United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Jacksonville, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1150 

Issued: September 15, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 21, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 17, 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he was disabled 

for work from January 30 to 31, 2014 causally related to his accepted right ankle condition. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the March 17, 2014 decision. Since the 

Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, the Board 

may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 

126 (2005). Appellant may submit that evidence to OWCP along with a request for reconsideration. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 10, 2013 appellant, then a 53-year-old tractor trailer operator, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that he injured his right ankle that day when he slipped on the stairs. He 

stopped work and returned to modified duty on July 27, 2013. OWCP accepted appellant’s 

claim for right ankle sprain with right ankle instability. Appellant received authorized medical 

treatment and physical therapy. 

On December 20, 2013 appellant underwent authorized right ankle arthroscopy surgery. 

He stopped work again and received disability compensation. On January 2, 2014 appellant 

returned to full-time modified duty as a mail clerk. His duties included casing and wasting mail 

for eight hours a day. The physical requirements of appellant’s job included sedentary work and 

no driving. 

Appellant continued to receive authorized medical treatment and physical therapy. 

In a January 22, 2014 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report of the right ankle, 

Dr. Scott Wiedenmann, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, reported effusions of the ankle 

joint and subtalar joint without any additional internal derangement and tendinosis of the 

Achilles and plantar fascia tendons without tear. 

In a January 27, 2014 report, Dr. Gregory Solis, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

related appellant’s complaints of right ankle pain and underwent right ankle surgery on 

December 20, 2013. He reviewed appellant’s history and noted no changes. Dr. Solis stated that 

he did not expect appellant to be 100 percent by this point but that most people at five weeks 

postsurgery would be markedly better. He reported that appellant could resume working with 

restrictions of minimal standing and walking and pushing, pulling and lifting up to 10 pounds. 

In a January 27, 2014 work capacity evaluation, Dr. Solis noted appellant’s diagnosis of 

right ankle sprain. He advised that appellant was not capable of performing his usual job but was 

able to work full time with restrictions of standing, pushing, pulling and lifting up to four hours; 

walking and climbing up to three hours; bending, stooping and kneeling up to two hours; and 

squatting up to one hour. 

On February 4, 2014 appellant filed a Form CA7 requesting disability compensation for 

the period January 30 to 31, 2014. The employing establishment noted that it did not certify the 

time and that there was no medical evidence to support appellant’s absence. 

In a February 5, 2014 letter, Josephine Perron, a human resource management specialist 

at the employing establishment, controverted appellant’s claim. She related that appellant stated 

that he was out of work due to “pain” and reported that there was no medical documentation 

which took him off work for the dates claimed. 

By letter dated February 7, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish his claim for disability compensation. It requested that he submit a 

narrative medical report, with objective findings, which demonstrated that he was unable to work 

for the period January 30 to 31, 2014 as a result of his accepted right ankle condition. 

In a February 11, 2014 return to work note, Dr. Solis listed that appellant was unable to 

work from January 30 to 31, 2014. 
3

In a February 12, 2014 letter, Ms. Perron noted that appellant took off work from 

January 30 to 31, 2014 stating that he was in too much pain to work. She advised appellant that 

his medical restrictions reflected that he could work so he could not just take off and get paid by 

OWCP. Ms. Perron contended that appellant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence 

explaining why he was unable to work from January 30 to 31, 2014. 

In a February 24, 2014 report, Dr. Solis related appellant’s complaints of right ankle pain 

and that appellant informed him that he was getting better gradually improving. He stated that 

appellant was working with restrictions and was concerned that climbing in and out of trucks 

would aggravate his condition. Dr. Solis reviewed his history and noted no changes. He opined 

that appellant should be improving postsurgery and that the intermittent activities he was 

performing at work should not cause any significant problems. Dr. Solis stated that he would not 

be able to put appellant on any more work restrictions since he expected the surgery itself to be 

completely healed. The physician reported that appellant was at the point where he was not 

going to do any harm to his ankle getting back to regular duties. Dr. Solis noted that he would 

keep appellant on his current work restrictions of no loading and unloading. He recommended 

more physical therapy and a follow-up examination in four weeks. 

Appellant also submitted various hospital discharge and surgery reports dated 

December 20, 2013. 

In a decision dated March 17, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s disability compensation 

claim. It found that the medical evidence failed to establish that he was unable to work for the 

period January 30 to 31, 2014. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA bears the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence. The term disability as used 

in FECA means the incapacity because of an employment injury to earn the wages that the 

employee was receiving at the time of injury.3

 Whether a particular injury causes an employee 

to become disabled for work and the duration of that disability are medical issues that must be 

proved by a preponderance of reliable, probative and substantial medical opinion evidence.4

 

OWCP’s procedure manual discusses the evidence necessary if recurrent disability for 

work is alleged within 90 days of return to duty. It is noted that the focus is on disability rather 

than causal relationship of the accepted condition to the work injury. The procedure manual 

states: 

“The claims examiner should ask the claimant to submit a narrative statement 

from the attending physician which describes the duties which the employee 

cannot perform, and the demonstrated objective medical findings that form the 

basis for renewed disability for work.”5

 3 Paul E. Thams, 56 ECAB 503 (2005). 

4 Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004). 

5

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.5 (June 2013). 
4

The Board has held that if recurrent disability for work is claimed within 90 days or less 

from the first return to duty, the attending physician should describe the duties which the 

employee cannot perform and the demonstrated objective medical findings that form the basis 

for the renewed disability for work.6

 The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for 

disability in the absence of any medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of 

disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so would essentially allow employees to 

self-certify their disability and entitlement to compensation.7

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a right ankle sprain as a result of a July 10, 2013 

employment injury and underwent surgery. Appellant stopped work and returned to modified 

duty on January 2, 2014. On February 4, 2014 he filed a claim for disability compensation from 

January 30 to 31, 2014. In a decision dated March 17, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

disability compensation from January 30 to 31, 2014. The Board finds that appellant did not 

meet his burden of proof to establish that he was disabled from work from January 30 to 31, 

2014 as a result of his accepted right ankle condition. 

Appellant submitted various reports by Dr. Solis. In a January 27, 2014 report, Dr. Solis 

noted appellant’s complaints of right ankle pain and accurately described appellant’s history of 

injury. He stated that most people at five weeks postsurgery would be markedly better than 

appellant. Dr. Solis authorized appellant to work full time with restrictions of standing, pushing, 

pulling and lifting up to four hours; walking and climbing up to three hours; bending, stooping 

and kneeling up to two hours and squatting up to one hour. These restrictions would allow 

appellant to continue the sedentary modified position that he had performed since 

January 2, 2014. 

In a February 11, 2014 return to work note, Dr. Solis listed that appellant was unable to 

work from January 30 to 31, 2014. The Board notes that although Dr. Solis listed dates for 

appellant’s period of disability, he provided no opinion on the cause of appellant’s inability to 

work. It is unclear as to whether appellant’s inability to work was related to his accepted right 

ankle condition. Furthermore, Dr. Solis provided no evidence of objective findings to 

substantiate appellant’s inability to work on the days in question. Appellant was properly 

notified by OWCP’s letter of February 7, 2014 that he would have to submit medical evidence 

which contained objective medical findings and explained why he was unable to work on the 

dates in question. 

The additional January 22, 2014 diagnostic report by Dr. Wiedenmann is also insufficient 

to establish appellant’s disability compensation claim as he failed to mention any period of 

disability or explain, based on medical rationale, how appellant’s alleged inability to work from 

January 30 to 31, 2014 resulted from his accepted right ankle condition. 

On appeal, appellant states that, after he went to therapy on January 29, 2014, his right 

foot was swollen and he was unable to walk or drive for the next two days. The record before 

the Board however does not reflect that he submitted medical evidence to demonstrate that his 

 6 R.C., Docket No. 14-201 (issued May 8, 2014). 

7 William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 
5

physical therapy prevented him from performing his modified-duty job from January 30 

to 31, 2014. Appellant has not provided sufficient medical opinion explaining how objective 

medical physical findings support his disability. The Board finds that OWCP properly denied 

his claim. 

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 established that he was entitled to compensation 

for disability for the period January 30 to 31, 2014. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 17, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 15, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board