United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0513

Issued: September 14, 2021

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, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 17, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 11, 2020 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 her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

an injury in the performance of duty on July 29, 2020, as alleged.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 11, 2020 decision, 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 28, 2020 appellant, then a 61-year-old postal collect and delivery employee , 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 29, 2020 she injured her left hand 

when she tripped and fell out of a truck that she was cleaning and sanitizing while in the 

performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment 

acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. Appellant did not stop work.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a September 19, 2020 patient visit information 

which indicated that appellant was treated by Dr. Benjamin Miner, an emergency medicine

specialist, and diagnosed as having a finger sprain.

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date, Dr. Miner noted that appellant reported 

that she fell out of a vehicle onto her hand on July 29, 2020. He diagnosed left hand/finger 

contusion due to injury. Dr. Miner advised that appellant could resume full-time, regular work as 

of the date of his examination.

OWCP, in a development letter dated November 4, 2020, informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to 

establish her claim and provided a questionnaire for her completion to provide further details 

regarding the circumstances of her claimed injury. OWCP also requested a narrative medical

report from appellant’s treating physician, which contained a detailed description of findings and 

diagnoses, explaining how the reported work incident caused or aggravated her medical condition. 

It afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No additional evidence was 

received.

By decision dated December 11, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the July 29, 2020 incident 

occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged. It further found that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the alleged employment 

incident. OWCP 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 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 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 

 

3

Supra note 1.

4

S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
3

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 if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

occurred.7 The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury.

8

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 subsequent course of action. 9 

The employee has not met his or her burden of proof in establishing the occurrence of an injury

when there are inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the 

claim.10 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.11 An employee’s statements 

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

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.13 The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must 

be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

 

5 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

6

S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); DeloresC. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 R.K., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued April10, 2020); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8 Y.D., Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April6, 2020); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

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

10 See E.C., Docket No. 19-0943 (issued September 23, 2019).

11 See L.B., Docket No. 19-1799 (issued March 11, 2020); M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); 

Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

12 See M.C., id.; D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).

13 S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); 

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
4

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that an incident 

occurred in the performance of duty on July 29, 2020, as alleged.

Appellant indicated in her September 28, 2020 claim form that she injured her left hand on 

July 29, 2020 when she tripped and fell out of a truck that she was cleaning and sanitizing at work. 

Additionally, Dr. Miner’s September 19, 2020 Form CA-17 report related a history of injury that 

on July 29, 2020 appellant fell out of a vehicle onto her hand, and diagnosed left hand/finger 

contusion due to injury. As well, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged on the reverse side of the 

claim form that appellant was injured in the performance of duty. 

The Board, thus, finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that the 

July 29, 2020 employment incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.15 Appellant 

provided consistent statements on her claim form and in her medical records, which establish that 

the alleged employment incident occurred on July 29, 2020.16 She has provided a single account 

of the mechanism of injury that has not been refuted by any evidence in the record.17 On the 

reverse side of appellant’s claim form the employing establishment acknowledged that appellant 

was injured in the performance of duty on July 29, 2020. As stated above, an employee’s 

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.18 The Board

therefore finds that appellant has established that the July 29, 2020 employment incident 

occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged.

The Board further finds that appellant has established a left finger contusion. Dr. Miner 

recounted appellant’s history of injury where he reported that she fell out of a vehicle onto her 

hand on July 29, 2020. He diagnosed left hand/finger contusion due to the injury. OWCP’s 

procedures provide that, if a condition reported is a minor one, such as a burn, laceration, insect 

sting, or animal bite, which can be identified on visual inspection by a lay person, a case may be 

accepted without a medical report.19 As the evidence of record establishes diagnosed visible 

 

14 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

15 See A.B., Docket No. 20-1567 (issued April30, 2021); O.G., Docket No. 20-0399 (issued July 20, 2020); S.S.,

Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June 26, 2020).

16 G.H., Docket No. 19-1971 (issued May 20, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 19-1499 (issued January 27, 2020).

17 Id.

18 Supra note 12.

19 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.6(a) 

(June 2011); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(c) 

(January 2013). See also A.J.,Docket No. 20-0484 (issued September 2, 2020).
5

injuries, the Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a left lower 

leg contusion causally related to the accepted employment July 29, 2020 incident.20 The case will, 

therefore, be remanded for payment of medical expenses and any attendant disability.

The Board further finds, however, that appellant has not established additional medical 

conditions causally related to the July 29, 2020 employment injury. The September 19, 2020 

patient visit information indicated that Dr. Miner diagnosed finger sprain, but did not offer an 

opinion as to whether the diagnosed condition was caused by the July 29, 2020 employment injury. 

The Board has held that medical evidence, which does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of 

an employee’s condition, is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.21 The Board 

finds, therefore, that this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s 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 met her burden of proof to establish that an incident 

occurred in the performance of duty on July 29, 2020, as alleged. The Board also finds that 

appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a left finger contusion causally related to the 

accepted July 29, 2020 employment incident. The Board further finds, however, that appellant has 

not met her burden of proof to establish additional medical conditions causally related to the 

accepted July 29, 2020 employment injury.

 

20 See A.J., id.; see also W.R., Docket No. 20-1101 (issued January 26, 2021); S.K., Docket No. 18-1411 (issued 

July 22, 2020).

21 See C.W., Docket No. 20-0965 (issued February 5, 2021); B.H., Docket No. 20-0777 (issued October 21, 2020); 

T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., Docket 

No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 11, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Issued: September 14, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board