United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CHEMICAL 

MATERIALS AGENCY, PUEBLO CHEMICAL 

DEPOT, Pueblo, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1156

Issued: April 24, 2023

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 July 12, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 14, 2022 merit decision of 

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

1 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of appellant’s oral argument request, he asserted that oral argument should be granted because he wished to 

respond to allegedly false information provided by the employing establishment. Appellant also wished to discuss 

payment of his medical bills and entitlement to disability compensation. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies 

appellant’s request for oral argument because the arguments on appeal can adequately be addressed in a decision based 

on a review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not 

serve a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied and this decision is based on the case record as 

submitted to the Board.
2

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

the merits of this case.3

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on October 13, 2021, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 1, 2021 appellant, then a 52-year-old security guard, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on October 13, 2021 at 6:40 a.m., he fractured or dislocated a 

joint in his right fifth finger when he jammed or struck his hand when reaching to open a door 

while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on October 13, 2021 and returned to work on 

an unspecified date. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor, K.M., contended

that appellant’s alleged injury was not sustained in the performance of duty and provided a 

December 2, 2021 statement controverting the claim. He alleged that, while at the firing range on 

November 5, 2021 appellant told him that he might be unable to fire his weapon because he had 

injured his hand at home “but had reported it to a supervisor.” K.M. alleged that appellant had 

also informed other supervisors that the hand injury happened at home. 

In a December 2, 2021 witness statement, J.F., an employing establishment supervisor, 

alleged that on November 5, 2021 and an unspecified prior occasion, appellant stated that his hand 

injury had occurred while at home. J.F. advised appellant of the importance of going to a physician 

“to get his hand examined.”

In a witness statement of even date, F.V., an employing establishment supervisor, alleged 

that on November 5, 2021 appellant had been sent home from the firing range. F.V. subsequently 

spoke with appellant by telephone. During the conversation, appellant allegedly informed F.V. 

“that he had hurt his hand at home and not to worry[,] he didn’t hurt it at the range.”

In a development letter dated December 9, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

required and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond. 

Thereafter, OWCP received a December 8, 2021 report from Dr. Richard Trifilo, Boardcertified in occupational and aerospace medicine. Dr. Trifilo recounted that on October 13, 2021 

appellant reached out to open a door and hit his right hand on the edge of the door. Appellant had 

returned to full-duty work. He had waited to seek medical treatment as “he thought it would just 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the January 14, 2022 OWCP decision, appellant submitted 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.
3

get better on its own.” Dr. Trifilo obtained x-rays of the right hand, which demonstrated a mildly 

displaced fracture of the right fifth metacarpal. He diagnosed contusion of the right hand and 

fracture of the fifth metacarpal bone of the right hand. Dr. Trifilo referred appellant to an 

orthopedist. 

In a December 8, 2021 form report, Dr. Trina L. Bogart, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, ordered x-rays of the right hand, prescribed physical therapy, and provided work 

restrictions. 

In a December 10, 2021 statement, the employing establishment again controverted 

appellant’s claim. It asserted that F.V.’s witness statement demonstrated that the claimed injury 

had not occurred in the performance of duty. 

By decision dated January 14, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

factual component of fact of injury had not been established. 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 FECA4 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 of FECA,5that 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.6 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.7

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, 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.8

4 Supra note 2.

5 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).

6 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).

7 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).

8 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).
4

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.9 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.10

ANALYSIS

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

injury in the performance of duty on October 13, 2021 as alleged.

Appellant has not sufficiently explained how the injury occurred on October 13, 2021 and 

why he waited until December 1, 2021, to report the injury.11 In his December 1, 2021 claim form 

and in his December 8, 2021 history to Dr. Trifilo, he alleged that he either fractured or dislocated 

a joint in his right fifth finger when he struck his hand on the edge of a door. However, appellant 

did not otherwise describe the location of the incident, the duties he was performing at the time he 

reached out to open the door, or the mechanism of injury. Additionally, although he recounted 

immediate swelling in his right hand, he did not seek medical treatment until December 8, 2021. 

These circumstances, which include a vague description of the alleged traumatic incident, late 

notification of injury, and a delay in seeking medical treatment, cast serious doubt on the validity 

of the claim.

12

Additionally, supervisors K.M., J.F., and F.V. submitted witness statements dated 

December 2, 2021, providing a detailed recounting of November 5, 2021 conversations with 

appellant in which he stated that he had injured his hand while at home. These statements further 

cast serious doubt on the accuracy of appellant’s account of events.13

Appellant also submitted a December 8, 2021 report by Dr. Trifilo, recounting appellant’s 

assertion that he struck his right hand on the edge of a door while at work on October 13, 2021. 

However, this report is insufficient to establish the factual component of appellant’s injury, as the 

history of injury was insufficiently detailed. Appellant’s failure to provide a complete history of 

9 T.T., Docket No. 22-0792 (issued October 18, 2022); C.M., Docket No. 20-1519 (issued March 22, 2021); Betty J. 

Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

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

11 See M.E., Docket No. 20-1336 (issued July 2, 2021); V.J., Docket No. 19-1600 (issued March 13, 2020); E.C., 

Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019).

12 See M.E., id.

13 L.W., Docket No. 20-1438 (issued May 18, 2021).
5

injury as a component of this medical report casts further doubt that the traumatic injury occurred 

in the performance of duty as alleged.14 

As the evidence of record is insufficient to establish an injury in the performance of duty 

on October 13, 2021 as alleged, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.

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 October 13, 2021, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 14, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 24, 2023

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

14 Id.; see also S.Z., Docket No. 19-1125 (issued October 22, 2020); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572 (1988).