United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTH METRO 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Duluth, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1113

Issued: March 7, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 18, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 5, 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 July 5, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 her burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on May 6, 2022, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 23, 2022 appellant, then a 66-year-old distribution clerk, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that at 5:00 a.m. on May 6, 2022, she lost balance on a stairwell and 

fell, bruising her right forearm and right knee. Herregular tour of duty was from 8:30 p.m. through 

5:00 a.m. On the reverse side of the claim form, a supervisor indicated that appellant claimed that 

she had been injured at 5:00 a.m., went home, and returned at 10:00 a.m. stating that she had fallen. 

When asked why she did not report it at that time, appellant stated that she was ready to go home. 

In a development letter dated June 1, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence.

In reports dated May 6 and 10, 2022 a physician assistant, and medical assistant noted 

appellant’s history that on May 6, 2022 she had lost her balance on the corner of a step, fallen and 

hit her right hand and knee that day. Appellant’s diagnoses were listed as contusion of the right 

wrist and knee, and restrictions were provided.

In a report dated May 24, 2022, Dr. Brandon Dawkins, Board-certified in occupational 

medicine, noted appellant’s history of the claimed May 6, 2022 injury as appellant sustained right 

wrist and knee injuries that morning when she lost her balance on the stairs and fell. He noted 

appellant’s diagnoses as contusion to the wrist and knee, with differential diagnoses of fracture, 

tear, and degenerative disease.

By decision dated July 5, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the factual 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the employment incident occurred as alleged. 

It 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 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 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

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 must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established.7 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

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 serious 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 that a traumatic 

incident occurred in the performance of duty on May 6, 2022, as alleged.

The record establishes that on May 6, 2022, appellant lost her balance on a stairwell and 

fell. Appellant provided a consistent history of injury to her supervisor and to her medical 

providers, who also began treating her on May 6, 2022, the alleged date of injury. As noted above, 

the injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact that an 

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).

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

DeloresC. 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); JohnJ. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April9, 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).
4

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.13 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. 14 

Appellant has consistently maintained that she lost her balance on a staircase at work and fell on 

May 6, 2022. The Board, thus, finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that 

the May 6, 2022 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.

As appellant has established that the May 6, 2022 employment incident occurred as 

alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 15 As OWCP found that she 

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.16 After any further 

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

appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an injury causally related to the accepted May 6, 

2022 employment incident.

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 May 6, 2022, as alleged. The Board further finds 

that the case is remanded to determine whether appellant sustained an injury causally related to the 

accepted May 6, 2022 employment incident.

13 Supra note 10.

14 Supra note 12.

15 See M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

16 S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 5, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: March 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board