United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1185

Issued: March 4, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 29, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 15, 2021 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 18, 2021, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the April15, 2021 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 9, 2021 appellant, then a 29-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that she suffered a “traumatic injury” on February 18, 2021 when she was 

robbed at gun point by two male suspects 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 and that its knowledge of the facts of her injury was consistent with her 

statements. Appellant stopped work on February 19, 2021.

A February 18, 2021 police report noted that appellant was robbed at gun point by two 

male suspects who fled the scene.

In a development letter dated March 12, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that it had 

received no medical evidence in support of her traumatic injury 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 also requested a narrative medical report from appellant’s treating physician, 

which contains a detailed description of findings and a diagnosis, explaining how the claimed 

employment incident caused, contributed to, or aggravated her medical conditions. It afforded her

30 days to submit the necessary evidence. Appellant did not submit a response.

By decision dated April 15, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not established the factual component of her claim, as she had not provided 

evidence or a statement explaining how she was injured as a result of the alleged employment 

incident. It noted that she had not responded to the March 12, 2021 development letter. OWCP 

concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met 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); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

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 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

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.10 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.11

ANALYSIS

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

injury in the performance of duty on February 18, 2021, as alleged.

In her Form CA-1, appellant indicated that she was robbed at gunpoint on February 18, 

2021 by two male suspects, which was confirmed by a police report of even date. However, she 

did not provide an explanation as to how she was injured or what body part was injured as a result 

of the alleged employment incident. In a development letter dated March 12, 2021, OWCP 

requested that appellantsubmit clarifying information describing how and when her claimed injury 

occurred and provided a questionnaire for her completion. However, appellant did not complete 

and return the March 12, 2021 development questionnaire. Therefore, she has failed to present a 

clear factual statement in the record describing the specific alleged employment-related incident 

alleged to have caused or contributed to her claimed medical condition.

12

 As she has not responded 

to the request for factual information to describe the employment incident and circumstances 

7 D.B., Docket No. 18-1348 (issued January 4, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8 D.S., Docket No. 17-1422 (issued November 9, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

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

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

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

12 See D.C., Docket No. 18-0082 (issued July 12, 2018).
4

surrounding her alleged injury, the Board finds that appellant has not established that a traumatic 

injury occurred in the performance of duty on February 18, 2021, as alleged.

13

The Board further finds that, because appellant failed to establish the first component of 

fact of injury, it is unnecessary to discuss whether she submitted medical evidence sufficient to 

establish that a medical condition existed and whether the condition was causally related to the 

employment factors as alleged.14 Thus, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of 

proof.

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 her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

13 See H.B., Docket No. 18-0278 (issued June 20, 2018); John R. Black, 49 ECAB 624 (1998); Judy Bryant, 40 

ECAB 207 (1988); MarthaG. List, 26 ECAB 200 (1974).

14 See R.L., Docket No. 17-1670 (issued December 14, 2018); Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215, 218 (1997) 

(as appellant failed to establish that the claimed event occurred as alleged, it is unnecessary to discuss the probative 

value of medical evidence).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 15, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 4, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board