United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DONELSON POST 

OFFICE, Nashville, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0269

Issued: August 9, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 December 18, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 9, 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 injury 

in the performance of duty on June 27, 2022, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 4, 2022 appellant, then a 39-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 27, 2022 he sustained a low back injury when lifting a bucket

while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form appellant’s manager, 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

L.M., acknowledged that appellant was injured while in the performance of duty and noted that 

his knowledge of the facts about the injury conformed with appellant’s statements. Appellant 

stopped work on June 27, 2022 and returned on July 5, 2022. 

An x-ray of the lumbar spine dated September 25, 2018 revealed no abnormalities.

On June 27, 2022 Robert Relic, a physician assistant, treated appellant for a sudden onset 

of bilateral low back pain that occurred at work when appellant lifted a bucket and heard a “pop”

in his back. He noted findings on examination of tenderness to palpation in the left paraspinal at 

L4-5 and right paraspinal at L4-5, bilateral muscle spasms, and painful range of motion in all 

planes. Mr. Relic noted no significant radiologic findings and diagnosed lumbar strain. He 

returned appellant to modified-duty work and referred him for physical therapy. Mr. Relic treated

appellant in follow-up visits on June 29 and July 7, 18, and 27, 2022 for low back strain and 

reported a slight improvement in low back pain with physical therapy and work restrictions. He 

noted continuing symptoms of bilateral and midline lower back pain radiating into the right 

buttock. Mr. Relic diagnosed lumbar strain and continued modified duty. In an August 9, 2022 

report, appellant noted improving symptoms and indicated that he was able to walk and lift more 

items. Mr. Relic opined that appellant reached maximum medical improvement and was released 

to full-duty work and discharged from his care. 

In a development letter dated October 22, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of the same date, 

OWCP also requested additional information from the employing establishment. It afforded both 

parties 30 days to respond. No additional evidence was received from appellant.

In an undated note the employing establishment indicated that OWCP did not forward the 

Form CA-1 to the agency until recently; however, the agency was aware of the accident and the 

supervisor signed the claim form on June 27, 2022.

By decision dated December 9, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the June 27, 2022 employment

incident occurred as he described. 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 FECA2 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,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 

2

Id.

3

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

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 must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. 6 

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, place, and in the manner alleged.7 Second, the 

employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a 

personal injury.8

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.9 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof in establishing the occurrence of an 

injury when there are inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of 

the claim.10 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. An employee’s statements 

alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner are of great probative value 

and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.11

ANALYSIS

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

in the performance of duty on June 27, 2022, as alleged.

The record establishes that on June 27, 2022 appellant was lifting a bucket from the floor 

while in the performance of duty. He reported hearing a “pop” in his back and a sudden onset of 

bilateral low back pain after the incident. Appellant’s supervisor, L.M., acknowledged on the 

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

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

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

6 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019).

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

8 L.T., Docket No. 18-1603 (issued February 21, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667, 67-71 (1987).

10 See V.J., Docket No. 19-1600 (issued March 13, 2020); E.C., Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019).

11 See M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).
4

Form CA-1 that appellant’s injury occurred in the performance of duty and that his knowledge of 

the facts about this injury conformed with the statements of the employee. 

Additionally, the medical evidence supports that appellant promptly sought treatment the 

day of the alleged June 27, 2022 employment incident. The record reveals that appellant was 

treated by Mr. Relic, a physician assistant, on June 27, 2022 for a sudden onset of bilateral low 

back pain that occurred when he lifted a bucket at work. Mr. Relic diagnosed a lumbar strain. He

treated appellant in follow up on June 29, July 7, 18, and 27, and August 9, 2022 for the June 27, 

2022 employment incident and diagnosed lumbar strain. 

The injuries appellant claimed are consistent with the facts and circumstances he set forth, 

statements from supervisor, and appellant’s course of action. As noted above, the injury does not 

have to 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. 12 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.13 The Board thus 

finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that the June 27, 2022 employment 

incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.

As appellant has established that the June 27, 2022 employment incident factually occurred 

as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury.14 Since OWCP found that 

he had not established an employment incident, it has not evaluated the medical evidence. The 

Board will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s December 9, 2022 decision and remand the case for 

consideration of the medical evidence of record. After this and any other such further development 

as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

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

in the performance of duty on June 27, 2022, as alleged. 

12 Supra note 9.

13 See supra note 11.

14 See M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April 10, 2020); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 9, 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 9, 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