United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Indianapolis, IN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1164

Issued: February 7, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 25, 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.

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on January 3, 2022, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 8, 2022 appellant, then a 38-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 3, 2022 he sustained a right shoulder injury while in 

the performance of duty. He noted that he felt a sharp pain on the right side of his back and 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

shoulder while lifting delivery point sequence (DPS) trays and packages into a mail truck at a 

loading dock. On the reverse side of the claim form, although the employing establishment 

acknowledged that appellant was in the performance of duty at the time of the claimed injury, it 

controverted the claim, contending that he had changed his story regarding his claimed injury 

more than once and he was still on the job. Appellant did not stop work. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a progress report and a duty status report 

(Form CA-17) from Dr. Larry Tunnell, a specialist in internal medicine, dated January 19, 2022, 

which noted a “Case Date” of December 27, 2021. His diagnoses were listed as neck and right 

trapezius strain. 

In a report dated January 31, 2022, a physician assistant, noted that appellant was seen for 

a recheck of a neck/right shoulder injury that occurred at work on December 27, 2021. The 

report noted that appellant had been delivering packages at work with no issues. OWCP

continued to receive physical therapy reports, and additional reports from physician assistants, 

and nurse practitioners noting a “Case Date” of December 27, 2021, or an injury date of 

March 10, 2022. 

OWCP, by development letter dated February 9, 2022, informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of additional factual and medical evidence 

needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated March 25, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he had not established the factual component of his claim, as he had not provided 

evidence supporting that an employment incident occurred on January 3, 2002, as alleged. It 

noted that he had not responded to the February 9, 2022 development questionnaire. OWCP

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

under FECA.

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 

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 

2

Id.

3 S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June 26, 2020); F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., 

Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

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. 

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 and place, and in the manner alleged.

6

 The second 

component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.7

An 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 The employee has not met his or her burden in establishing the occurrence of an injury

when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt on the validity of the 

claim.9 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 sufficient doubt on the employee’s 

statements in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.10 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.11

ANALYSIS

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

injury in the performance of duty on January 3, 2022, as alleged.

On his Form CA-1, appellant asserted that he sustained a right shoulder injury as a result 

of lifting DPS trays and packages into a mail truck. However, he did not provide a detailed 

explanation as to how he was injured as a result of the alleged employment incident. By 

development letter dated February 9, 2022, OWCP requested that appellant describe the factual 

4 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); 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 S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020); 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).

6 R.K., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued April 10, 2020); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April 6, 2020); 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 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667, 67-71 (1987).

9 See E.C., Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019).

10 See C.M., Docket No. 20-1519 (issued March 22, 2021); L.B., Docket No. 19-1799 (issued March 11, 2020); 

M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

11 See M.C., id.; D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).
4

circumstances of the claimed incident and provided him with a development questionnaire for 

completion. However, appellant did not complete and return the February 9, 2022 development 

questionnaire. Therefore, he has failed to present a clear factual statement in the record 

describing the specific alleged employment-related incident alleged to have caused or 

contributed to his claimed medical condition.12 As appellant has not responded to the request for 

factual information to describe the employment incident and circumstances surrounding his 

alleged injury, the Board finds that he has not established that a traumatic injury occurred in the 

performance of duty on January 3 , 2022, as alleged.13

The Board further finds that, because appellant failed to establish the first component of 

fact of injury, it is unnecessary to discuss whether he submitted medical evidence sufficient to 

establish that a medical condition existed and whether the condition was causally related to the 

employment factors as alleged.14 Thus, the Board finds that he 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.

CONCLUSION

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

injury in the performance of duty on January 3, 2022, as alleged.

12 See B.M., Docket No. 21-1185 (issued March 4, 2022); D.C., Docket No. 18-0082 (issued July 12, 2018).

13 See B.M., id.; H.B., Docket No. 18-0278 (issued June 20, 2018); John R. Black, 49 ECAB 624 (1998); Judy 

Bryant, 40 ECAB 207 (1988); Martha G. List, 26 ECAB 200 (1974).

14 See B.M., id.; R.L., Docket No. 17-1670 (issued December 14, 2018); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 

218 (1997) (as appellant failed to establish that the claimed event occurred as alleged, it is unnecessary to discuss 

the probative value of medical evidence).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 25, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board