United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CARRIER ANNEX 

POST OFFICE, Hartford, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0468

Issued: August 18, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephen Larkin, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 19, 2023 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 26, 2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(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 an injury in the 

performance of duty on March 2, 2021, as alleged. 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 16, 2021 appellant, then a 45-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on February 23, 2021 at 10:30 a.m., she sustained a right 

knee injury when she slipped and fell while delivering mail on Huntington Road, in the 

performance of duty.3 She did not stop work. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s 

supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. 

In a letter dated March 24, 2021, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim, contending that she did not deliver mail to the indicated address and that there was no 

medical evidence linked to the specific event allegedly causing injury. Further, it contended that 

she filed two claims for the same injury due to the previous denial of continuation of pay (COP). 

In a development letter dated April 19, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies in her claim and advised her of the factual and medical evidence needed. It

provided her with a questionnaire for her completion and afforded her 30 days to respond. 

OWCP thereafter received additional medical evidence. On March 4, 2021 appellant was 

seen by Dr. Gary R. Richo, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Richo reported that she

related a severe twisting injury to the right knee “about a month ago” after walking down and 

missing a step while delivering mail. Appellant also indicated thatshe was seen in an emergency 

room and underwent x-rays. She further indicated that her knee buckled occasionally. Dr. Richo 

reviewed the x-ray report, which showed mild degenerative changes of the right knee. He 

assessed a right knee sprain and administered a corticosteroid injection in appellant’s right knee. 

A work status note, of even date, and signed by Dr. Richo placed appellant off work pending a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. A duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date from 

him indicated a diagnosis of right knee sprain and right knee pain and placed appellant off work. 

In a letter dated April 27, 2021, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim again, contending that she filed two claims for the same injury “and different dates of 

injury” due to a previous denial of COP. It further contended that she had submitted the same 

medical evidence in the prior claim. 

By decision dated June 8, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the February 23, 2021 employment incident 

occurred, as alleged. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA. 

Appellant thereafter submitted a narrative statement dated March 11, 2021, indicating 

that she slipped and fell at the alleged address and was helped by a resident on that street. 

3 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx539. Appellant had previouslyfiled a claim alleging 

that on January28, 2021 she injured her right knee and leg, when she stumbled while descending stairs while in the 

performance of duty. OWCP assigned this claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx142 and denied the claim by decision 

dated April 19, 2021. The claims have not been administratively combined by OWCP.
3

On July 30, 2021 appellant was seen by Dr. Richo for a follow-up appointment. She

related continued knee pain, clicking in her knee, and weakness and instability. Dr. Richo again 

assessed right knee sprain. 

On February 7, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of her request, she

submitted an amended version of the medical note from the March 4, 2021 visit with Dr. Richo 

dated August 5, 2022. The amended note indicated that appellant related a second fall on her 

right knee on March 2, 2021 due to her knee buckling. 

In a letter dated April 12, 2022, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim once again, reiterating that she had filed two claims for the same injury due to a previous 

denial of COP. It also reiterated that the medical note dated March 4, 2021 was submitted with 

the previous claim and that she did not deliver mail to Huntington Road on February 23, 2021. 

An MRI scan report of the knee dated July 28, 2022 and signed by Dr. S. Harpreet 

Baweja, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, found: (1) degeneration in the body and 

posterior horn body junction of the medial meniscus without definite tear; (2) superior surface 

degenerative fraying tear of the anterior root of the lateral meniscus; (3) mild sprain medial 

collateral ligament; (4) mild patellofemoral arthritis; and (5) small effusion, small Baker’s cyst. 

Appellant submitted a narrative statement dated August 3, 2022 in response to the 

employing establishment’s challenge. She indicated that she was initially injured on January 28, 

2021 when she slipped and fell, was treated in an emergency room on February 2, 2021 and 

reported the injury to her supervisor on February 3, 2021. Appellant was out of work until 

February 22, 2021. She further indicated that the actual date of her second injury was March 2, 

2021, which was the date her knee buckled and caused her to fall while delivering mail. 

Appellant noted that she saw her physician on March 4, 2021 and he explained that her knee 

buckling had caused her to fall on March 2, 2021. She also submitted a clock rings report which 

indicated that she had worked on March 2, 2021. 

Appellant submitted a narrative statement on August 24, 2022 indicating that she 

mistakenly claimed February 23, 2021 as the date of injury. She alleged that the date of injury 

was, instead, March 2, 2021. Appellant also submitted an August 19, 2022 note from A.L., who 

noted that she was an OWCP representative for the local union branch. This note indicated that 

appellant had contacted her on March 3, 2021 and informed her of the incident and injury 

sustained on March 2, 2021. Appellant also submitted a witness statement dated August 23, 

2022 from S.S., indicating that appellant contacted her on March 2, 2021 to inform her that 

appellant fell and injured her knee on Huntington Road. 

