United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0686

Issued: April 5, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 26, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 6, 2020 merit decision 

and a March 18, 2021 nonmerit 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 to consider the merits of this case.2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 The Board notes that, following the March18, 2021decision, appellant submitted additional evidenceto OWCP. 

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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on September 18, 2020, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP 

properly determined that appellant abandoned her request for an oral hearing.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 25, 2020 appellant, then a 36-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 18, 2020 she sustained blurred vision, 

headaches, nausea, and dizziness when a dolly struck her on the head as she was placing a heavy 

package on it while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form A.S., an

employing establishment supervisor, controverted the claim. She contended that appellant could 

not identify the time or location of the alleged incident, did not notify the employing establishment 

until September 19, 2020, and waited three days after the alleged incident to seek medical 

attention.

Appellant provided September 21, 2020 hospital emergency department discharge 

instructions for a head injury, which noted that she was seen by Dr. Chris Kyrus, an emergency 

medicine physician, and that a September 21, 2020 computerized tomography (CT) scan of the 

brain was unremarkable. In an accompanying work slip dated September 21, 2020, Pamela L. 

Maxie, a physician assistant, held appellant off work through September 23, 2020. She returned 

appellant to full-duty work, effective September 24, 2020. 

In reports dated September 25, 2020, Dr. Gregory A. Marolf, a family practitioner, noted 

that on September 18, 2020 appellant loaded a heavy package onto a dolly, and the dolly lurched 

forward and struck her on the forehead. He reported a history of a prior traumatic brain injury 

with memory loss for which she was under neurologic care and had an eight-hour-a-day work 

limitation. On examination Dr. Marolf observed mild tenderness to palpation on the forehead at 

the hairline with mild edema. He diagnosed a head injury and returned appellant to full-dutywork. 

In a development letter dated October 2, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

her claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

provide the necessary information.

In response, appellant provided an October 19, 2020 statement. She noted that on 

September 18, 2020, while on detail, she placed a heavy package on a dolly and the dolly struck 

her head. Appellant notified a supervisor at approximately noon that day that she was feeling 

lightheaded, dizzy, and had a headache. The supervisor directed appellant to sit down in her 

delivery vehicle and take a break. After approximately 20 minutes, appellant resumed her route. 

She messaged her manager on September 19, 2020 to ensure that the supervisor she spoke to the 

prior day had reported the incident. Appellant provided copies of the medical records to her 

supervisor on approximately September 21, 2020.

In a September 21, 2020 intake form, Lauren H. Gray, a nurse, noted that appellant “hit 

head on dolly on Friday,” having headaches, nausea, and blurred vision. 
3

In reports from September 25 through October 6, 2020, Dr. Marolf diagnosed a closedhead injury with headaches. He restricted appellant to light-duty work as of September 29, 2020. 

In October 1 and 15, 2020 reports, Dr. Christopher T. Lee, a physician specializing in 

occupational medicine, noted appellant’s complaints of headaches superimposed on a prior head 

injury with memory loss. He noted that she had injured herself when a package on a dolly hit her 

on the head. Appellant was able to continue working and did not seek care until 

September 21, 2018. Dr. Lee diagnosed an unspecified closed-head injury and opined that it was 

work related.

On October 9, 2020 OWCP received an authorization for examination and/or treatment 

(Form CA-16) that was not signed by the employing establishment.3

By decision dated November 6, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the injury and/or events 

occurred as she described. It noted that she had not provided information clarifying the alleged 

September 18, 2020 employment incident. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had 

not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

On an appeal request form dated and received by OWCP on November 24, 2020 appellant 

requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. She 

contended that she had been unaware that she should have completed a claim form and that she 

had copies of text messages exchanged on September 18 and 19, 2020 regarding the alleged injury. 

Appellant submitted additional medical evidence and copies of medical reports previously of 

record.

