United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Coppell, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1370

Issued: February 7, 2023

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 September 13, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from May 17 and August 27, 2021 

merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

1 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of appellant’s oral argument request, appellant asserted that oral argument should be granted because there 

were no witnesses to his claimed injury and he disagreed with the basis for the employing establishment’s challenge. 

The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s request for oral argument because the arguments on appeal 

can adequately be addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would 

further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied 

and this decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on March 15, 2021, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 5, 2021 appellant, then a 57-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on March 15, 2021 he injured his right knee when he pulled a muscle 

when getting into a mail truck while in the performance of duty. He reported that the pain persisted 

that night and in the following days, but he continued working. By March 22, 2021, the pain had

worsened and appellant told his supervisor that he needed to see a physician. On the reverse side 

of the claim form, his manager, M.S., acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance 

of duty. However, she challenged the factual basis of his claim, asserting that, when he reported 

his injury, he told her that he was calling in about his knee, but he told his supervisor that his eyes 

were irritated. Appellant stopped work on April 8, 2021. 

In an April 12, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence required and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

In a March 24, 2021 report, Dr. Ronnie Shade, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,

related that appellant sustained a traumatic work injury on March 15, 2021. He reported that 

appellant was getting into the postal vehicle while performing his regular employment duties and 

pulled a muscle in his right knee, followed by throbbing pain, sharp spasms, and weakness in that 

knee. Appellant reported that his knee pain worsened that night and reported the injury to his 

supervisor the next day. Dr. Shade related appellant’s ongoing symptoms, including throbbing 

pain, swelling, stiffness, and a sensation of giving way in the knee, and noted that appellant was 

unable to carry out his work duties. His examination of the right knee revealed medial joint line 

tenderness, effusion, and bilateral pretibial edema to the lower extremities. An x-ray scan of the 

right knee taken on March 24, 2021 revealed squaring of the condyle with a small lateral femoral 

condyle osteophyte. Dr. Shade diagnosed sprain, medial meniscus tear, and tendinitis of the right 

knee, which was treated with an injection of pain and corticosteroid medication to the right knee. 

He opined that the mechanism of injury was directly causally related to the claimed March 15, 

2021 employment incident. A nearly identical report of even date added that appellant should be 

off work from March 24 through April 7, 2021. In a work restriction note of even date, Dr. Shade 

related that appellant was totally incapacitated due to pain, swelling, stiffness, and weakness in the 

right knee, which caused difficulty with prolonged walking, standing, sitting, and driving. He held

appellant off work from March 24 through April 7, 2021.

In April 7 and 22, 2021 reports, Dr. Shade related appellant’s symptoms and noted that 

appellant was still unable to carry out his work duties. He continued to diagnose sprain, medial 

meniscus tear, and tendinitis of the right knee. In the April 7, 2021 report, Dr. Shade advised that 

appellant should remain off work from April 8 through 22, 2021, and in the April 22, 2021 report, 

he extended that restriction through May 7, 2021. In work restriction notes dated April 7 and 22, 

2021, he indicated that appellant was disabled from work from April 8 through May 7, 2021.
3

By decision dated May 17, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the March 15, 2021 incident occurred 

as alleged. It noted that he had not submitted a completed factual development questionnaire. 

OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA. 

OWCP subsequently received a March 24, 2021 duty status report (Form CA-17) signed 

by Dr. Shade, relating that appellant pulled a muscle in his right knee and diagnosing a sprain, 

effusion, and medial meniscus tear of the right knee. Dr. Shade recommended that appellant be 

off work from March 24 through April 7, 2021. 

On May 25, 2021 appellant requested review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. In support of his request, appellant submitted an

attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated March 23, 2021 bearing his own signature. He 

also submitted a Form CA-1 of even date alleging that on March 15, 2021 he sustained a sprain to 

his lower right leg when getting into a mail truck and pulling a muscle while in the performance 

of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, a supervisor, G.M., indicated that the employing 

establishment received notice of an injury on March 23, 2021. G.M. acknowledged that appellant 

was injured in the performance of duty and agreed with appellant’s statement of facts.

OWCP subsequently received a July 23, 2021 report, wherein Dr. Shade diagnosed sprain, 

medial meniscus tear, tendinitis, and primary osteoarthritis of the right knee. Dr. Shade indicated 

that appellant had been off work continuously since March 24, 2021 and advised that appellant 

should remain off work from July 24 through August 13, 2021. In a work restriction note of even 

date, he held appellant off work from July 24 through August 13, 2021. 

By decision dated August 27, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the May 17, 

2021 decision.

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 

related to the employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every 

3

Id.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

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).
4

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 must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established.7 Fact 

of injury consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. 

First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced 

the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.8 Second, the employee 

must submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.9

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.10 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish the occurrence of an 

injury when there are inconsistencies in the evidence that 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 prima facie case has been established.11 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.12

ANALYSIS

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

in the performance of duty on March 15, 2021 as alleged.

As noted, an employee’s statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time, place, 

and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or 

persuasive evidence.13 Appellant alleged in his April 5, 2021 Form CA-1 that he sustained an 

injury to his right knee on March 15, 2021 when he pulled a muscle in his leg while getting out of 

a mail truck. A Form CA-1, signed by a supervisor, G.M., on March 23, 2021 contained a 

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

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

7 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8 L.T., Docket No. 18-1603 (issued February 21, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667, 67-71 (1987).

11 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002); see also L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016).

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

13 See id.
5

substantially identical account of the claimed March 15, 2021 employment incident. The 

employing establishment acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty, and 

concurred with his account of the incident. Additionally, appellant sought medical care on 

March 24, 2021 with Dr. Shade who noted appellant’s history of injury on March 15, 2021

diagnosed a sprain, medial meniscus tear, and tendinitis of the right knee, and treated appellant 

with an injection of pain and corticosteroid medication to the knee. The injuries appellant claimed 

are consistent with the facts and circumstances he set forth, his subsequent course of action, and 

the medical evidence he submitted. The Board thus finds that he has met his burden of proof to 

establish the employment incident occurred in the performance of duty on March 15, 2021, as 

alleged.

As appellant has established that the March 15, 2021 employment incident factually 

occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury.14 As OWCP 

found that he had not established fact of injury, it has not evaluated the medical evidence. The 

case must therefore be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence of record.15 After this 

and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision 

regarding causal relationship.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an employment 

incident in the performance of duty on March 15, 2021, as alleged. The Board further finds that 

the case is not in posture for decision regarding whether the medical evidence is sufficient to 

establish an injury causally related to the accepted March 15, 2021 employment incident.

14 See M.H., Docket No, 20-0576 (issued August 6, 2020); M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April 10, 2020); 

C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

15 M.H., id.; S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 27, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part, and the case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: February 7, 2023

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