Federal Focus
When a Treasury Department criminal investigator experienced physical symptoms after witnessing fellow law enforcement officers shoot an armed suspect during an on-duty law enforcement encounter, ECAB found sufficient evidence that the claimed employment incident occurred as alleged.
Case
E.C. and Department of the Treasury, No. 26-0326 (ECAB 05/20/26)
What Happened?
A Treasury Department criminal investigator filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that she felt faint and experienced a racing heartbeat when she and her team “engaged a gunman” in the performance of duty. During the incident, there was a use of force, and two special agents at a restaurant fired their weapons, shooting the suspect.
In support of her claim, the investigator submitted the report of a Board-certified family practitioner that noted the investigator’s palpitations, shortness of breath, dehydration, and hypokalemia.
The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs denied the investigator’s traumatic injury claim, finding that she had not established that the claimed incident occurred as alleged, so she did not meet the requirements to establish an “injury” under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.
Rule of Law
To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, it must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury:
(1) Whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident at the time and place and in the manner alleged.
(2) Whether the employment incident caused an injury.
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.
What ECAB Said
According to ECAB, the investigator met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic incident in the performance of duty. ECAB found that the investigator provided consistent statements that she was present during the engagement with the suspect in the performance of duty, pointing to evidence showing:
(1) In her Form CA-1, the investigator alleged that she felt faint and experienced a racing heartbeat when she was among a group of law enforcement officers who “engaged a gunman” while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, her supervisor acknowledged that she was injured in the performance of duty and indicated that her knowledge of the alleged incident comported with the investigator’s account of events.
(2) The investigator sought immediate medical treatment and was diagnosed with dehydration and hypokalemia after reporting palpitations, shortness of breath, and light-headedness following the incident.
(3) In a later statement, the investigator explained that she and other members of the task force were exiting a restaurant after completing their lunch when they witnessed a robbery and shooting. Following this incident, she experienced a rapid heartbeat and light-headedness.
(4) The investigator’s supervisor related that there was a use of force incident in which two DHS special agents at the restaurant with the investigator fired their weapons, shooting a suspect. He noted that the investigator was near the DHS officers during the incident, and the on-site supervisor sent her to the hospital.
ECAB found that the investigator established that the employment incident occurred as alleged.
Verdict: ECAB reversed and remanded the case to OWCP for consideration of the medical evidence to determine whether the employment incident caused an injury.
Takeaway
Under FECA, an employee’s statement alleging that an incident 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. Consistent employee statements, supported by supervisors and surrounding evidence, are sufficient to establish that an employment incident occurred under FECA.