By decision dated October 26, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its June 8, 2021 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 

4

Supra note 2.
4

States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA, that 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 an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of 

duty, it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There are two 

components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the employee 

actually experienced the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. The 

second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be 

established by medical evidence.7

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.8 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof in 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.9 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.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 met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

incident in the performance of duty on March 2, 2021, as alleged.

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 B.H., Docket No. 20-0777 (issued October 21, 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 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) (traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, 

respectively).

8

J.B., Docket No. 22-1201 (issued April 26, 2023); see J.M., Docket No. 19-1024 (issued October 18, 2019); 

M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019).

9

J.B., id.; S.A., Docket No. 19-0613 (issued August 22, 2019); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

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

11 J.B., id.; see M.V., Docket No. 19-1040 (issued August12, 2022); J.B., Docket No. 19-1487 (issued January14, 

2020); M.S., Docket No. 22-0106 (issued August9, 2022); W.C., Docket No. 18-1651 (issued March 7, 2019); M.C., 

Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).
5

Appellant has alleged and filed two traumatic injury claims for separate incidents 

occurring in January and March 2021. In a statement dated August 3, 2022, she explained that 

she was initially injured on January 28, 2021 when she slipped and fell, was treated in an 

emergency room on February 2, 2021 and reported the injury to her supervisor on 

February 3, 2021. Appellant also alleged that she sustained a second injury on March 2, 2021 

when her knee buckled and she fell while delivering mail. She sought medical treatment on 

March 4, 2021. Appellant explained that she had mistakenly indicated that her second injury 

occurred on February 23, 2021 but she explained and alleged her actual date of injury was 

March 2, 2021. She submitted a witness statement from A.L., explaining that appellant had 

contacted her on March 3, 2021 and informed her of the incident and injury appellant sustained 

on March 2, 2021. Appellant further submitted a witness statement dated August 23, 2022 from

S.S. indicating that appellant contacted her on March 2, 2021 to inform her that she fell and 

injured her knee on Huntington Road. OWCP also received an amended note from Dr. Richo 

dated August 5, 2022, which indicated that appellant had related a second fall on her right knee 

on March 2, 2021 due to her knee buckling. The primary basis for the employing 

establishment’s challenge was that appellant did not deliver mail to the indicated address on 

February 23 2021 and that there was no medical evidence linked to the specific event allegedly 

causing injury. It further contended that she filed two claims for the same injury on two different 

dates due to a previous denial of COP. As noted, an employee’s statement alleging that an injury 

occurred at a given time, place, and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand 

unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.12 The Board finds that appellant has established 

a traumatic incident in the performance of duty on March 2, 2021, as alleged.

As appellant has established that the March 2, 2021 employment incident occurred as 

alleged, the question becomes whether the employment incident caused an injury.

13

 Therefore, 

the case shall be remanded to OWCP to determine whether she sustained an injury causally 

related to the March 2, 2021 employment incident.

14

 On remand, OWCP shall also consider 

whether a full and fair adjudication of the issues would require that it administratively combine 

the current case record with appellant’s prior right knee claim, as noted above.

15

 Following this 

and other such further development as deemed necessary, itshall issue a de novo decision on her

traumatic injury claim.

12 D.F., Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 17, 2022); see also M.C., id.; D.B., id.

13 F.S., Docket No. 21-1040 (issued March 10, 2023); D.F., Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 17, 2022);

M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April 10, 2020); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

14 F.S., id.; I.J., Docket No. 20-0599 (issued November 22, 2022); T.M., Docket No. 20-0712 (issued 

November 10, 2020); see also T.A., Docket No. 19-1525 (issued March 4, 2020).

15 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8c(1) 

(February 2000); F.S., id.; T.H., Docket No. 22-0658 (issued September 1, 2022); W.W., Docket No. 19-0884 

(issued June 16, 2020); L.P., Docket Nos. 18-1558 and 18-1568 (issued June 21, 2019); L.S., Docket Nos. 17-1863, 

17-1867, and17-1868 (issued April18, 2018);W.S., Docket No. 15-0969 (issued October 5, 2015); C.C., Docket 

No. 14-1576 (issued March 9, 2015).
6

CONCLUSION

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

incident in the performance of duty on March 2, 2021, as alleged. The Board further finds, 

however, that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether she sustained an injury 

causally related to the accepted March 2, 2021 employment incident.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 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: August 18, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board