United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Coppell, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1339

Issued: May 16, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 12, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 28, 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 a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on February 16, 2022, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the April28, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 March 20, 2022 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail handler assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 16, 2022 between 1:30 and 2:30 a.m. she was 

standing in front of a box when a forklift driver hit the box, pushing it into her abdomen and 

knocked the air out of her while in the performance of duty. She related that she developed internal 

bleeding in her abdomen, which required surgical intervention. On the reverse side of the claim 

form an employing establishmentsupervisor, A.S., acknowledged that appellantwas injured in the 

performance of duty. However, A.S. controvertedthe claim, asserting thatthere were no witnesses 

to the incident, appellant continued to work for three days without complications, and that the 

condition for which she underwent surgery was due to a known, preexisting condition. Appellant 

stopped work on February 20, 2022.

In a March 28, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

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

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

submit the necessary evidence. 

Thereafter, appellant submitted a February 23, 2022 discharge summary from Dr. Joseph 

Amos, a Board-certified general surgeon, noting that she was admitted on February 20, 2022 and 

reported being hit by a heavy box in the abdomen while at work, three days prior to her admission. 

She related that her condition progressively worsened and caused abdominal pain which acutely 

worsened on the day prior to admission. Appellant was admitted for an exploratory laparotomy,

during which a ruptured large right ovarian mass was found to be the source of her abdominal 

bleeding. Dr. Amos diagnosed hemoperitoneum and performed a right Salpingo-oophorectomy.

In a March 11, 2022 progress note, Dr. Brandon Roane, a Board-certified gynecologic

oncologist, noted that appellant reported that, a few days prior to her surgery, a forklift knocked a 

box into her abdomen at work. Appellant related that she did not feel pain immediately but started 

to experience pain a few days later. Dr. Roane noted that, after appellant’s surgery for 

intraabdominal hemorrhage and ruptured ovarian mass, final pathology results revealed a 

granulosa cell tumor. He related that, a year prior, appellant was informed that she had a right 

ovarian mass/cyst that was being monitored by her gynecologist. Dr. Roane diagnosed a right 

ovary and right fallopian tube Salpingo-oophorectomy and a fragmented granulosa cell tumor with 

extensive necrosis. He further noted that a computerized tomography (CT) scan of her abdomen 

and pelvis indicated a large hemorrhagic mass and/or hematoma within the central mesentery ,with

hyperdense blush of contrast asymmetric on the right, concerning for active hemorrhage, and 

superimposed hemoperitoneum with moderate hyperdense free fluid along the paracolic gutters 

and pelvis.

In March 21, 2022 postoperative notes, Dr. Jenna Seawright, an obstetrician and 

gynecologist, diagnosed a malignant neoplasm of unspecified ovary and indicated that she 

performed a robotic-assisted laparoscopic total hysterectomy, exploratory laparotomy, total 

abdominal hysterectomy, small bowel resection, omentectomy, and left Salpingo-oophorectomy.

In a March 24, 2022 progress note, she noted that appellant was recovering appropriately.
3

By decision dated April 28, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the incident occurred as 

alleged. Consequently, it found that she had not met the requirements 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 

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 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.7

To establish that an injury occurred as alleged, the 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. The employee has not met his or her 

burden when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt on 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 the employee’s statements 

in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.8 An employee’s statement 

3

Supra note 1.

4 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). 

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); 

Delores C. 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 C.M., Docket No. 20-1519 (issued March 22, 2021); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).
4

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 a traumatic incident

in the performance of duty on February 16, 2022, as alleged.

In her March 20, 2022 Form CA-1, appellant alleged that on February 16, 2022 she 

experienced internal abdominal bleeding requiring surgery when a forklift struck a box that

impacted her abdomen while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form,

the employing establishment acknowledged that she was injured in the performance of duty. 

Although the employing establishment controverted the claim, arguing that appellant did not report 

the incident immediately, it has not provided strong or persuasive evidence to refute the occurrence 

of the February 16, 2022 employment incident. 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. 10 

Further, the medical evidence contemporaneous with the alleged employment incident 

establishes that just a few days after the incident appellant sought treatment on February 20, 2022. 

Appellant reported to Dr. Amos that she was hit by a heavy box in the abdomen while at work

three days prior and explained that her condition progressively worsened and caused abdominal 

pain which acutely worsened on the day prior to admission. On March 11, 2022 she related to

Dr. Roane that a forklift knocked a box into her abdomen at work and she did not feel pain

immediately, but started to experience pain a few days later. There are no inconsistencies in the 

evidence that cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim, thus, the Board finds that appellant 

has established a traumatic incident in the performance of duty on February 16, 2022, as alleged.

As appellant has established that an incident occurred in the performance of duty on 

February 16, 2022 as alleged, the question becomes whether the accepted incident caused an 

injury.11 As OWCP found that she had not established fact of injury, it did not evaluate the medical 

evidence. The case must, therefore, be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence of 

record.12 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 February 16, 2022 employment incident.

9

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

10 D.F., Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 17, 2022); see also M.C., id.; D.B., id.

11 D.F., id.; M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020); C.M.,Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

12 D.F., id.; L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016); Betty J. Smith, supra note 8.
5

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 February 16, 2022, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 28, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: May 16, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board