United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Auburndale, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1284

Issued: January 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 8, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 31, 2020 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 incident 

occurred in the performance of duty on June 14, 2019, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 12, 2019 appellant, then a 33-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that at 1:00 p.m. on June 14, 2019 she experienced upper back pain 

and a muscle-related back strain while lifting and using a satchel while in the performance of duty. 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

On the reverse side of the claim form her supervisor checked a box marked “No” to indicate his 

belief that she was not in the performance of duty and noted that she never reported her injury.

Appellant stopped work on June 18, 2019. 

In a June 18, 2019 medical note, Dr. Matthias Nurnberger, a Board-certified in internal 

medicine, noted that appellant was seen that day and recommended that she could return to work 

on June 25, 2019.

Dr. Dainius Juknelis, a Board-certified internist, opined in a June 25, 2019 medical note 

that appellant could return to full-duty work on July 2, 2019.

In a July 10, 2019 medical note, Dr. Prakash Bandari, Board-certified in internal medicine, 

recommended that appellant remain off work until July 17, 2019.

R.T., appellant’s supervisor, controverted appellant’s claim in a July 15, 2019 statement, 

arguing that there was no specification as to where her injury occurred on June 14, 2019. He 

provided that he completed a 3999 route review of her route for that day and claimed that she 

completed her route and did not appear to be in pain nor mention to be in pain at any point before 

she checked out of work. Appellant continued to work without mentioning an injury for an 

additional two days. She informed R.T. that she had a doctor’s appointment on June 18, 2019 and 

needed to leave work during her shift. During a meeting concerning her extended absence from 

work on July 12, 2019, appellant reported that she injured her back on June 14, 2019.

In a July 16, 2019 statement, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, 

asserting that her medical documentation did not state that her injury was work related. It also 

challenged her claim based on fact of injury and indicated that management was observing her on 

June 14, 2019 during a 3999 route review.

In a July 17, 2019 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Bandari diagnosed a heavy lifting 

injury due to lifting and using a satchel at work on June 14, 2019.

2

 He also provided work 

restrictions. In an attending physician’s report of even date, Dr. Bandari diagnosed lumbar back 

pain with no radiculopathy precipitated by heavy lifting and wearing a satchel on June 16, 2019. 

He checked a box marked “Yes” to indicate his opinion that appellant’s condition was caused or 

aggravated by her federal employment.

In a July 23, 2019 medical note, Dr. Bandari diagnosed back pain and referred appellant to 

physical therapy for further treatment. In a separate note of even date, he recommended that she

remain off work until further notice.

In a July 26, 2019 statement, appellant explained the events of the alleged June 14, 2019 

employment incident in which she was assigned to a route that management would walk with her. 

She advised management that she would be unable to work the route because the use of a satchel 

would “kill” her back, but stated that she was forced to anyway. As she worked the route, appellant

felt pressure on her back and around 1:00 p.m. the pain started to kick in, which caused her to 

inform her manager. She continued to work days after, but indicated that the pain in her back 

 

2 Dr. Bandari identified August 14, 2019 as the date of injury; however, this appears to be a typographical error.
3

continued to worsen. On June 18, 2019 appellant could not make it through the first few hours of 

her shift and called her doctor to make an appointment that same day. She informed her manager 

of her appointment and when she returned she claimed that he stated that he “can’t just go by your 

words because you don’t have notice.” Appellant concluded by asserting that management never 

informed her that she needed to report her injury or of any forms that she needed to submit until 

July 12, 2019 when she called the Union Hall.

In a July 29, 2019 report, Michelle Marino, a physical therapist, evaluated appellant for 

low back pain as it related to the alleged June 14, 2019 employment incident and provided 

recommendations for her treatment for symptoms consistent with a thoracic-lumbar strain.

In a development letter dated July 30, 2019, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim and instructed her as to the factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her 

claim. It attached a questionnaire seeking a full description of the events and circumstances 

surrounding the alleged June 14, 2019 employment incident. OWCP afforded her 30 days to 

provide the necessary information.

In medical reports dated June 18 and 25, 2019, Drs. Nurnberger and Juknelis evaluated 

appellant for low back pain precipitated by heavy lifting and carrying a mail satchel at work and 

diagnosed acute bilateral thoracic back pain. In a June 25, 2019 medical note, Dr. Juknelis referred 

appellant to physical therapy.

Dr. Amogh Srivastava, a Board-certified radiologist, reported on June 26, 2019 that an xray scan of appellant’s thoracic spine revealed no acute abnormality.

In medical reports dated from July 10 to August 2, 2019, Dr. Bandari evaluated appellant’s 

back pain related to heavy lifting and wearing a satchel at work. He diagnosed musculoskeletal 

back pain from heavy lifting.

Dr. Bandari, in an August 6, 2019 Form CA-17, diagnosed a back strain and sacroiliac joint 

dysfunction due to the alleged June 14, 2019 employment incident where appellant lifted and used 

her satchel. He also provided work restrictions. In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20)

of even date Dr. Bandari diagnosed a back sprain, sacroiliac joint dysfunction and bilateral thoracic 

pain. He checked a box marked “Yes” to indicate that appellant’s conditions were caused or 

aggravated by her federal employment, and explained that they were caused by heavy lifting and 

carrying a satchel at work.

