United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU 

OF INDIAN AFFAIRS-EMERGENCY 

FIREFIGHTERS, WEST-CENTRAL ALASKA 

AGENCY, Anchorage, AK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0456

Issued: August 10, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 4, 2022 appellantfiled a timely appeal from a January 24, 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.2 

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that a traumatic 

injury occurred in the performance of duty on October 15, 2021, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the January 24, 2022 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 December 9, 2021 appellant, then a 45-year-old archeologist, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 15, 2021 she suffered chest pain, blockage of the 

artery and thinning of the vein at a Best Western Hotel at 12:00 a.m. while in the performance of 

duty. On the reverse side of the form and e-mails dated November 2 through 13, 2021, H.Y., 

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist, indicated that appellant was on travel status

associated with fire response support and that her tour of duty ended on October 14, 2021 at 10:30 

p.m. She noted an ambulance was called after 12:00 a.m. on October 15, 2021 after appellant’s 

chest pains began.

With the claim, appellant submitted an October 15, 2021 ambulance billing statement, an 

October 23, 2011, October 26, 2011 and a November 1, 2021 billing statements from various 

health care providers.

In a development letter dated December 14, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. The questionnaire noted that the evidence of record 

indicated that appellant was on travel status when injured. OWCP asked appellant to respond to 

questions regarding her travel status. It afforded appellant 30 days to respond. In a letter also 

dated December 14, 2021, OWCP also requested additional information from the employing 

establishment. 

In response, OWCP received a January 5, 2022 e-mail from the employing establishment,

which included a copy of appellant’s position description, leave analysis, travel trip information,

and expenses statement. The employing establishment noted that appellant was on fire assignment

at the time of the alleged injury at the KNP Fire Complex, CA. Appellant was paid for overtime 

and regular hours, 16 hours each day on October 14, 15, 2021 and 8 hours on October 16, 2021. 

The employing establishment noted that for the most part, appellant’s duties were desk duties with 

limited field activities. At the region, appellant was a program assistant and worked with three 

programs assisting with administrative tasks. The employing establishment also noted that 

appellant had a Red Card and went out on fire assignments as a radio dispatcher. 

Appellant did not respond to the development letter.

By decision dated January 24, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the factual evidence of record was insufficient to establish that an employment incident 

occurred on October 15, 2021 as alleged. 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 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 

3

Supra note 1.
3

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 

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 

Generally, 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 and 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 employee’s statement 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. 10 

Moreover, an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. The employee’s statement, 

however, must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action. An employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish the 

occurrence of an injury when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt 

upon the validity of the claim. Circumstances such 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 doubt on an employee’s 

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

OWCP’s procedures further provide that the protection of FECA is not limited to injuries,

which occur on the industrial premises, and it contains provisions regarding the necessary 

information to be obtained when an employee has claimed that an injury occurred while on travel 

4 T.G., Docket No. 20-1549 (issued August3, 2021); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019);S.B., Docket 

No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 T.G., id.; 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 T.G., id.; R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April25, 2019);L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7

S.G., Docket No. 21-1039 (issued February 22, 2022); T.G., id.; T.A., Docket No. 20-1284 (issued January 27, 

2021); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8

S.G., id.; M.F., Docket No. 19-0578 (issued January 26, 2021);Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 G.E., Docket No. 20-1081 (issued January 26, 2021); B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 C.R., Docket No. 20-1147 (issued January 5, 2021); M.S., Docket No. 18-0059 (issued June 12, 2019); D.B., 58 

ECAB 464, 466-67(2007).

11 S.G., supra note 7; K.F., Docket No. 18-0485 (issued February 18, 2020); D.R., Docket No. 19-0072 (issued 

June 24, 2019).
4

status.12 FECA covers an employee 24 hours a day when the employee is on travel status and 

engaged in activities essential or incidental to such duties.13

ANALYSIS

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

injury occurred in the performance of duty on October 15, 2021, as alleged.

On her Form CA-1 appellant indicated that on October 15, 2021 at 12:00 a.m. she 

developed chest pain, blockage of the artery and thinning of the vein while in the performance of 

duty. The employing establishment confirmed that appellant was on travel status at the time of 

injury. Appellant did not submit a detailed account of the alleged injury, describe any work factors 

or work performed, or any activity incidental to her travel status,14 which caused or aggravated her 

condition, or provided any additional corroborating factual evidence describing how she sustained 

an injury on October 15, 2021. The Board finds that appellant’s limited description of the 

traumatic incident fails to provide sufficient detail to determine the circumstances surrounding her 

injury.15 The alleged mechanism of injury could not be determined as essential information was 

not provided.16 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.17

OWCP, in its December 14, 2021 development letter, informed appellant of the type of 

factual and medical evidence needed to establish her traumatic injury claim. It requested that she 

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

employment incident and her travel status. Appellant, however, did not respond to OWCP’s 

development letter. 

On appeal appellant contends that she did not receive the December 14, 2021 

developmental letter. The record reflects that OWCP’s letter was sent to appellant’s last known 

12 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.5 (August 1992). 

For injuries sustained in a travel statusthe record must contain evidence showing when and where the employee last 

performed official duty, the distance between the place of injury and the place where official duty was last performed, 

between whatpoints the employee was traveling when injured, the purpose of the trip, when and where the employee 

was next expected to perform official duty, whether at the time of the injury the employee was riding in or driving a 

government-owned vehicle, and whether the employee’s travel expenses were reimbursable. The record must also 

contain evidence regarding whether the injury occurred on the direct or most usually traveled route between the place 

of last official duty and the place where the employee was expected to next perform official duty and, if not, the nature 

and extent of the deviation should be given with a full explanation of the reason for such deviation. Id. at Chapter 

2.804.5d. 

13 S.T. Docket No. 16-1710 (issued September 27, 2017); L.A.,Docket No. 09-2278 (issued September 27, 2010);

Ann P. Drennan, 47 ECAB 750 1996); Richard Michael Landry, 39 ECAB 232 (1987) and cases cited therein.

14 Id.

15 J.B., Docket No. 19-1487 (issued January 14, 2020); K.S.,Docket No. 17-2001 (issued March 9, 2018).

16 Id.; see also R.V., Docket No. 17-1286 (issued December 5, 2017).

17 T.C., Docket No. 20-1513 (issued June 4, 2021); M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); M.B., Docket 

No. 11-1785 (issued February 15, 2012).
5

address of record and there is no indication that it was returned as undeliverable.18 Under the

mailbox rule, a document mailed in the ordinary course of the sender’s business practices to the 

addressee’s last known address is presumed to have been received by the addressee.19

As there is no evidence of record to substantiate a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty on October 15, 2021, as alleged, the Board finds that appellant has not met her 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 her burden of proof to establish that a traumatic 

injury occurred in the performance of duty on October 15, 2021, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 24, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 10, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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

18 See J.H., Docket No. 20-0785 (issued October 23, 2020); KennethE. Harris, 54 ECAB 502 (2003).

19 Id.