United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.V., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0968

Issued: October 23, 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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 12, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 9, 2022 merit decision and

a June 6, 2022 nonmerit 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on January 8, 2022, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP properly 

determined that appellant abandoned his request for an oral hearing.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 20, 2022 appellant, then a 65-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 8, 2022 he fractured his left thumb when he 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

tripped on a floor jack and fell while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

January 9, 2022.

In an undated statement, appellant related that, at approximately 1:00 p.m., on January 8, 

2022, as he was preparing to deliver his route, he decided to put the mail into a container. The 

back room was dark and it was icy outside, so he was still wearing ice cleats. Appellant related 

that he grabbed the mail container with his left hand to move it so that he could put mail inside, 

but tripped over a floor jack, twisted, and fell hard. He indicated that the mail went flying and he 

picked it up, placed it into the container, and finished his routes. 

In an undated statement, a coworker advised that he had contacted appellant on January 8, 

2022 at 4:19 p.m. asking how his day had gone and appellant had replied that it had gone well and

he was already home. The witness replied to appellant that “[I’m] glad you got everything done 

safely,” to which appellant responded, “thanks,” but he did not mention any accident or injury.

However, when the witness contacted appellant on January 9, 2022 to let him know that he would 

need to assist package delivery the following day, appellant responded that he had fallen and 

injured his thumb on January 8, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., but had thought it was just a sprain. The witness 

met appellant at the office to discuss how the accident had happened and appellant demonstrated 

how he pulled a mail container toward him rather than pushing it as he was trained to do, and he

further indicated that he had left the lights off and was wearing ice cleats in the building when he 

was injured, which may have contributed to the fall. The witness advised that if appellant had 

followed proper training the accident could have been avoided.

In another undated statement, appellant related that, at approximately 1:00 p.m., on 

January 8, 2022, as he was preparing to deliver his route, he decided to put the mail into a 

container. The back room was dark and it was icy outside, so he was still wearing ice cleats. 

Appellant related that he grabbed the mail container with his left hand to move it so that he could 

put mail inside, but tripped over a floor jack, twisted, and fell hard. He indicated that the mail 

went flying and he picked it up, placed it into the container, and finished his routes. 

A January 9, 2022 work status note from a nurse practitioner indicated that appellant was 

absent from work due to a January 9, 2022 injury. 

In January 12, 2022 progress notes, Dr. Elizabeth Plocher, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, indicated that appellant reported injuring his left thumb moving equipment at work on 

January 8, 2022. She noted that he developed left thumb pain moving equipment,but did not know 

exactly what had happened to his thumb or whether it was hyperextended, crushed, or pulled. 

Dr. Plocher advised that appellant went to prompt care on January 9, 2022 and underwent

radiographs. She opined that the radiographs were unremarkable and showed degenerative 

changes at the interphalangeal joint of his thumb with no gross evidence of fracture. Dr. Plocher

further opined that appellant had likely aggravated underlying osteoarthritis. She diagnosed

irritated underlying and preexisting osteoarthritis, and recommended immobilization in a thumb 

splint. The January 12, 2022 progress notes contain a separate entry from a nurse indicating that 

appellant reported that he was moving items at the employing establishment when he fell and 

injured his thumb. In a letter of even date, Dr. Plocher ordered work restrictions and a splint. 
3

Progress notes from a January 20, 2022 encounter with Dr. Plocherindicated that appellant 

sustained a work injury on January 8, 2022 and continued to experience pain and stiffness in his 

left thumb. Dr. Plocher diagnosed degenerative changes to the thumb and reiterated that he likely 

aggravated the underlying degenerative changes with his work injury. In a work status note of 

even date, she provided work restrictions. 

In a January 26, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

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

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

necessary evidence. 

In response, OWCP received an unsigned, undated letter in which appellant related that he 

fell and injured his left thumb, went to prompt care on January 9, 2022 and was referred to an 

orthopedic physician that he saw on January 12 and 20, 2022. 

In an addendum to her January 20, 2022 progress notes, Dr. Plocher opined that, based on 

appellant’s description of the injury, she supported his claim that he had a significant injury at 

work that had aggravated his underlying and preexisting arthritis. She further opined that, without 

this work injury, it was “unlikely that [appellant] would have had any exacerbation of pain related 

to his osteoarthritis, especially given the fact that his arthritis was completely asymptomatic prior 

to this injury at work.” 

X-rays of appellant’s left fingers obtained on January 20, 2022 showed degenerative 

changes of the left thumb. 

In February 7, 2022 progress notes, Dr. Plocher noted that appellant was feeling better, but 

continued to report pain to the radial aspect of his left thumb and interphalangeal joint. X-ray 

results of even date for appellant’s left hand noted an impression of degenerative changes of the 

thumb. 

OWCP also received a February 7, 2022 duty status report (Form CA-17) from Dr. Plocher

notingthat appellant fell and injured his left thumb, and a return to work note of even date ordering

work restrictions and a splint. 

In a March 3, 2022 return to work note, Dr. Plocher released appellant to return to work 

without restrictions. 

By decision dated March 9, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that he had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the events or incident 

occurred as alleged. Consequently, it found that he had not met the requirements to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.

