United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Richmond, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0539

Issued: September 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 25, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 2, 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 the case.2

ISSUE

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on October 3, 2020, as alleged.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notesthat, following the December 2, 2020 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 October 6, 2020 appellant, then a 56-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 3, 2020 she injured her right knee when

stepping out of her mail truck onto grass, while in the performance of duty. She recounted that 

her right knee buckled, and she heard a pop. Appellant stopped work on October 3, 2020. On the 

reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor, T.B., indicated, by checking a box marked 

“Yes” that appellant was in the performance of duty when injured. She also checked a box marked 

“Yes” that the injury resulted from “intent to injure self or another.” T.B. explained that appellant 

stated that she jumped out of her mail truck and caused injury to herself. 

In a development letter dated October 27, 2020, OWCP advised appellant that additional 

evidence was necessary to establish her claim. It advised of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In response, appellant submitted a medical report dated October 3, 2020 from

Dr. Timothy D. Weber, Board-certified in emergency medicine. Dr. Weber diagnosed a knee 

sprain. 

Appellant submitted an evaluation dated October 21, 2020 with an illegible signature 

which listed her work restrictions. 

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated November 10, 2020, Dr. John Kim, 

an internist, noted appellant’s history of injury that on October 3, 2020 her right leg gave out as 

she exited her work vehicle. He diagnosed right knee sprain. 

By decision dated December 2, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she had not 

established that the incident occurred 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 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 

 

3

Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

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. 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, 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

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.8 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.9

ANALYSIS

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

employment incident occurred in the performance of duty on October 3, 2020, as alleged. 

As noted, an employee’s statement alleging that an incident occurred at a given time and

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

persuasive evidence.10 Appellant alleged that she sustained a right knee injury on October 3, 2020 

when she stepped out of her mail truck. Additionally, she sought medical care the same day and

Dr. Weber diagnosed a right knee sprain. Dr. Kim also recorded the same history of injury. 

 

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); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

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

See J.M., Docket No. 19-1024 (issued October 18, 2019); M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April9, 2019).

9

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

10 See id.
4

Appellant’s allegations that she sustained a right knee injury on October 3, 2020 as she stepped 

out of her employing establishment vehicle onto grass are consistent with the facts and 

circumstances she set forth, her actions, and the medical evidence she submitted. Moreover, on 

the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor, T.B., indicated, by checking a box 

marked “Yes” that appellant was in the performance of duty when injured. The Board thus finds 

that she has met her burden of proof to establish an employment incident in the performance of 

duty on October 3, 2020, as alleged.

As appellant has established that the October 3, 2020 employment incident factually 

occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury.11 As OWCP 

found that she had not established fact of injury, it did not evaluate the medical evidence. The 

Board, therefore, will set aside OWCP’s December 2, 2020 decision and remand the case for 

consideration of the medical evidence of record.12 After such further development as deemed 

necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision addressing whether appellant has met her burden 

of proof to establish an injury causally related to the accepted October 3, 2020 employment 

incident. 

CONCLUSION

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on August 3, 2020, as alleged. The Board further 

finds that the case is not in posture for decision regarding whether she has sustained an injury 

causally related to the accepted August 3, 2020 employment incident.

 

11 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).

12 M.H., id.; S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 2, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: September 3, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board