United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0425

Issued: July 29, 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 January 28, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 18, 2021 merit 

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

Employees’ Compensation Act1 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 her burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on January 28, 2021, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the August 18, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 February 6, 2021 appellant, then a 30-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that at 5:58 p.m. on January 28, 2021 she sustained a left ankle sprain 

when she slipped on black ice on stairs while delivering mail in the performance of duty. On the 

reverse side of the claim form her supervisor noted her regular work hours as 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. and acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. 

In a note dated January 28, 2021, appellant related that, at 5:58 p.m. on that date, she 

slipped on ice while delivering to a home. As she descended stairs, she slipped and landed on her 

left ankle incorrectly. 

In a medical report dated January 29, 2021, Dr. Maria Vlahos, Board-certified in 

occupational medicine, noted that appellant was seen that day after appellant slipped on a step and 

rolled her ankle on the previous day. Dr. Vlahos diagnosed left ankle sprain. On an accompanying

duty status report (Form CA-17),she repeated her diagnosis and advised that appellant was released 

to return to work that day with restrictions. 

On March 4, 2021 the employing establishment offered appellant a modified limited-duty 

assignment due to her employment injury. 

On July 8, 2021 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from 

work during the period June 5 through July 2, 2021. 

In a development letter dated July 12, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary and provided a 

factual questionnaire for her completion. 

In a July 12, 2021 response, appellantstated that she was injured on January 28, 2021 while 

she was at work, delivering mail. She also indicated that her ankle injury had not healed and may 

require surgery. 

By decision dated August 18, 2021, OWCP accepted that the January 28, 2021 incident 

occurred as alleged and that appellant sustained diagnosed medical conditions, but denied her 

claim, finding that the claimed incident did not occur in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

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 

3

Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

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

The phrase “sustained while in the performance of duty” has been interpreted by the Board 

to be the equivalent of the commonly found prerequisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising 

out of and in the course of employment.”

7

 To arise in the course of employment, in general, an 

injury must occur: (1) at a time when the employee may reasonably be stated to be engaged in the 

master’s business; (2) at a place when he or she may reasonably be expected to be in connection 

with his or her employment; and (3) while he or she was reasonably fulfilling the duties of his or 

her employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.8 In deciding whether an injury 

is covered by FECA, the test is whether, under all the circumstances presented, causal relationship 

exists between the employment itself, or the conditions under which it is required to be performed, 

and the resultant injury.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

Whether an injury occurs in the performance of duty is a preliminary issue to be addressed 

before the remaining merits of the claim are adjudicated.10 Appellant indicated in her February 10, 

2021 claim form that, while delivering to a home, she injured her left ankle slipping on icy stairs 

at 5:58 p.m. on January 28, 2021 while in the performance of duty. She described the same 

circumstances in a statement dated January 28, 2021. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisor noted her regular work hours as 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; however, she 

acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. The Board finds that OWCP 

has not adequately developed this aspect of appellant’s claim.

In a July 12, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her 

claim. It advise her of the type of additional factual and medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP did not, however, send a development letter to the 

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); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 C.L., Docket No. 19-1985 (issued May 12, 2020); S.F., Docket No. 09-2172 (issued August 23, 2010); Valerie C. 

Boward, 50 ECAB 126 (1998).

8

S.V., Docket No. 18-1299 (issued November 5, 2019); RomaA. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418 (2006); Mary 

Keszler, 38 ECAB 735, 739 (1987).

9

J.N., Docket No. 19-0045 (issued June3, 2019); M.W., Docket No. 15-0474 (issued September 20, 2016); Mark 

Love, 52 ECAB 490 (2001).

10 S.T., Docket No. 20-0388 (issued September 16, 2020); T.H., Docket No. 17-0747 (issued May 14, 2018); P.L., 

Docket No. 16-0631 (issued August9, 2016); see also M.D., Docket No. 17-0086 (issued August 3, 2017).
4

employing establishment asking it to provide further specific information about the factual aspects 

of appellant’s claim. 

OWCP’s procedures note that, by the nature of their work, letter carriers are on the 

premises of the employer for only part of each working day and it follows that many of their 

injuries are sustained away from the industrial premises.11 The procedures advise that “it is neither 

necessary nor practicable to develop the evidence in all cases as fully as is required for the injuries 

sustained by other kinds of off-premises workers. No additional evidence is needed if the [claims 

examiner] can reasonably conclude from the evidence on the notice of injury combined with other 

material in the file that the employee was performing assigned duties when the injury occurred.”

12

 

OWCP further notes that “If it appears questionable that the employee was in the course of 

employment when injured, the official superior should be asked to submit: (a) A statement with 

full explanation showing specifically whether the employee was in the performance of duty when 

the injury occurred, and whether at the time of injury the employee had deviated from the proper 

route for personal reasons; and (b) A diagram showing the location of the accident in relation to 

the route of travel the employee was to follow to perform the assigned duty.”

13

As OWCP failed to request information from the employing establishment as required 

under its procedures, the Board will remand the case for OWCP to further develop the question of 

whether appellant was in the performance of duty when injured on January 28, 2021. On remand 

it shall obtain all relevant information from the employing establishment necessary to determine 

whether she was injured in the performance of duty at 5:58 p.m. on January 28, 2021 while 

delivering to a home. Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, 

OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.5(c).

12 Id.

13 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 18, 2021 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: July 29, 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