United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PLEASANT RIDGE 

ANNEX, Greensboro, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0537

Issued: March 7, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 28, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 23, 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

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on December 24, 2021, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the February 23, 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 4, 2022 appellant, then a 49-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on December 24, 2021 he sustained a herniated disc when changing a 

flat tire on his route while in the performance of duty. He reported that he went to urgent care 

because his condition worsened, and he could not move by December 31, 2021. Appellant stated 

that he also followed up with his primary care physician. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

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

stopped work on December 31, 2021. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a January 3, 2022 medical report from

Dr. Melissa Champe-Seagle, Board-certified in emergency medicine, who recounted that appellant 

was changing a tire on December 22 or 23, 2021 stood up from a squatting position, and developed 

soreness in the lower back, which progressively worsened in the following hours and made it 

difficult to walk. Dr. Champe-Seagle’s examination revealed difficulty bending at the waist due 

to pain and 4/5 strength in the left lower extremity. She noted that appellant underwent an x-ray 

at urgent care on January 3, 2022 which revealed multilevel degenerative disc disease, moderatelower lumbar facet arthropathy, and bilateral nephrolithiasis. Dr. Champe-Seagle diagnosed acute 

midline low back pain with left-sided sciatica. She again examined appellant on January 10, 2022 

finding 4/5 strength in the lower extremities bilaterally, demonstrating focal weakness, as well as 

decreased sensation to light touch bilaterally in the feet and ankles. Dr. Champe-Seagle noted that 

he now had sciatica on both sides, not just the left. She diagnosed acute bilateral low back pain 

with left-sided sciatica and held appellant off work for an additional week.

In a January 18, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It advised him as to the type of evidence required, and provided a questionnaire for his

completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

OWCP subsequently received progress notes dated December 31, 2021 from 

Caroline MacKellar, a physician assistant, who related that on December 24, 2021 appellant 

sustained acute onset back strain when changing a tire, on December 25, 2021 he was laying on 

his stomach on the floor and had great difficulty getting up, and on December 30, 2020 he reinjured

his back when carrying a newly delivered safe into the house. Appellant reported bilateral low 

back pain, sometimes radiating to either leg, and a history of mild chronic intermittent back pain.

Ms. MacKellar’s examination revealed forward flexion of the lower back to 20 degrees and 

extension to zero degrees, hip flexion in standing position limited by 50 percent, highly antalgic 

gait, and cautious positional changes. A lumbar spine x-ray taken on December 31, 2021 

demonstrated straightening of lumbar lordosis, multilevel degenerative disc disease, moderate at 

L5-S1, moderate-lower lumbar facet arthropathy, and bilateral nephrolithiasis, but no acute 

fracture or spondylolisthesis. Ms. MacKellar diagnosed acute bilateral low back pain, unspecified 

whether sciatica present. She noted a concern that appellant may have herniated L3-4 and provided 

generic patient instructions regarding low back pain and herniated disc. 

In a progress note dated January 21, 2022, Dr. Vikram Arora, a Board-certified osteopath 

specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation, related that appellant’s low back pain began 

while changing a tire on December 23, 2021 and had significantly improved since. His

examination revealed bilateral lower lumbar paraspinal tenderness, and positive seated slump test 
3

on the right. Dr. Arora reviewed the December 31, 2021 lumbar spine x-ray and diagnosed acute 

bilateral low back pain without sciatica. In a January 21, 2022 note, he released appellant to return 

to full-duty work on January 31, 2022. However, in a January 31, 2022 note, Dr. Arora held 

appellant off work until March 5, 2022.

Appellant underwent a lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan on 

February 5, 2022, which demonstrated multilevel facet arthropathy and disc bulging causing mild 

central canal stenosis at the L2-3 and L3-4.

OWCP also received a February 8, 2022 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) from 

Tyler Crane, a nurse practitioner, relating that appellant injured his low back while changing a tire 

on December 23, 2021. Mr. Crane diagnosed acute low back pain and checked a box marked “No”

indicating that he did not believe that appellant’s condition was caused or aggravated by an 

employment activity. He advised that appellant could resume full-duty work on March 6, 2022. 

By decision dated February 23, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the submitted evidence did not establish that the December 24, 2021 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 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 

3

Supra note 1.

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).

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).
4

the employment incident at the time, 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 sufficient 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 not met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on December 24, 2021, as alleged.

Appellant has not established the factual component of his claim as he has insufficiently 

explained how and when the claimed injury occurred.13 In his January 4, 2022 Form CA-1, he 

indicated that on December 24, 2021 he sustained an injury when changing a flat tire on his route. 

However, appellant did not submit a detailed account of the alleged injury or any additional 

corroborating factual evidence describing how and when he sustained an injury on 

December 24, 2021. The Board has held that such a vague recitation of facts does not support a 

claimant’s allegation that a specific event occurred to cause a work-related injury.14

OWCP, in its January 18, 2022 development letter, informed appellant of the type of 

evidence needed to establish his traumatic injury claim. It requested that he complete an attached 

questionnaire and provide a detailed factual description of the alleged employment incident. 

Appellant, however, did not do so.

15

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).

13 See E.C., Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019).

14 M.C., supra note 12; M.B., Docket No. 11-1785 (issued February 15, 2012).

15 See M.F., supra note 10.
5

Appellant has not provided a sufficient description of the alleged employment incident and 

the mechanism by which he sustained an injury. Therefore, the Board finds that he has not met 

his burden of proof.16 As appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that, an incident 

occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged, it is unnecessary to address the medical evidence 

of record regarding causal relationship.17

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on December 24, 2021, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 23, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

16 H.D., Docket No. 15-1698 (issued May 4, 2016).

17 J.C., Docket No. 19-0542 (issued August 14, 2019); see M.P., Docket No. 15-0952 (issued July 23, 2015); 

Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).