United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, KRAKOW POST 

OFFICE, Krakow, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0328

Issued: August 10, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 3, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 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 that she sustained 

a traumatic injury in the performance of duty on August 5, 2022, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the November 7, 2022 decision and on appeal, OWCP received additional 

evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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 October 4, 2022 appellant, then a 64-year-old lead sales and services associate, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 5, 2022 she injured her right knee 

when she was going to grab a garbage can and tripped on the corner of the platform, fell on her 

right knee, and smashed her face into the carriers’ case, while in the performance of duty. She

noted there was “[n]ot enough room between [the] case and carts, and [the] platform is a tripping 

hazard.” On the reverse side of the form, the employing establishment indicated that the employee 

was injured in the performance of duty.

In an October 4, 2022 statement, the employing establishment controverted the claim.

M.R., an occupational health claims specialist, noted that no medical evidence was received with 

the claim, appellant “is currently off work for nonwork-related surgery,” and the claim was not 

filed timely, as the date of injury was August 5, 2022, and her form was signed on 

September 24, 2022. It explained that appellant alleged that the incident occurred while she was 

grabbing garbage cans to empty, but this was to be done after all the carriers left for their routes, 

for safety reasons. The employing establishment also noted that while she alleged that no carrier 

was on the platform at the time of the incident, other employees stated that the carrier was on the 

platform inside the case, sorting mail when appellant came to grab the garbage can. It noted that 

when management asked if appellant wanted to see a doctor, she responded that “[s]he will see but 

not at this time.”

In a development letter dated October 5, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

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

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. It

also requested additional information from the employing establishment.

OWCP received a September 28, 2022 x-ray of appellant’s right knee, read by Dr. George

Zaleski, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, which revealed minimal degenerative changes of 

the right knee, small joint effusion, intact patella, and no fracture or healing fractures identified.

By decision dated November 7, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that the factual evidence of record was insufficient to establish that an employment incident 

occurred on August 5, 2022, as alleged. 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 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 

3

Supra note 1.
3

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 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 whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established.7 Fact

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

First, the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced 

the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. 8 Second, the employee 

must submit sufficient evidence to establish that the employment incident caused a personal 

injury.9

An employee’s statement 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

Moreover, an injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses. The employee’s statement, 

however, must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her 

subsequent course of action. An employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish the 

occurrence of an injury when there are such inconsistencies in the evidence as to cast serious doubt 

upon the validity of the claim. 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 doubt on an employee’s 

statement in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.11

4

See C.M., Docket No. 22-0456 (issued Ausut 10, 2022); T.G.,Docket No. 20-1549 (issued August 3, 2021);

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B.,Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 T.G., id.; J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. 

Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 T.G., id.; R.R.,Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April25, 2019);L.M.,Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7

S.G., Docket No. 21-1039 (issued February 22, 2022); T.G., id.; T.A.,Docket No. 20-1284 (issued January 27, 

2021); T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393-94 (2008).

8

S.G., id.; M.F., Docket No. 19-0578 (issued January 26, 2021); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

9 G.E., Docket No. 20-1081 (issued January 26, 2021); B.M.,Docket No. 17-0796 (issued July 5, 2018); John J. 

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10 C.R., Docket No. 20-1147 (issued January 5, 2021); M.S.,Docket No. 18-0059 (issued June 12, 2019); D.B., 58 

ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).

11 S.G., supra note 7; K.F.,Docket No. 18-0485 (issued February 18, 2020);D.R.,Docket No. 19-0072 (issued 

June 24, 2019).
4

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 5, 2022, as alleged.

On her Form CA-1 appellant indicated that on August 5, 2022 she was going to grab a 

garbage can, tripped on the corner of the platform, fell on her right knee, and smashed her face 

into the carriers’ case. She noted that there was not enough room between the case and the

platform, which was a tripping hazard. 

On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment acknowledged that 

appellant was in the performance of duty when the incident occurred. Although it subsequently 

controverted the claim contending that appellant did not file her Form CA-1 claim immediately, it 

has not provided any strong or persuasive evidence to refute the occurrence of the August 5, 2022 

employment incident. The employing establishment in fact noted that other employees had related 

that when appellant came to grab the garbage can, a carrier was on the platform inside the case. 

This further evidence is not inconsistent with appellant’s allegations that the incident occurred as 

she attempted to grab a garbage can on the platform. As noted, an employee’s statement alleging 

that an incident 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

Since there are no inconsistencies in the evidence that cast serious doubt upon the validity 

of the claim, the Board finds that appellant has established a traumatic incident in the performance 

of duty on August 5, 2022, as alleged.

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

August 5, 2022 as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury. 13 As

OWCP found that she 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 her burden of proof to establish an injury causally related to 

the accepted August 5, 2022 employment incident, and any attendant disability.

CONCLUSION

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 5, 2022, as alleged.

12 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).

13 D.F., id.; M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April10, 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).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 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: August 10, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board