United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MILITARY 

ENTRANCE PROCESSING COMMAND,

Fort Sam Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0473

Issued: June 8, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 10, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 12, 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.

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on August 19, 2021, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 22, 2021 appellant, then a 49-year-old medical technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 19, 2021 he sustained a needle stick injury and 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

as a result was exposed to a bloodborne pathogen while in the performance of duty. On the reverse 

side of the claim form, the employing establishment acknowledged that he was injured in the 

performance of duty. Appellant did not stop work. 

Appellant submitted a November 22, 2021 billing statement for bloodwork testing that 

occurred on August 19, 2021 and a position description dated June 4, 2020 describing his duties 

as a medical technician at the employing establishment. 

OWCP received notification of personnel action forms (Standard Form (SF-50)) dated 

March 29 and September 25, 2021 from the employing establishment detailing appellant’s

employee and position information. 

In a development letter dated November 30, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence required and 

provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated January 12, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he did not establish the factual component of his claim as he did not respond to its 

developmental letter. Consequently, it found that he had not met the requirements to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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,3that 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.4 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.5

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. First, the employee must submit 

sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the 

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 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).

5 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).
3

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. 6 

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.7 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.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on August 19, 2021, as alleged.

Appellant has not provided sufficient detail to establish that a traumatic injury occurred in 

the performance of duty, as alleged.9 On his Form CA-1 he asserted that he sustained an exposure 

to a bloodborne pathogen as a result of a needle stick injury to his finger. OWCP could not 

determine, based upon appellant’s vague statement, which finger he allegedly injured from the 

needle stick. Furthermore, appellant alleged that an exposure to a bloodborne pathogen caused the 

needle stick injury to his finger, but did not describe in detail how this incident occurred. 

Appellant was subsequently provided an opportunity to submit evidence to establish how 

the alleged employment incident occurred. By development letter dated November 30, 2021, 

OWCP requested that he describe the factual circumstances of the incident and provided him with 

a development questionnaire for completion. The only explanation appellant provided pertaining 

to the alleged August 19, 2021 employment incident is a general and vague statement noted on his 

Form CA-1. Furthermore, he did not submit any other factual evidence to substantiate that the 

incident occurred in the performance of duty. By failing to describe the employment incident and 

any employment-related circumstances surrounding the workplace incident, appellant has not 

established that a traumatic injury occurred in the performance of duty on August 19, 2021, as 

alleged. Thus, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof.

6 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).

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

8

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

9

See J.W., Docket No. 19-0335 (issued July 2, 2019).
4

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden to establish a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty on August 19, 2021, as alleged. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 12, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 8, 2022

Washington, D.C.

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board