United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Jonesboro, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0586

Issued: October 6, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 17, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 27, 2023merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on December 19, 2022, as alleged.

1 The Board notes that following the February 27, 2023 decision, the Board and OWCP received additional 

evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 16, 2023 appellant, then a 45-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 19, 2022 she injured her left shoulder in a motor 

vehicle accident while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on January 12, 2023. On 

the reverse side of the form, appellant’s supervisor, D.H., acknowledged that she was injured in 

the performance of duty. However, on the same form, he controverted the claim, as his knowledge 

of events did not agree with those provided by appellant. D.H. reported that he was the first 

supervisor on the scene and that she had signed an affidavit indicating that she was not injured at 

the time of the employment-related motor vehicle accident. He further related that appellant

sought medical treatment after two days and returned to modified-duty work with no driving. 

Appellant continued to work until January 2023 when she asserted that she should not be driving 

employing establishment vehicles.

In a January 23, 2023 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim 

and provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter of even date, 

OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide evidence regarding appellant’s route 

and the address of the occurrence of the motor vehicle accident. It afforded both parties 30 days 

to respond.

On December 21, 2022 appellant sought treatment with Karrie Pusateri, a nurse 

practitioner, due to injuries to her left shoulder, neck, and hip as a result of a motor vehicle 

accident. She underwent left shoulder x-rays.

In notes dated January 25, February 2, and February 9, 2023, Dr. Jay Morgan, a Boardcertified neurosurgeon, indicated that appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 

December 19, 2022. He noted her neck, left shoulder, and left hip symptoms. Dr. Morgan 

diagnosed acute strain of the neck muscles, left hip strain, and left shoulder strain.

Appellant also provided notes from physical therapists.

By decision dated February 27, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the incident occurred as 

alleged. It noted that she did not respond to its developmental questionnaire. Consequently, 

OWCP found that appellant had not met the requirements 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 

3

Id.
3

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. The employee has not met his or her 

burden when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt on 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 the employee’s statements 

in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.8 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. 9

ANALYSIS

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

in the performance of duty on December 19, 2022, as alleged.

On her January 16, 2023 Form CA-1 appellant alleged that on December 19, 2022 she 

injured her left shoulder in an employment-related motor vehicle accident. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, the employing establishment acknowledged, by checking a box marked “Yes,”

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

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); 

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

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L.,Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

J.J., Docket No. 22-0957 (issued March 29, 2023); C.M.,Docket No. 20-1519 (issued March 22, 2021); Betty J. 

Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

9

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

that she was in the performance of duty when injured. Although the employing establishment on 

the same form controverted the claim arguing that appellant had not reported injuries resulting 

from the December 19, 2022 motor vehicle accident immediately, it has not provided any strong 

or persuasive evidence to refute the occurrence of the December 19, 2022 employment incident. 

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.10

Further the medical evidence contemporaneous with the alleged employment incident 

establishes that on December 21, 2022, just two days following the incident, appellant sought 

treatment from Ms. Pusateri, a nurse practitioner where she recounted that she was injured in a 

motor vehicle accident. Appellant also sought treatment with Dr. Morgan beginning on 

January 25, 2023, due to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on December 19, 2022. 

Since there are no inconsistencies in the evidence that cast serious doubt upon the validity of the 

claim, the Board finds that she has established a traumatic incident in the performance of duty on 

December 19, 2022, as alleged.

As appellant has established that an incident occurred in the performance of duty on 

December 19, 2022 as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 11 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.12 After 

this and other such further development as 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 December 19, 2022 employment incident.

CONCLUSION

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

in the performance of duty on December 19, 2022, as alleged.

10 J.J., supra note 8; D.F., Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 17, 2022); see also M.C., id.; D.B., id.

11 J.J., and D.F., id.; M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued 

May 24, 2019).

12 J.J., and D.F., id.; L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016); Betty J. Smith, supra note 8.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 27, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: October 6, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board