United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bakersfield, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0433

Issued: August 11, 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 February 6, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 14, 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 January 12, 2021, as alleged. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the September 14, 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 August 1, 2022 appellant, then a 29-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on 

January 12, 2021, when he was held hostage by a man who threatened his life if he did not comply 

with his commands, while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, C.V., 

appellant’s supervisor, indicated that the injury was caused by a third party, noting that the identity 

of the individual was unknown. He further advised that he was not at the station when the event 

occurred. Appellant did not stop work. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted work status notes from his treating physicians 

dated August 25 through October 25, 2021, which contained diagnoses of psychiatric conditions, 

including PTSD, and placed him off work. 

In an August 10, 2022 development letter, OWCP notified 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 even date, OWCP requested 

that the employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding 

appellant’s allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to submit the requested evidence.

On August 11, 2022 the employing establishment controverted the claim asserting that 

appellant failed to provide objective evidence establishing that he sustained an injury and 

developed a medical condition causally related to that injury.

By letter dated September 9, 2022, the employing establishment responded to OWCP’s 

development letter. It provided a copy of appellant’s January 12, 2021 statement describing the 

events alleged to have occurred on that date. The employing establishment noted that his

supervisor did not deny that the employing incident occurred. However, it questioned the 

sufficiency of the medical evidence as appellant did not seek treatment until seven months after 

the incident.

In the accompanying January 12, 2021 narrative statement, appellant reported that he was 

delivering mail in his postal truck on that date when a man approached him holding a clothing iron 

and metal pole. He began to brandish the items and demanded appellant give him a ride, 

threatening his life if he did not. The man was erratic, agitated, and jumped into the back of 

appellant’s truck. He demanded appellant drive him to a specified location and threatened his life 

if he did not comply. Appellant recalled the assailant mentioning his full name but he could only 

remember the surname. He reported that the driver of a car stopped to ask him if he was being 

robbed. Appellant explained that he was too afraid to respond and that the assailant became frantic 

and began to scream at him to start driving. He began to drive and realized the driver who had 

stopped to check on him was following his truck. The assailant then forced appellant to turn into 

a fairgrounds and demanded that he be let out of the truck. Appellant reported that when he parked 

and got out of the truck to accede to the assailant’s demand, the driver of the car following him 

pointed a handgun at the assailant, causing him to run off. He reported that the man with the 

handgun also left before he could talk to him. Appellant then called a supervisor after driving to 

a location away from the fairgrounds and remained in his vehicle until the police arrived. 
3

By decision dated September 14, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the January 12, 2021 

employment incident occurred in the performance of duty 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 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 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. 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. Second, the employee must 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury. 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 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.9 An employee’s statements 

3

Supra note 1.

4 E.K., Docket No. 22-1130 (issued December 30, 2022); F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020);

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5

S.H., Docket No. 22-0391 (issued June 29, 2022); 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 E.H., Docket No. 22-0401 (issued June 29, 2022); 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 H.M., Docket No. 22-0343 (issued June 28, 2022); T.J., Docket No. 19-0461 (issued August 11, 2020);

K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

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

9 K.H., Docket No. 22-0370 (issued July 21, 2022); BettyJ. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002); see also L.D., Docket No. 

16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016).
4

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. 10

ANALYSIS

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on January 12, 2021, as alleged.11

As noted, an employee’s statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and 

place, and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or 

persuasive evidence.12 In a January 12, 2021 statement, appellant described the traumatic incident

that occurred on that date when an armed individual got into his postal vehicle and threatened his 

life unless he drove him to a specified location.

Although appellant delayed in filing his Form CA-1, his detailed statement 

contemporaneous to the January 12, 2021 employment incident is consistent with the facts and 

circumstances set forth in his statement. While the employing establishment controverted the 

claim, it has not provided strong or persuasive evidence to refute the occurrence of the January 12, 

2021 employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged by appellant.13 

Appellant indicated that he contacted his supervisor after the alleged assailant escaped, and 

appellant’s supervisor acknowledged the events that took place on the date of injury. There are no 

inconsistencies in the evidence that cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim. The Board 

finds, therefore, that appellant has established a traumatic incident in the performance of duty on 

January 12, 2021, as alleged.14

As appellant has established that the January 12, 2021 employment incident factually 

occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury .

15

 Because 

OWCP found that he 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 this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue 

a de novo decision addressing whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury 

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

11 See F.F., Docket No. 22-0266 (issued September 27, 2022); C.H., Docket No. 19-1781 (issued 

November 13, 2020).

12 See M.V.,Docket No. 19-1040 (issued August12, 2022); J.B.,Docket No. 19-1487 (issued January 14, 2020);

M.S.,Docket No. 22-0106 (issued August 9, 2022); M.C.,supranote 10;W.C.,Docket No. 18-1651 (issued March 7, 

2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).

13 See M.S., id.

14 C.B., Docket No. 21-0670 (issued January 27, 2022); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

15 See L.O., Docket No. 20-0280 (issued October 1, 2021); M.C., supra note 10.

16 A.T., Docket No. 22-1103 (issued December 2, 2022).
5

causally related to the accepted January 12, 2021 employment incident, and any attendant 

disability.

CONCLUSION

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

in the performance of duty on January 12, 2021, as alleged. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 14, 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 11, 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