United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Coppell, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0448

Issued: August 22, 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 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 11, 2022merit 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 his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury 

in the performance of duty on November 24, 2021, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the January 11, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional

evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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 November 29, 2021 appellant, then a 40-year-old city carrier assistant 1, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 24, 2021 he injured his right ankle

when he stepped out of his long life vehicle (LLV) to start delivery and stepped into a hole that 

was covered by leaves while in the performance of duty. He explained that he turned his ankle, 

heard a pop, and then fell to the ground. On the reverse side of the claim form his supervisor, J.B., 

acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. However, he challenged the 

factual basis of appellant’s claim because appellant did not submit medical evidence and appellant 

had not returned to work as of December 2, 2021. J.B. indicated that the employing establishment 

received notice on November 29, 2021 and that appellant stopped work on November 26, 2021. 

On November 29, 2021 the employing establishment executed an authorization for examination 

and/or treatment (Form CA-16).

In a November 29, 2021 report, Dr. David S. Salas, a Board-certified family physician, 

indicated that appellant was seen for a right ankle injury. He reported that on November 24, 2021

appellant was at work getting off his mail truck and stepped down into a hole covered in leaves, 

twisting his ankle. Appellant related that he had twisted his ankle multiple times in the past when 

he played left tackle in high school. Dr. Salas’ physical examination of appellant’s right ankle and 

foot revealed ankle swelling, lateral ankle swelling, decreased range of motion, painful range of 

motion, medial and lateral ankle tenderness, and abnormal mobility. He reviewed an ankle x-ray 

taken that day, which revealed an old fracture, but no new fractures. Dr. Salas diagnosed a right 

ankle sprain, recommended rest, ice, compression, and elevation and physical therapy, and advised 

appellant to remain off work for three days.

In an attending physician’s report, Part B of Form CA-16 dated November 29, 2021,

Dr. Salas related the same factual history and noted that appellant had multiple ankle sprains in 

the distant past as well, as a distant old lateral malleolar fracture. He diagnosed an acute right 

ankle sprain and checked a box marked “Yes” in response to the question of whether the condition 

found had been caused or aggravated by the claimed employment incident. Dr. Salas indicated 

that appellant was totally disabled from November 29 through December 2, 2021 and partially 

disabled from December 3 through 13, 2021, during which time he would be on light-duty work 

and should walk with an air stirrup.

In a December 7, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It advised him of the type of evidence required and provided a questionnaire for his 

completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

OWCP subsequently received a November 29, 2021 right ankle x-ray report, which 

revealed lateral soft tissue swelling with probable lateral sprain injury, including a five-millimeter

osseous avulsion fragment at the fibula tip.

By decision dated January 11, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the November 24, 2021 

employment incident occurred as alleged. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not 

been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.
3

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 

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 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 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.10 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish the occurrence of an 

injury when there are inconsistencies in the evidence that 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 sufficient doubt on an employee’s 

statements in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.11 An employee’s 

3

Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5

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 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8 L.T., Docket No. 18-1603 (issued February 21, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 B.M., Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); JohnJ. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667, 67-71 (1987).

11 L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016); BettyJ. Smith, 54 ECAB 174(2002).
4

statements 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

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

in the performance of duty on November 24, 2021, 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 in his November 29, 2021 Form CA-1 that he twisted 

and sprained his right ankle when he stepped out of his LLV and into a hole that was covered by 

leaves while in the performance of duty. Though the employing establishment challenged the 

factual basis of appellant’s claim, it failed to provide persuasive evidence contradicting appellant’s 

account. The primary basis for the challenge was that appellant did not submit medical evidence, 

employee statements, or supervisor statements establishing fact of injury. However, appellant did

submit a November 29, 2021 medical report from Dr. Salas indicating that appellant was treated 

for a right ankle injury sustained at work on November 24, 2021, as well as Part B of a Form CA16 of even date indicating the same. Additionally, his supervisor, J.B., acknowledged on the 

reverse side of the Form CA-1 that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. The 

employing establishment’s assertion regarding the evidence submitted is not persuasive evidence 

refuting appellant’s account.14

The incident appellant claimed is consistent with the facts and circumstances he set forth, 

his actions, and the medical evidence he submitted. The Board, thus, finds that he has met his 

burden of proof to establish an employment incident in the performance of duty on November 24, 

2021, as alleged.

As appellant has established that the November 24, 2021 employment incident factually 

occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury.15 As OWCP 

found that he had not established fact of injury, it has not evaluated the medical evidence. The 

Board will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s January 11, 2022 decision and remand the case for 

consideration of the medical evidence of record.16 After this and other such further development 

as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision. 

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

13 See id.

14 See id.

15 See M.H., Docket No. 20-0576 (issued August6, 2020); M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020); C.M., 

Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

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

CONCLUSION

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

in the performance of duty on November 24, 2021, as alleged. The Board further finds that the 

case is not in posture for decision regarding whether the medical evidence is sufficient to establish 

an injury causally related to the accepted November 24, 2021 employment incident.17

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 11, 2022 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: August 22, 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

17 The Board notes that the employing establishment executed a Form CA-16. 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); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); TracyP. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).