United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Buffalo, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0235

Issued: June 7, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 12, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 20, 2021 merit 

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 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 February 5, 2021, as alleged.

1 The Board notes that, following the September 20, 2021decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 17, 2021 appellant, then a 28-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 5, 2021 he sustained a left knee strain when he 

slipped on an icy driveway at 2:57 p.m. while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of 

the claim form, appellant’s supervisor indicated that his knowledge of the facts ofthis injury agreed 

with appellant’s statements and that he was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant stopped 

work on February 6, 2021 and returned on February 9, 2021. 

The employing establishment issued an authorization for examination and/or medical 

treatment (Form CA-16) on February 8, 2021. Appellant’s date of injury was listed as February 5, 

2021 and it was noted that appellant slipped on ice in a driveway and hurt his left knee. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a doctor’s initial report dated February 8, 2021 

from Maureen Shea, a physician assistant, which related that appellant slipped and fell on ice that 

day while delivering mail. Ms. Shea diagnosed left knee strain. She indicated by checking a box 

marked “Yes” that the work incident caused appellant’s injury and provided work restrictions. 

Appellant submitted another note from Ms. Shea dated February 8, 2021. Ms. Shea 

diagnosed appellant with a strain of unspecified muscles and tendons in the left lower leg and

provided appellant with work restrictions. In a form report dated February 8, 2021, Ms. Shea noted 

that appellant was seen that day for a work-related injury on February 5, 2021 when he slipped on 

ice while delivering mail. Appellant’s diagnosis was listed as left knee sprain. 

OWCP received a report dated February 8, 2021 from Dr. John M. Reiser, a Boardcertified diagnostic radiologist. Dr. Reiser related that appellant slipped on ice and twisted his left 

knee but noted no fracture or dislocation. 

In a note dated February 15, 2021, Dr. William M. Wind, Jr., Board-certified in orthopedic

sports medicine and orthopedic surgery, provided appellant with work restrictions. He also 

provided a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated February 15, 2021, wherein he noted appellant’s 

date of injury as February 5, 2021, and diagnosed left knee meniscus tear due to occupational 

stress. In follow-up notes dated March 3 and 17, 2021, Dr. Wind provided appellant with work 

restrictions.

In a development letter dated August 17, 2021, OWCP advised appellant regarding the 

deficiencies of his claim. It noted the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided 

him with a questionnaire. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

No response was received. 

By decision dated September 20, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as he had not 

established that the incident occurred as alleged, and concluded, therefore, that the requirements 

had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.
3

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 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 a 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

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 sufficient doubt on an employee’s 

statements in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.9 An employee’s 

3

Id.

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

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); 

DeloresC. 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 M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667, 67-71 (1987).

9 Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002); L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016).
4

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.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an incident in the 

performance of duty on February 5, 2021, as alleged. 

Appellant alleged that he sustained a left knee injury on February 5, 2021 when he slipped 

and fell on ice while delivering mail. He initially sought medical care on February 5, 2021 and on 

February 8, 2021. Appellant’s alleged slip and fall at work on February 5, 2021 was noted by his

medical providers. Further, the employing establishment issued a Form CA-16 on February 8, 

2021 noting his history of slip and fall on ice on February 5, 2021. Appellant’s supervisor, on 

appellant’s Form CA-1, acknowledged that his alleged injury occurred in the performance of duty

on February 5, 2021. The incident appellant claimed was consistent with the facts and 

circumstances he set forth, his actions, the employing establishment’s statements, and the medical 

evidence he submitted. The Board thus finds that he has met his burden of proof to establish an 

incident in the performance of duty on February 5, 2021, as alleged. 

As appellant has established that the February 5, 2021 employment incident factually 

occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 11 As OWCP 

found that he had not established fact of injury, it did not evaluate the medical evidence. The 

Board, therefore, will set aside OWCP’s September 20, 2021 decision and remand the case for 

consideration of the medical evidence of record.12 After 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 causally related to the accepted February 5, 2021 employment 

incident.13

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an incident in the 

performance of duty on February 5, 2021, as alleged. The Board further finds that the case is not 

in posture for decision regarding whether he has established an injury causally related to the 

February 5, 2021 employment incident. 

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

11 See M.H., Docket No, 20-0576 (issued August 6, 2020); M.A.,Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 2020);

C.M.,Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

12 M.H., id.; M.F., Docket No. 19-0578 (issued January 26, 2021); S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued 

December 12, 2017).

13 The Board notes that the employing establishment executed a Form CA-16. A completed Form CA-16

authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical facility or physician, when 

properly executed. The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay 

for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.300(c); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); TracyP. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 20, 2021 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: June 7, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board