United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SMITHSONIAN 

INSTITUTION MAIL FACILITY,

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0683

Issued: December 27, 2023

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 April 14, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 17, 2023 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.

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on April 6, 2020, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 27, 2023 appellant, then a 45-year-old bulk mail clerk, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 6, 2020 she injured her lower back and lumbar spine, 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

hips, and left Achilles tendon when she lifted heavy packages and tubs while in the performance 

of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form an employing establishmentsupervisor controverted 

the claim, noting that she never informed her about the injury, nor provided documentation of it. 

Appellant did not stop work.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a May 18, 2021 report from Dr. Bryan 

Murtaugh, Board-certified in sports medicine, physical medicine, and rehabilitation. 

Dr. Murtaugh noted that she was hearing impaired, and required a sign language interpreter. He 

treated appellant for lower back pain with an onset of approximately six months prior. In a July 9, 

2021 report, Dr. Murtaugh reviewed diagnostic imaging which noted an impression of 

degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, an L4-5 disc bulge with mass effect upon the left exit 

nerve root laterally, and an L5-S1 disc bulge abutting the S1 nerve roots bilaterally, right greater 

than left.

In a September 20, 2021 report, Dr. Murtaugh noted that he treated appellant with 

injections and, in a September 27, 2021 note, he advised that she could return to work without

restrictions. 

In October 29 and December 2, 2021 reports, Dr. Murtaugh assessed lumbar pain and 

lumbar facet pain, and treated appellant with injections. In reports dated February 11, May 6, and 

August 29, 2022, appellant reported that she did not recall specific exacerbating factors, but that 

her pain varied based on the activity, and that she wore a back brace at work for support.

2

In a February 8, 2023 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 questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. 

Thereafter, appellant submitted physical therapy notes dated June 5 through September 11, 

2019, in which Dr. Emily Trosch and Dr. Megan Moran, physical therapists, treated her with 

therapeutic exercise and noted diagnoses of low back pain, bilateral hip stiffness, and muscle 

weakness. Dr. Trosch and Dr. Moran related that she reported experiencing back spasms, 

increased pain when lifting and carrying objects, and difficulty lifting heavier boxes at work. 

Appellant also reported that her back pain began in approximately February 2019 and her work

duties included delivery and pick up, metering mail, and lifting packages over 30 pounds.

In physical therapy notes dated August 20, 2020 through February 12, 2021, Dr. Trosch,

Dr. Jennifer Lowe, and Kimberly Agan, a physical therapist, treated appellant and noted diagnoses 

of low back pain and abnormal posture. On August 20, 2020 Dr. Lowe noted that she related that 

appellant’s low back and hip symptoms had increased since the COVID-19 pandemic quarantine.

2

In September 13, October 11, and November 1, 2022 reports, Dr.Nicholas Casscells, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, treated appellant for recurring left heel pain. If appellant is alleging that she sustained an occupational 

disease, she may wish to file a separate claim.
3

On August 20, 2021 appellant presented to Dr. Murtaugh for follow up and he assessed

bilateral lumbar radiculopathy and recommended injections. 

In a September 26, 2022 report, Dr. Casscells noted that appellant was unable to return to 

work at that time due to the nature of her injury. An October 11, 2022 x-ray report of appellant’s 

left foot noted an impression of postsurgical changes and enthesopathy.

In physical therapy notes dated October 25, 2022 through February 9, 2023, Jared Miller

and Kala Flagg, physical therapists, treated appellant and diagnosed pain in the left ankle and left 

foot joints, left ankle stiffness, and muscle weakness. They noted that she worked as a mail clerk 

with duties of prolonged standing, walking, and driving, and that she had been diagnosed with 

Haglund’s deformity following the onset of her left Achilles symptoms. 

In a February 16, 2023 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant noted 

thatshe had been off work due to COVID-19, and was not scheduled to return until April 6, 2020, 

the alleged date of injury. She related that she had previously experienced muscle spasms in her 

back while at home, and underwent physical therapy for other conditions. Appellant indicated that 

she began work in April 2020, and had no issues until she began lifting heavy packages to the 

metering machine scale and experienced a burning sensation and muscle spasm. She noted that 

she returned to work after the sensation ceased and left work early, and that she experienced 

discomfort while walking and with certain motions. 

By decision dated March 17, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the events or 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

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).
4

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 an 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 sufficient doubt on the employee’s 

statements in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.8 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 a traumatic incident

in the performance of duty on April 6, 2020, as alleged.

In her Form CA-1, appellant indicated that on April 6, 2020 she injured her lower back and 

lumbar spine, hips, and left Achilles tendon when she lifted heavy packages and tubs while in the 

performance of duty. In a February 16, 2023 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, 

she noted that she experienced muscles spasms in her back while off from work during the COVID19 pandemic, which worsened when she returned to work on April 6, 2020 due to lifting heavy 

packages onto the metering machine scale. Although an employing establishment supervisor noted 

on the reverse side of appellant’s Form CA-1 that appellant never informed her about the injury, 

nor provided documentation of it, the employing establishment did not submit any further letters 

or other evidence controverting the factual allegations of appellant’s claim in response to OWCP’s 

claim development.

Appellant has consistently maintained that her injury occurred due to increased lifting 

activities when she returned to work on April 6, 2020 following a COVID-19 epidemic quarantine. 

Therefore, the Board finds that she has met her burden of proof to establish that a traumatic incident 

occurred in the performance of duty on April 6, 2020 as alleged.

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).

9

See M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).
5

Consequently, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 10 As OWCP 

found that appellant 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.11 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 

April 6, 2020 employment incident.

CONCLUSION

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

in the performance of duty on April 6, 2020, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 17, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: December 27, 2023

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

10 J.M., Docket No. 23-0293 (issued June 15, 2023); M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020); C.M., 

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

11 J.M., id.; L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016).