On November 30, 2020 OWCP received a November 6, 2020 report by Dr. Indira 

Umamaheswaran, a Board-certified neurologist. Dr. Umamaheswaran noted a history of a 2016 

head trauma with subsequent headaches, and a September 18, 2020 episode at work when 

appellant struck her head while carrying and placing a heavy package. She opined that a

November 2, 2020 MRI scan of the head and brain did not demonstrate mass effect on the brain. 4 

Dr. Umamaheswaran diagnosed chronic post-traumatic headache with acute worsening, and 

chronic daily headaches. 

3 One of Dr. Marolf’s September 25, 2020 reports was written in the attending physician’s report, Part B of a Form 

CA-16 that was not signed by the employing establishment. A completed Form CA-16 authorization may constitute 

a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when properly executed. The form 

creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the examination 

or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); S.P., Docket No. 19-1904 (issued 

September 2, 2020); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003). 

However, as the employing establishment did not sign or authorize the Form CA-16, no contractual obligation was 

created.

4 A November 2, 2020magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the head and brain demonstrated normal signal 

throughout the cerebral parenchyma, no evidence of intra or extra axial mass effect on the brain, a small focus of fluid 

in the left mastoid air cells indicative of possible mastoiditis, and a trace amount of right interior maxillary sinus 

mucosal thickening. 
4

In a January 14, 2021 letter, OWCP’s hearing representative notified appellant that a 

telephonic hearing was scheduled for March 2, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). 

The notice included a toll-free number to call and provided the appropriate passcode. OWCP’s 

hearing representative mailed the notice to appellant’s last known address of record. Appellant 

did not appear. 

By decision dated March 18, 2021, OWCP determined that appellant had abandoned her 

request for an oral hearing. It indicated that she received a 30-day advance written notice of the 

hearing scheduled for March 2, 2021 and that she failed to appear. OWCP further noted that there 

was no indication in the record that appellant contacted it prior to the scheduled hearing to request 

a postponement or provide an explanation for her failure to appear at the hearing within 10 days 

of the scheduled hearing.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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,6that 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.7 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. 8

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.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 

5

Supra note 1.

6 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). 

7 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). 

8 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). 

9 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., DocketNo. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 
5

action.10 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.11 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.12

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

September 18, 2020 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty on September 18, 

2020, as alleged.

As noted, an employee’s statement alleging that an injury 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.13 Appellant alleged that she sustained a head injury on September 18, 2020 

when a dolly lurched forward when she placed a heavy parcel upon it. She provided a detailed 

account of the incident in her September 25, 2020 claim form and October 19, 2020 statement. 

Appellant also explained that she notified a supervisor of the injury the same day, and provided 

copies of urgent care documents to her supervisor on approximately September 21, 2020. 

Additionally, appellant provided a consistent description of the September 18, 2020

employment incident to her physicians. September 21, 2020 emergency department intake forms 

note that appellant had struck her head on a dolly on the previous Friday, which was 

September 18, 2020. Dr. Kyrus, an emergency medicine physician, signed discharge instructions 

relating to a head injury. Appellant informed Dr. Marolf on September 25, 2020 that on 

September 18, 2020 a dolly cart lurched forward when she placed a heavy parcel upon it, striking 

her in the head. She related the same account to Dr. Lee on October 1, 2020. 

As appellant has established that the September 18, 2020 employment incident occurred as 

alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 14 As OWCP found that 

appellant had not established fact of injury, it has not evaluated the medical evidence. The Board 

will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s November 6, 2020 decision and remand the case for 

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

11 See V.J., Docket No. 19-1600 (issued March 13, 2020); E.C., Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019). 

12 N.A., Docket No. 21-0773 (issued December 28, 2021); L.Y., Docket No. 21-0221 (issued June30, 2021); see 

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

13 Id.

14 N.A., supra note 12; 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).
6

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 addressing whether appellant has met 

her burden of proof to establish an injury causally related to the accepted September 18, 2020 

employment incident.16

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 6, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside. The March 18, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’Compensation Programs is set aside as moot. The case is remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: April 5, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

15 N.A., supra note 12; M.H., id., S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017).

16 In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot.