United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Egg Harbor Township, NJ, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0577 

Issued: August 26, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 16, 2015 appellant, through counsel, timely filed an appeal from an 

August 27, 2014 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.

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish disability for the 

period May 14, 2010 through January 30, 2012 causally related to her accepted conditions. 

On appeal, counsel contends that the medical evidence is sufficient to establish that she 

continues to suffer residuals of her employment injuries. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board. OWCP accepted that appellant, a 47-year-old 

transportation security specialist, sustained contusions to both hands and both knees on June 28, 

2003 after stepping into a hole and falling down in the performance of duty. Appellant was 

placed on the periodic rolls. By decision dated May 14, 2010, OWCP rescinded the acceptance 

of appellant’s claim. In a decision dated September 5, 2012, the Board set aside OWCP’s 

December 27, 2010 decision, remanding the case for OWCP to further develop the evidence to 

determine whether appellant’s injury was sustained in the performance of duty.2 The facts of the 

case, as set forth in the prior decision, are incorporated by reference. 

In a January 4, 2013 decision, OWCP reversed its May 14, 2010 rescission and 

retroactively reinstated appellant’s medical benefits. It advised her that, if she wished to claim 

wage-loss compensation, she must submit medical evidence supporting employment-related 

disability. 

Appellant, through counsel, filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for the period 

May 14, 2010 through January 30, 2012 and submitted a series of medical records dated 

February 28, 2012 through May 13, 2013, which included a March 15, 2012 x-ray of the right 

knee, March 22, 2012 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right knee, and an 

April 27, 2012 electromyography (EMG) of the right leg. Appellant submitted reports from 

Dr. Scott Sharetts, a neurologist, regarding her diabetic peripheral neuropathy and Dr. Kathleen 

Ryan, a Board-certified pulmonologist, regarding her sleep apnea. 

On September 28, 2011 Dr. Andre Hu, a Board-certified physiatrist, indicated that he saw 

appellant regarding issues with her fibromyalgia. In a February 6, 2012 report, Dr. Asha 

Vijayakumar, an internist, diagnosed asthma and diabetes. Appellant submitted emergency room 

records dated June 9, 2012 from Lourdes Medical Center regarding her visit due to a respiratory 

condition. In a June 14, 2012 report, Dr. Samuel Wasser, a general surgeon, stated that appellant 

had a history of diabetes, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obstructive sleep apnea, and 

asthma. In reports dated March 21, 2011 through August 21, 2012, Dr. Rebecca Moore, a family 

practitioner, indicated that combined systolic and diastolic elevation was observed and diagnosed 

asthma, diabetes, morbid obesity, familial hypercholesterolemia, numbness, peripheral 

neuropathy, neck pain, knee joint pain, asthma, foot pain, and lower back pain. In a May 13, 

2013 attending physician’s report, Dr. Moore diagnosed knee and lower back pain and stated that 

the cause of appellant’s conditions were “unknown.” 

In a July 30, 2013 letter, OWCP requested additional medical evidence establishing 

appellant’s disability for work during the period claimed due to her employment injury and 

afforded her 30 days to respond to its inquiries. 

Appellant submitted reports dated May 26, June 23, and August 11, 2011 from Dr. Hu 

who indicated that she had a history of multiple orthopedic issues, including left cervical 

radiculopathy which he diagnosed in 2006. She presented with complaints of diffuse body pains 

in the neck, back, arms, and legs, which she felt she had since she fell into a hole in June 2003. 

                                                             2

 Docket No. 11-1320 (issued September 5, 2012). 
3

Dr. Hu opined that appellant had a chronic pain syndrome and reiterated his diagnosis of 

fibromyalgia. 

By decision dated January 30, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability for the 

period May 14, 2010 through January 30, 2012 because the medical evidence submitted was 

insufficient to support disability due to any employment injuries. 

On February 10, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative, which was held on June 11, 2014. 

