United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0677

Issued: November 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 14, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 27, 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 incident 

in the performance of duty on December 1, 2021, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 16, 2021 appellant, then a 49-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that at approximately 10:30 a.m. on December 1, 2021 he bumped his 

head and injured his neck while in the performance of duty. He noted that his injury occurred at a 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

“freight elevator loading dock.” On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor 

acknowledged that appellant was in the performance of duty when injured. Appellant stopped 

work on December 1, 2021 and returned to work on December 7, 2021.

In a December 23, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish his

claim and provided a factual questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days 

to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP received a December 1, 2022 emergency room report from Hena Kalola, a 

physician assistant, noting that appellant had presented with complaints of constant head and neck 

pain. Ms. Kalola noted that appellant related that on that date at 10:30 a.m. while at work, he “lost 

his balance, fell forward, while the elevator door was coming down.” The door “hit [him] on the 

top of head and then [he] felt his neck go slightly back” as a result of the impact. Ms. Kalola 

diagnosed migraine aura, persistent and intractable. No additional evidence was received. 

By decision dated January 27, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

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

occurred as alleged. It noted that he did not respond to its development questionnaire. OWCP 

further noted that appellant had not submitted medical evidence containing a diagnosis from a 

qualified physician. 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. The first component is whether

appellant actually experienced the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner 

2

Id.

3 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). 

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); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
3

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 of proof 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 met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic incident 

in the performance of duty on December 1, 2021, as alleged.

In his Form CA-1, appellant indicated that on December 1, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. he bumped 

his head and injured his neck while at a freight elevator loading dock. His supervisor 

acknowledged on the reverse side of the claim form that he was injured in the performance of duty 

on December 1, 2021. 

In an emergency room report dated December 1, 2021, Ms. Kalola, a physician assistant,

noted that appellant related complaints of head and neck pain, which he attributed to an incident 

that day at work at 10:30 a.m. when he lost his balance, fell forward, and an elevator door lowered 

and hit him on the top of his head.

Appellant has maintained that his injury occurred when he was hit on the head by an 

elevator door on December 1, 2021 at 10:30 a.m., which was acknowledged by his supervisor and 

reported by an emergency room provider. Therefore, the Board finds that he has met his burden 

of proof to establish that a traumatic incident occurred in the performance of duty on December 1, 

2021 as alleged.

Consequently, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 9 As OWCP 

found that he had not established fact of injury, it did not evaluate the medical evidence. The case 

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

J.M., Docket No. 23-0293 (issued June15, 2023); M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April 10, 2020); C.M., 

Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019). 
4

must, therefore, be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence of record. 10 After any 

further development deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision addressing whether 

appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury causally related to the accepted 

December 1, 2021 employment incident.

CONCLUSION

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

in the performance of duty on December 1, 2021, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 27, 2022 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: November 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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