United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CINCINNATI POST 

OFFICE, Cincinnati, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0208

Issued: June 26, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 30, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 7, 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.2

ISSUE

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

in the performance of duty on August 24, 2022, as alleged. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of OWCP’s October 7, 2022 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 August 29, 2022 appellant, then a 31-year-old mail handler assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 24, 2022 her right knee popped when she was 

pushing a full bulk mail container (BMC) while in the performance of duty. She indicated that she 

was “fine” walking on her knee until the next day. On the reverse side of the claim form, 

appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty, but

marked a response “Yes” to the question of whether the injury was caused by willful misconduct, 

intoxication, or intent to injure self or another. Her supervisor notedthat appellant failed to request 

assistance to push the heavy equipment in order to prevent injury. Appellant’s supervisor also 

noted that appellant had related that her knee pain began at home. The form indicated that 

appellant stopped work on August 24, 2022. 

A duty status report (Form CA-17) with an illegible signature dated August 25, 2022 

indicated a diagnosis of patellar tendinitis. Appellant was advised to return to work. 

Appellant submitted a narrative statement dated August 27, 2022 in which she reiterated 

her history of injury. She related that on August 24, 2022 around 10:00 p.m. she pushed a full 

BMC, which was a little hard to push, when she turned the BMC her right knee popped. Appellant

further related that she finished the rest of her shift which ended at midnight. The next morning 

as she attempted to get out of bed, she almost collapsed as her knee hurt and was swollen. 

Appellant went to Urgent Care where she was told to keep her knee “wrapped up” and was 

instructed to obtain an x-ray. 

In a development letter dated September 1, 2022, OWCP indicated that the evidence 

provided was insufficient to establish that appellant actually experienced the employment incident 

alleged to have caused her injury. It also noted that there was no diagnosis of any condition, nor 

a physician’s opinion as to how the alleged injury resulted in a medical condition. A questionnaire 

was provided to appellant to substantiate the factual elements of her claim. The questionnaire 

noted that the employing establishment related that she had indicated that her pain began at home. 

It asked appellant to explain when her pain began. OWCP afforded her 30 days to respond.

In a report dated September 13, 2022, Jessica Boetcher, a physician assistant, noted that 

appellant was seen that day. Appellant related that she twisted her right knee on August 24, 2022 

while moving a 500-pound mail cart. She further related intermittent swelling, as well as pain 

below the knee which had moved posteriorly and to the medial knee. Appellant also indicated that 

she had not yet returned to work. Ms. Boetcher diagnosed right knee sprain and released appellant

to return to work that day with restrictions. A referral to orthopedics from Ms. Boetcher of even 

date included diagnoses of dysuria and right knee patellar tendinitis. A work status note, also of 

even date, allowed appellant to return to work with restrictions until September 20, 2022. 

Appellant submitted a form for the state workers’ compensation dated September 13, 2022 

and signed by Ms. Boetcher. Ms. Boetcher indicated appellant’s diagnosis of right knee sprain 

after a “twisting injury” from pushing a mail cart at work. 

By decision dated October 7, 2022, OWCP found that appellant had not established that 

the August 24, 2022 incident occurred as alleged, because she had not responded to OWCP’s 
3

questionnaire. It also noted that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a diagnosed 

medical condition in connection with the accepted 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 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, that 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 an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There are two components 

involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the employee actually 

experienced the employment incident that allegedly occurred at the time, place, and in the manner 

alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury. 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. 7 The employee has not met his or her 

burden of proof establishing the occurrence of an injury when there are such inconsistencies in the 

evidence as to cast serious doubt upon the validity of the claim. Such circumstances such 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 statement in determining whether a prima facie case has been

established.8 An employee’s statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a 

3

Supra note 1.

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 B.H., Docket No. 20-0777 (issued October 21, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989); see 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8101(5) (injury defined); 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(ee), 10.5(q) (traumatic injury and occupational disease defined, 

respectively).

7

S.W., Docket No. 17-0261 (issued May 24, 2017).

8 C.M.,Docket No. 20-1519 (issued March 22, 2019);S.A.,Docket No. 19-0613 (issued August 22, 2019); Betty J. 

Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).
4

given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive 

evidence.9

ANALYSIS

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

incident occurred in the performance of duty on August 24, 2022, as alleged. 

In her August 29, 2022 Form CA-1, appellant alleged that on August 24, 2022 her right 

knee popped while she was pushing a full bulk BMC in the performance of duty. She also 

submitted a narrative statement dated August 27, 2022 in which she further explained that on 

August 24, 2022 around 10:00 p.m. she pushed a full BMC, which was a little hard to push, when 

she turned the BMC her right knee popped. Appellant further related that she finished the rest of 

her shift which ended at midnight. The next morning as she attempted to get out of bed, she almost 

collapsed as her knee hurt and was swollen. Appellant then sought medical treatment at an Urgent 

Care facility. A Form CA-17 dated August 25, 2022 reflects that she was seen on August 25, 2022 

for right knee complaints. Appellant also consistently related the history of the August 24, 2022 

incident to her subsequent medical providers. 

As noted, 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 Appellant has consistently maintained that her injury occurred when her right knee 

popped as she pushed a full BMC on August 24, 2022. Furthermore, she sought medical treatment 

the next day, the history of injury contained in the reports was consistent, and her supervisor 

acknowledged that she was injured in the performance of duty. Therefore, the Board finds that 

appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that a traumatic incident occurred in the 

performance of duty on August 24, 2022 as alleged.11

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

August 24, 2022, as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 12 The 

case must, therefore, be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence of record.13 After 

this and other such development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision 

addressing whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an injury causally related to 

the accepted August 24, 2022 employment incident.

9A.C.,Docket No. 18-1567 (issued April 9, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 529 (2007); GregoryJ. Reser, 57 ECAB 

277 (2005).

10 Id.

11 See J.V.,Docket No. 21-0029 (issued April15, 2022);C.B., Docket No. 21-0670 (issued January 27, 2022).

12 C.B., Docket No. 21-0554 (issued June 21, 2022); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).

13 D.F., Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 17, 2022); L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016).
5

CONCLUSION

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

in the performance of duty on August 24, 2022, as alleged. The Board further finds that this case 

is not in posture for decision regarding whether she established an injury causally related to the 

accepted August 24, 2022 employment incident. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 7, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: June 26, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board