In a medical report of even date, Dr. Bandari recounted his history of treatment for bilateral 

thoracic pain and a back sprain, which appellant described as the result of heavy lifting at work. 

On evaluation he opined that it was clear that her back sprain, bilateral thoracic pain and sacroiliac 

joint dysfunction were precipitated by the heavy lifting and wearing of her satchel for long hours 

of the day at work.

In an August 7, 2019 medical note, Dr. Bandari advised that appellant be allowed to use a 

push cart to perform her work duties due to a sacroiliac joint injury and placed limitations on the 

amount of weight she was able to lift.
4

By decision dated August 30, 2019, 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 responded to its July 30, 2019 development 

questionnaire or provided information clarifying the alleged June 14, 2019 employment incident. 

OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

On September 18, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on January 15, 2020. She testified that 

on June 14, 2019 she requested that another employee be selected to go out on the route because 

the satchel made her back uncomfortable. While on the route, appellant claimed that her manager 

witnessed her constantly switch the side she carried her satchel on and that around 1:00 p.m. her 

back started to hurt badly. When they returned to the office, her supervisor stated that he could 

not stop appellant’s work because she did not provide notice from a doctor. Appellant explained 

that she could not afford to miss work so she attempted to work through her pain for the next two 

days until she went to her doctor who advised that she not return to work. She informed her 

manager, but claimed that he never advised her that she could file a claim. Appellant also noted 

that she usually never used a satchel because it aggravated her back, but that she was required to 

carry one on her June 14, 2019 route with management. The hearing representative held the case 

record open for 30 days for the submission of additional evidence.

Appellant submitted reports dated from September 25 to October 7, 2019 in which

Dr. Stephen Loughlin, a chiropractor, evaluated her for chronic pain in her neck and thoracic spine. 

Dr. Loughlin’s assessment detailed a flare up of multiple chronic conditions and advised that she 

return at least three times a week for treatment. His remaining reports detailed the procedures 

utilized to treat appellant’s conditions.

By decision dated March 31, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

August 30, 2019 decision.

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 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

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).
5

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 

Generally, 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, 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 

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 her burden of proof to establish a traumatic incident 

in the performance of duty on June 14, 2019, as alleged.

On appellant’s July 12, 2019 Form CA-1 she explained that at 1:00 p.m. on June 14, 2019 

she experienced upper back pain and a muscle-related back strain while lifting and carrying a 

satchel while in the performance of duty.

 

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

Delores C. 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); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667, 67-71 (1987).

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

12 See M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).
6

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

Herein, appellant has consistently reported that on June 14, 2019 she experienced back pain 

while lifting and carrying a mail satchel while on her route. She submitted a detailed account of 

the employment incident in her July 26, 2019 statement wherein she explained that on June 14, 

2019 she informed her manager that carrying a satchel would aggravate her back and that around 

1:00 p.m. the pressure on her back from the satchel began to cause her pain. Appellant attempted 

to work through her pain until she left work on June 18, 2019 to attend a doctor’s appointment. 

During the January 15, 2020 oral hearing, she again informed the hearing representative that she 

was required on June 14, 2019 to carry a satchel on her route and that at 1:00 p.m. she informed 

her manager that the satchel was causing her back pain.

Additionally, appellant submitted medical evidence from Dr. Bandari, which noted that she 

injured her back while carrying a satchel at work on June 14, 2019. Specifically, Dr. Bandari’s

August 6, 2019 Form CA-17 and Form CA-20, as well as his July 17, 2019 Form CA-17 all 

indicated June 14, 2019 as the date of injury in which she injured her back while carrying her 

satchel. Further, the July 29, 2019 evidence from her physical therapist also identified June 14, 

2019 as the date of injury.

The history of the June 14, 2019 employment incident was confirmed by Dr. Bandari’s 

medical evidence, which referred to the date of the employment incident. Further, while the 

employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim, it failed to provide strong or persuasive 

evidence to refute her allegations.

14

 Therefore, the Board finds that this evidence establishes that 

the alleged June 21, 2019 employment incident occurred as alleged.15 Appellant has, thus,

established the first component of fact of injury.16

As appellant has established the claimed employment incident occurred as alleged, the 

question becomes whether this employment incident caused an injury.17 As OWCP found that she 

had not established fact of injury, it did not evaluate the medical evidence. Thus, the Board will 

set aside OWCP’s March 31, 2020 decision and remand the case for consideration of the medical 

evidence of record.

18

 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 a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted June 14, 2019 employment incident.

 

13 Id.

14 Supra note 12.

15 J.C., Docket No. 18-1803 (issued April 19, 2019); M.C., supra note 12; M.M., Docket No. 17-1522 

(April 25, 2018).

16 J.C., id.

17 Id.

18 C.H., Docket No. 19-1781 (issued November 13, 2020).
7

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 June 14, 2019, as alleged. The Board further finds 

that the case is not in posture for decision regarding whether she has established a medical 

condition causally related to the June 14, 2019 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 31, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: January 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board