2021 and could perform lightduty work beginning December 13, 2021 with no overhead lifting and no lifting more than 10 

pounds. 

In a December 14, 2021 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and afforded her 

30 days to respond.

Appellant submitted a November 19, 2021 report from her visit to the hospital on that date.

Dr. Zeeshan Yacoob, a Board-certified family medicine specialist, indicated that appellant

presented on November 19, 2021 for a follow-up visit after having been hit in the chest with a 

towel rack.3 He noted that, upon physical examination, appellant exhibited tenderness to palpation 

over the right chest wall. Dr. Yacoob diagnosed muscular chest pain. 

Appellant also submitted a December 6, 2021 computerized tomography scan of her chest,

which contained an impression of no acute process within the chest. A December 21, 2022 

mammogram contained an impression of no suspicious mammographic or sonographic findings 

within either breast. 

By decision dated January 21, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she failed to establish the claimed event(s) of November 18, 2021 occurred because 

she did not provide a detailed statement of what was alleged to have happened on that date. It 

concluded that the requirements have not been met for establishing that she sustained an injury as 

defined by the 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 that an injury was sustained in the performance of 

3 A chart note indicated that the plastic case for a towel holder hit appellant on her chest at work on November 18, 

2021 and that she visited the emergency room on that date. 
3

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. 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 at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.

6

 The second component is whether the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.7 

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background, must be 

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

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment incident.8 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on November 18, 2021, as alleged.

As noted above, an employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to 

establish the essential elements of his or her claim, including that an injury was sustained in the 

performance of duty as alleged.9 Appellant did not meet her burden of proof in the present case to 

establish a November 18, 2021 employment incident because the only factual statement she 

provided to OWCP in support of her traumatic injury claim was “roll towel cover broke off .... 

drying hands.” The Board notes that this statement is vague in nature and appellant failed to 

provide, in a factual statement in her own words, a detailed account of the specific mechanism of 

the claimed November 18, 2021 employment incident. On December 14, 2021 OWCP afforded 

appellant an opportunity to clarify the factual aspect of her claim, but she did not provide any 

additional factual statements/information within the afforded period.

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 B.P., Docket No. 16-1549 (issued January 18, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

8

S.S., Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019). 

9

Supra note 4.
4

For these reasons, appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

a traumatic injury in the performance of duty on November 18, 2021, as alleged.

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

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

the performance of duty on November 18, 2021 as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 21, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 6, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board