United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0817

Issued: October 5, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 2, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 25, 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.

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on November 27, 2021, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 10, 2021 appellant, then a 56-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 27, 2021 he injured his right index finger when a 

machine roller that he was repairing struck his hand while in the performance of duty. He 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

explained that he cut his finger as he was replacing a belt on a machine and that he subsequently 

received seven stiches. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment 

acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty.

In a development letter dated December 21, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

provided a questionnaire for his completion. No additional evidence was received. 

By decision dated January 25, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that a traumatic injury 

occurred in the performance of duty on November 27, 2021, as alleged. Consequently, it found 

that he had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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,3that 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.4 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.5

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.6

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. An employee’s statement alleging that 

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 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).

5 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).

6 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).
3

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.7

ANALYSIS

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

in the performance of duty on November 27, 2021, as alleged.

On his December 10, 2021 Form CA-1 appellant alleged that on November 27, 2021 he 

injured his right index finger when a machine roller that he was repairing struck his hand while in 

the performance of duty. He explained that he cut his finger as he was replacing a belt on a machine 

and that he subsequently received seven stiches. On the reverse side of the claim form, the 

employing establishment acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. 

Appellant’s claim of a November 27, 2021 employment incident has not been refuted by 

strong or persuasive evidence. He has provided a consistent account of the time, place, and manner 

of injury, which was confirmed by the employing establishment. There are no discrepancies in 

the case record regarding appellant’s claimed November 27, 2021 employment incident so as to 

cast serious doubt on the fact that the injury occurred on that date in the manner alleged. 8 The 

Board, thus, finds that the evidence of record is sufficient to establish that the employment incident 

occurred in the performance of duty on November 27, 2021 as alleged.

As appellant has established that the November 27, 2021 employment incident factually 

occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury.9 As OWCP 

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

Board will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s January 25, 2022 decision and remand the case for

consideration of the medical evidence of record.10 After this and other such further development 

as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

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

performance of duty on November 27, 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 

November 27, 2021 accepted employment incident. 

7

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

8

See N.A., Docket No. 21-0773 (issued December 28, 2021); J.T., Docket No. 21-0561 (issued November 22, 

2021); M.C., id.; D.B., id.

9

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).

10 M.H., id.; S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 25, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: October 5, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board