United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

G.V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY VA MEDICAL 

CENTER, Jackson, MS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0006

Issued: June 14, 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 October 5, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 26, 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.2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the September 26, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, 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

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on August 8, 2022, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 11, 2022 appellant, then a 55-year-old computer specialist, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 8, 2022 he sustained a lesion on his right leg 

femur when he stood up from his desk, turned to walk out of his cubicle, and his knee “just gave 

out” while in the performance of duty. He indicated that his right knee had been hurting for about 

a week due to excessive walking at work. Appellant further explained that he was returning to 

work after a total knee replacement of his left knee. On the reverse side of the claim form, the 

employing establishment indicated that appellant was not injured in the performance of duty. It 

explained that appellantwas on duty when injured;but he did not indicate what he was doing when 

he stood.

In a letter dated August 19, 2022, an employing establishment human resources specialist 

controverted appellant’s claim, asserting that he had not submitted evidence to establish that his 

disabling condition was caused by a relatively minor incident.

In an August 22, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

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

claim and provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to provide 

the necessary evidence.

Appellant submitted an August 8, 2022 employee health injury initial note, wherein

Dr. Charles E. Morris, an employing establishment physician Board-certified preventive and 

occupational medicine specialist, who noted that appellant recently returned to work from left total 

knee repair surgery and now presented for right knee injury. Dr. Morris related that appellant rose

from his chair and as he turned to walk, he felt his right knee shift sideways. On physical 

examination, he observed pain on palpation to the medial and posterior right knee and limited 

range of motion. Dr. Morris diagnosed right knee sprain.

An x-ray report dated August 9, 2022 showed sclerotic lesion in the distal right femoral 

diaphysis.

In an employee health injury progress follow-up note dated August 22, 2022, Dr. Morris 

related that appellant sustained a right knee injury on August 8, 2022 after standing up, turning,

and twisting his right knee. He noted that appellant felt a “pop and instant pain.” Dr. Morris 

provided examination findings and diagnosed right knee sprain.

An August 31, 2022 right knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan demonstrated 

diffuse marrow edema throughout the tibial plateau, intrasubstance edema of the anterior cruciate 

ligament (ACL), chronic changes of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) consistent with a 

previous injury, a fairly large complex Baker’s cyst, and significant patellofemoral 

chondromalacia and arthritic changes. 
3

In an employee health injury follow-up note dated September 20, 2022, Deanna L. Smith, 

a certified nurse practitioner, indicated that appellant was treated for an August 8, 2022 right knee 

injury. She reported examination findings of minimal range of motion and no bruising or swelling. 

Ms. Smith diagnosed right knee strain.

By decision dated September 26, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the August 8, 2022 

employment incident and/or events occurred as alleged. It noted that the evidence on file did not 

contain a sufficient description of how the alleged injury occurred or what type of injury he was 

claiming. 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

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 a personal 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. 8 The employee has not met his or her 

3

Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C.,

59 ECAB 427 (2008); 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); 

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 

59 ECAB 382 (2008).

8

S.W., Docket No. 17-0261 (issued May 24, 2017).
4

burden of proof establishing the occurrence of an injury when there are such inconsistencies in the 

evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim. Such circumstances such 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 serious doubt on an employee’s statement in determining whether a prima facie case has been 

established.9 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.10

ANALYSIS

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on August 8, 2022, as alleged.

On his August 11, 2022 Form CA-1, appellant described that on August 8, 2022 he stood 

up from his desk, turned to walk out of his cubicle, and felt his knee give out. In a

contemporaneous employee health injury initial note dated August 8, 2022, Dr. Morris, an 

employing establishment physician, related that appellant got up from his chair, turned, and felt 

his right knee shift sideways. In an employee health injury progress note follow-up note dated 

August 22, 2022, Dr. Morris again related that appellant sustained a right knee injury on August 8, 

2022 after standing up, turning, and twisting his right knee. He noted that appellant felt a “pop 

and instant pain.” 

As noted, 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 Appellant consistently stated that his injury occurred when he got up from his desk, 

turned, and felt his knee give out. Therefore, the Board finds that appellant has met his burden of 

proof to establish that a traumatic incident occurred in the performance of duty on August 8, 2022, 

as alleged.12

Consequently, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 13 As OWCP 

found that he 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.14 After any 

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

9 C.M., Docket No. 20-1519 (issued March 22, 2019); S.A., Docket No. 19-0613 (issued August 22, 2019); Betty J. 

Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

10 A.C., Docket No. 18-1567 (issued April 9, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 529 (2007); Gregory J. Reser, 57 ECAB 

277 (2005).

11 Id. 

12 See J.V., Docket No. 21-0029 (issued April15, 2022);C.B., Docket No. 21-0670 (issued January 27, 2022).

13 C.B., Docket No. 21-0554 (issued June 21, 2022); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

14 D.F., Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 17, 2022); L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016).
5

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

August 8, 2022 employment incident.

CONCLUSION

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on August 8, 2022, as alleged. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 26, 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: June 14, 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