United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1328

Issued: April 18, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 1, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 29, 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 this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on June 16, 2021, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 24, 2021 appellant, then a 49-year-old postal support employee, filed an

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he had sustained a “traumatic injury”

causing a hiatal hernia while in the performance of duty. He noted that he first became aware of 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

his condition and realized its relation to his federal employment on June 16, 2021. Appellant 

stopped work that day.

Appellant submitted a statement dated June 16, 2021, in which he alleged that early in midMay he began having mild pain in his lower abdomen which gradually worsened. He attested that 

one day he could not report to work as his pain was severe; however, the employing establishment

did not answer his calls when he attempted to call in sick. Appellant later advised his supervisor

that he would be undergoing surgery related to his hernia which he alleged was caused by lifting

at work.

In a development letter dated June 25, 2021, 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, requesting that he clarify whether he was alleging a traumatic 

injury or an occupational disease. By separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested 

additional information from the employing establishment, including comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor regarding appellant’s allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to 

respond. 

By letter dated July 6, 2021, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. 

Specifically, itstated that he had not informed them of his alleged injury until June 16, 2021. The 

employing establishment stated that appellant’s duties included unloading the line as well as 

pushing and pulling full and empty containers. 

In a July 7, 2021 response to OWCP’s development letter, appellant clarified that he 

wanted to file a traumatic injury claim and attested that his job required him to lift, push, and pull 

very heavy container equipment. Appellant asserted that he did not have any other jobs, nor did

he perform any strenuous activities outside of his job. 

In a medical report dated May 21, 2021, Dr. Charles R. Gruner, a Board-certified general 

surgeon, indicated that he saw appellantin a follow-up appointment and diagnosed a non-recurrent 

unilateral inguinal hernia and epididymitis. He recommended surgical repair for appellant’s left 

inguinal hernia. 

OWCP received a report dated June 16, 2021 from Dr. Gruner, which relatedthat appellant

was two weeks out from his left inguinal hernia repair and was doing well. 

By decision dated July 29, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that as the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the claimed events occurred as described. 

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 

2

Id.
3

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. The first component is that 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 and can be established only by medical 

evidence.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

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on June 16, 2021, as alleged. 

Appellant filed an occupational disease claim on June 24, 2021 wherein he alleged that he 

had sustained a traumatic injury causing a hernia. He noted that he first became aware of his 

condition and realized its relation to his federal employment on June 16, 2021. In response to 

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

OWCP’s development letter, appellant clarified that he was filing a traumatic injury claim, but he 

did not provide a date or description of the alleged incident. The Board finds, however, that 

appellant’s description of the traumatic injury is imprecise and vague and fails to provide any 

specific detail or evidence establishing that an employment incident occurred as alleged.9 

The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has not established an injury in the performance 

of duty. 

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 Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the

performance of duty on June 16, 2021, as alleged. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 29, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 18, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

9

See J.B., Docket No. 19-1487 (issued January 14, 2020); W.C., Docket No. 18-1651 (issued March 7, 2019); see 

also C.M., Docket No. 17-0627 (issued June28, 2017).