On March 14, 2022 appellant requested either a review of the written record or an oral 

hearing before OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

Appellant continued to submit evidence, including January 9, 2022 progress notes from a 

nurse practitioner, who noted that he had fallen the day before and caught himself to protect his 

back and head. He had experienced pain in the base of his left thumb since that time. Appellant 
4

also reported initial bleeding around the nail bed and pain to the base of his left thumb after the 

injury. The nurse practitioner observed mild swelling and faint bleeding at the base of his nail bed 

and noted that a preliminary reading of a left thumb x-ray was positive for a fracture of the 

proximal phalanx left thumb. She diagnosed an open nondisplaced fracture of the proximal 

phalanx of the left thumb and issued an orthopedic surgery referral. 

X-ray results of even date noted an impression that an acute fracture was difficult to 

exclude, but the appearance of fracture at the radial base of the first proximal phalanx may have 

been due to an overlapping skin fold and sesamoid bone, rather than a fracture. 

In progress notes dated March 3, 2022, Dr. Plocher found that appellant was doing well

and could work without restrictions. She opined that he had aggravated his underlying arthritis 

and would not have required treatment if not for the January 8, 2022 injury. 

On March 30, 2022 Dr. Plocher related that appellant had sustained a left thumb crush 

injury on January 8, 2022 with primary diagnoses of a sprain of the left thumb and aggravation of 

underlying osteoarthritis at the interphalangeal joint of the left thumb. She reiterated her opinion

that he likely would not have had any pain without the injury at the employing establishment, and 

that his injury directly resulted in his pain and the required medical treatment and therapy. In a 

return to work note of even date, Dr. Plocher allowed appellant to return to work without 

restrictions. 

In an April 18, 2022 notice, OWCP’s hearing representative informed appellant that it had 

scheduled a telephonic hearing for May 26, 2022 at 2:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The 

notice included a toll-free number to call and provided the appropriate passcode for access to the 

hearing. The hearing representative mailed the notice to appellant’s last known address of record. 

Appellant did not appear for the hearing and no request for postponement was made.

By decision dated June 6, 2022, OWCP found that appellant had abandoned his request for 

an oral hearing as he had received written notification of the hearing 30 days in advance, but failed 

to appear. It further found that there was no indication in the case record that he had contacted the 

Branch of Hearings and Review either prior to or after the scheduled hearing to explain the failure 

to appear. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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 

2

Id.

3 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 
5

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 comp onent 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. 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.7 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. 8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

occurred in the performance of duty on January 8, 2022, as alleged.

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

and in the manner alleged is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or 

persuasive evidence.9 Appellant alleged in his January 20, 2022 Form CA-1 that on January 8, 

2022 he fractured his left thumb or the sesamoid bone in his thumb when he tripped on a floor jack 

and fell while placing mail in a container. On the reverse side of the Form CA-1, the employing 

establishment acknowledged that he was in the performance of duty when injured, his injury was 

4 K.E., Docket No. 22-0110 (issued March 8, 2023); 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

J.J., Docket No. 22-0957 (issued March 29, 2023); 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).

6 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

7 C.M., Docket No. 20-1519 (issued March 22, 2021); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

8

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

9 D.F., Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 17, 2022); see also M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); 

D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).
6

not caused by a third party, and its knowledge of the facts about the injury were consistent with 

his statements. Appellant contacted his supervisor the afternoon of January 9, 2022 and informed

him that he had fallen and injured his thumb at 1:00 p.m. on January 8, 2022 but had thought it 

was just a sprain. This short, explained delay in reporting the incident is not persuasive evidence 

refuting appellant’s account.10

Appellant provided a consistent and substantially similar description of the incident to

medical care providers.

11

 On January 9, 2022 he reported to a nurse practitioner that he fell 

yesterday, but was unsure how he caught himself, as he was protecting his back and head when he 

fell. The nurse practitioner observed mild swelling and faint bleeding at the base of his nail. On 

January 12, 2022 Dr. Plocher indicated that appellant reported sustaining a left thumb injury on 

January 8, 2022 while moving equipment at work, and in a separate entry of even date, a nurse 

indicated that he reported that he was moving items at the employing establishment when he fell 

and injured his thumb. There are no inconsistencies in the evidence sufficient to cast serious doubt 

upon the validity of the claim, thus, the Board finds that he has met his burden of proof to establish 

an employment incident in the performance of duty on January 8, 2022, as alleged.12

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

January 8, 2022 as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 13 As

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.14 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 causally related to 

the accepted January 8, 2022 employment incident.15

CONCLUSION

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 8, 2022 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 accepted January 8, 2022 employment incident.

10 See M.S., Docket No. 22-0106 (issued April4, 2022)(findingthat a delay in reporting of less than one day was

not persuasive evidence refuting an appellant’s account); see also M.C., id.; D.B., id.

11 See K.H., Docket No. 22-0370 (issued July 21, 2022); J.Z., Docket No. 14-455 (issued June 16, 2014) (appellant 

met his burden of proof to establish fact of injury where his various accounts were “substantially similar,” and 

reasoning that “the minor variations in how appellant’s medical providers described the incident do not preclude him 

from establishing that the claimed incident occurred as alleged.”)

12 Id.; V.M., Docket No. 08-2304 (issued May 21, 2009).

13 D.F., supra note 9; M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April 10, 2020); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued 

May 24, 2019).

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

15 In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot.
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 9, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is reversed, and the June 6, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside as moot. The case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: October 23, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board