By decision dated August 27, 2014, OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

January 30, 2014 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8102(a) of FECA3 sets forth the basis upon which an employee is eligible for 

compensation benefits. That section provides: “The United States shall pay compensation as 

specified by this subchapter for the disability or death of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of his duty....” In general the term “disability” under 

FECA means “incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages the employee was 

receiving at the time of injury.”4 This meaning, for brevity, is expressed as disability for work.5 

For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proving that he or she was 

disabled for work as a result of the accepted employment injury.6

 Whether a particular injury 

caused an employee to be disabled for employment and the duration of that disability are medical 

issues which must be proved by the preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

medical evidence.7

Disability is not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in 

an incapacity to earn wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to his 

or her federal employment, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages he or she was 

receiving at the time of injury, has no disability as that term is used under FECA and is not 

entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning capacity. The Board will not require OWCP to 

pay compensation for disability in the absence of any medical evidence directly addressing the 

particular period of disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so would essentially 

allow employees to self-certify their disability and entitlement to compensation.8

 

                                                             3

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f). See also William H. Kong, 53 ECAB 394 (2002); Donald Johnson, 44 ECAB 540, 548 

(1993); John W. Normand, 39 ECAB 1378 (1988); Gene Collins, 35 ECAB 544 (1984). 

5 See Roberta L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002). 

6 See William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004). 

7 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 292 (2001). 

8 Id. 
4

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she was disabled for work during 

the period May 14, 2010 through January 30, 2012 causally related to her employment injuries. 

While OWCP accepted that appellant sustained contusions to both hands and both knees, 

appellant bears the burden to establish through medical evidence that she was disabled during the 

claimed time periods and that her disability was causally related to her accepted injuries.9 The 

Board finds that appellant has submitted no rationalized medical evidence explaining how the 

employment injuries caused disability for work for the period May 14, 2010 through 

January 30, 2012. 

In his reports, Dr. Hu indicated that appellant had a history of multiple orthopedic issues, 

including left cervical radiculopathy which he diagnosed in 2006. Appellant presented with 

complaints of diffuse body pains in the neck, back, arms, and legs, which she felt she had since 

she fell into a hole in June 2003. Dr. Hu opined that appellant suffered from a chronic pain 

syndrome and diagnosed fibromyalgia. As he failed to offer any probative medical opinion on 

whether she was disabled on the dates at issue due to her accepted conditions, his reports are of 

diminished probative value.10 Further, OWCP has not accepted that appellant experienced an 

employment-related left cervical radiculopathy or fibromyalgia condition under this claim. As 

such, appellant has the burden of proof to establish that these conditions are employment 

related.11 

In her reports, Dr. Moore indicated that combined systolic and diastolic elevation was 

observed and diagnosed asthma, diabetes, morbid obesity, familial hypercholesterolemia, 

numbness, peripheral neuropathy, neck pain, knee joint pain, asthma, foot pain, and lower back 

pain. In a May 13, 2013 attending physician’s report, he diagnosed knee and lower back pain 

and stated that the cause of appellant’s conditions were “unknown.” The Board finds that 

Dr. Moore failed to provide a probative medical opinion on whether appellant was disabled on 

the dates at issue due to her accepted conditions. 

In support of her claim, appellant also submitted emergency room records dated June 9, 

2012 and reports from Drs. Sharetts, Ryan, Vijayakumar, and Wasser. The Board finds that this 

medical evidence failed to provide a probative medical opinion on whether appellant was 

disabled on the dates at issue due to her accepted conditions and, therefore, lacks probative value 

to establish appellant’s claim. 

The diagnostic reports of record, including the March 15, 2012 x-ray, March 22, 2012 

MRI scan, and April 27, 2012 EMG, do not constitute competent medical evidence as they do 

not contain rationale by a physician relating appellant’s disability to her employment.12 

                                                             9 See supra notes 6 and 7. See also V.P., Docket No. 09-337 (issued August 4, 2009). 

10 See Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005). See also V.P., id. 

11 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 104 (2004). 

12 See, e.g., K.A., Docket No. 14-1626 (issued May 13, 2015) (discussing what makes a medical opinion 

probative). 
5

Appellant has not met her burden of proof through rationalized medical evidence to 

establish disability for the period May 14, 2010 through January 30, 2012 causally related to the 

accepted employment injuries. 

On appeal, counsel contends that the medical evidence is sufficient to establish that she 

continues to suffer residuals of her employment injuries. As noted, it is appellant who bears the 

burden of proof to establish disability for the period claimed.13 Based on the findings and 

reasoning stated above, the Board finds counsel’s arguments are not substantiated. 

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 not met her burden of proof to establish disability for 

the period May 14, 2010 through January 30, 2012 causally related to her federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 27, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 26, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             13 See supra note 9.