United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.C., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION,

Yuma, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1513

Issued: June 3, 2021

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, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 5, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 25, 2020 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 has met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on April 22, 2020, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the June 25, 2020 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 May 13, 2020 appellant, then a 32-year-old border patrol agent, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 22, 2020 he sustained a left wrist injury when he fell 

from an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and landed on his left wrist while in the performance of duty. 

On the reverse side of the claim form C.F., an employing establishment supervisor, asserted that 

appellant was not in the performance of his duties at the time of the injury because he fell off his 

ATV while “pushing a sign.” Appellant did not stop work.

In a May 13, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received no 

evidence in support of his traumatic injury claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence required and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP also requested a 

narrative medical report from appellant’s treating physician containing a detailed description of 

findings and a diagnosis, explaining how his work activities caused, contributed to, or aggravated 

his medical conditions. It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No additional 

evidence was received.

By decision dated June 25, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had not 

established the factual component of his claim, as he had not responded to the May 13, 2020 

development letter. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,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 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 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 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).

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

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

time, place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident 

caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical evidence.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 substantial 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

ANALYSIS

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

injury in the performance of duty on April 22, 2020, as alleged.

In his Form CA-1, appellant indicated that on April 22, 2020 he injured his left wrist when 

he fell off his ATV while in the performance of duty. He did not submit a detailed account of the 

alleged injury or any additional corroborating factual evidence describing how he sustained an 

injury on April 22, 2020. The Board has found that such a vague recitation of facts does not 

support a claimant’s allegation that a specific event occurred to cause a work-related injury.10

OWCP, in its May 13, 2020 development letter, informed appellant of the type of factual 

and medical evidence needed to establish his traumatic injury claim. It requested that he complete 

an attached questionnaire and provide a detailed factual description of the alleged employment

incident. Appellant, however, did not respond to OWCP’s development letter. He neither 

presented evidence regarding the specific mechanism of injury, as required in a claim for traumatic 

injury, nor did he allege that he experienced a specific event, incident, or exposure at a definite 

time, place, and in a definite manner.11

As there is no evidence of record to substantiate an injury in the performance of duty on 

April 22, 2020, as alleged, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof. 

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.

 

7 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).

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

9 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

10 M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); M.B., Docket No. 11-1785 (issued February 15, 2012).

11 Id.; see also Tracey P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).
4

CONCLUSION

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

injury in the performance of duty on April 22, 2020, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 25, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 3, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board