United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

San Francisco, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-251 

Issued: April 13, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 12, 2014 appellant filed a timely 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 has established total disability from February 9 to 

March 11, 2014 due to his September 18, 2013 employment injury. 

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP falsely stated that he had undergone left ankle 

surgery. He further contends that his plantar fasciitis and tenosynovitis were caused by his 

employment-related left ankle subtalar and calcaneal contusion. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on September 18, 2013 appellant, then a 53-year-old park ranger, 

sustained a contusion of the left ankle when a metal gate hit his left ankle. Appellant stopped 

work on September 29, 2013 and returned to modified-duty work at the employing establishment 

on October 20, 2013. 

On February 6, 2014 appellant filed a claim for compensation for leave without pay from 

February 9 through March 11, 2014. On February 18, 2014 he advised OWCP that the 

employing establishment could not provide him with light-duty work. 

Medical records dated September 18, 2013 to January 28, 2014 addressed appellant’s left 

ankle conditions, work restrictions, and medical treatment. A November 6, 2013 medical report 

indicated that he received an injection on that day to treat his left ankle osteoarthritis and 

chondromalacia. In work status reports dated October 15 and November 5, 2013, and 

January 28, 2014, Dr. Aman Shabi Khan, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

released appellant to return to modified-duty work. Appellant was restricted to seated work. In a 

December 17, 2013 report, Dr. Khan provided examination findings and diagnostic test results 

regarding the right and left lower extremities. He diagnosed subtalar and calcaneal contusion 

with tenosynovitis. In a prescription also dated December 17, 2013, Dr. Khan ordered physical 

therapy two times a week for six weeks to treat appellant’s contusion with Achilles 

tendinitis/plantar fasciitis. 

In reports dated January 30 and February 11, 2014, Ben Evans, a physical therapist, 

addressed the treatment of appellant’s left ankle pain. 

In a February 23, 2014 memorandum, the employing establishment stated that no lightduty work was available to accommodate appellant’s seated work restriction. 

By letter dated February 25, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant submit rationalized 

medical evidence to establish that his work restriction was medically necessary due to his 

accepted employment injury. It noted that the medical record indicated that he received an 

injection in the left ankle to treat osteoarthritis and chondromalacia. OWCP stated that 

appellant’s claim had not been accepted for Achilles tendinitis, plantar fasciitis, or left ankle 

osteoarthritis and chondromalacia. 

Reports dated January 6 to March 4, 2014 from Mr. Evans and Kimberly Polishchuck, a 

physical therapist, addressed the treatment of appellant’s left ankle pain. 

In a January 28, 2014 report, Dr. Khan listed examination findings and diagnostic test 

results regarding the right and left ankles. He reiterated his prior diagnosis of subtalar and 

calcaneal contusion with tenosynovitis. Dr. Khan stated that appellant’s work restrictions 

remained unchanged. In a March 11, 2014 letter, he related that appellant was being seen for a 

subtalar and calcaneal contusion. Dr. Khan advised that he had compensatory issues with respect 

to his plantar fasciitis and tenosynovitis, but his working diagnosis was subtalar and calcaneal 

contusion. He stated that, prior to his return to full-duty work on March 16, 2014, appellant was 
3

unable to walk and stand after prolonged activities. Dr. Khan stated that this was the reason why 

he was only available for seated work. 

In an April 17, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation from 

February 9 to March 11, 2014, finding that the medical evidence did not establish that he was 

totally disabled during the claimed period due to his accepted September 18, 2013 employment 

injury. 

By letter dated May 27, 2014, appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a May 8, 2014 letter, Dr. Khan stated that appellant had compensatory issues with 

respect to his plantar fasciitis and tenosynovitis as a direct result of his work-related subtalar and 

calcaneal contusion. There was a clear one-to-one ratio connection between this contusional 

injury and subsequent plantar fasciitis and tenosynovitis. Dr. Khan opined that appellant 

qualified for temporary total disability from February 9 to March 11, 2014. Objectively, he had 

significant discomfort to the left ankle and heel, tenderness to palpation, antalgic gait, decreased 

strength, range of motion and balance, gait disturbance, and obvious swelling and inflammatory 

response. In a June 19, 2014 report, Dr. Khan provided examination findings and advised that 

appellant would continue wearing a dorsal night splint and other conservative measures at home. 

He stated that it was disheartening that full relief from pain had not yet been achieved. As such, 

Dr. Khan planned to follow up with appellant in three weeks to update his care plan and discuss 

further procedures to relieve his chronic pain. In a July 10, 2014 report, he reiterated that 

appellant’s prior diagnosis of subtalar and calcaneal contusion with tenosynovitis. 

A May 8, 2014 report signed by Sara Langley, a nurse practitioner in Dr. Khan’s office, 

provided examination findings and recommended a dorsal night splint to assist with the 

alleviation of appellant’s pain and possible surgery in the future. 

Medical records from the employing establishment addressed appellant’s fitness for duty 

from November 14, 2002 to September 28, 2010. 

In an August 27, 2014 decision, OWCP denied modification of the April 17, 2014 

decision. The medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that appellant was 

disabled from February 9 through March 11, 2014 due to his accepted September 18, 2013 

employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

With respect to a claimed period of disability, an employee has the burden of establishing 

that any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to 

the employment injury.2 The term disability is defined as the incapacity because of an 

 2 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 
4

employment injury to earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury, i.e., a 

physical impairment resulting in loss of wage-earning capacity.3

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be disabled for employment and the 

duration of that disability are medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.4

 The medical evidence required to 

establish a period of employment-related disability is rationalized medical evidence.5 

Rationalized medical evidence is medical evidence based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the claimant, of reasonable medical certainty, with an opinion supported by 

medical rationale.6

 The Board, however, will not require OWCP to pay compensation for 

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

for which compensation is claimed.7

 To do so, would essentially allow an employee to selfcertify their disability and entitlement to compensation.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a contusion of the left ankle while working as a 

park ranger. Appellant claimed compensation for disability from February 9 to March 11, 2014. 

OWCP denied his claimed compensation for disability on the grounds that the evidence was 

insufficient to establish that the claimed disability was due to his accepted left ankle injury. 

Appellant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, reliable, and probative 

evidence, a causal relationship between his claimed disability and the accepted condition.9 The 

Board finds that he did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish employment-related 

disability for the period claimed due to his accepted injury. 

Dr. Khan’s May 8, 2014 report found that appellant had plantar fasciitis and 

tenosynovitis as a direct result of his work-related subtalar and calcaneal contusion. He opined 

that appellant was temporarily totally disabled from February 9 to March 11, 2014. Dr. Khan 

stated that there was a clear one-to-one ratio connection between the accepted condition and the 

consequential plantar fasciitis and tenosynovitis. He also stated that, prior to his return to 

full-duty work on March 16, 2014, appellant could only perform seated work because he was 

unable to walk and stand after prolonged activities. Dr. Khan did not sufficiently address how 

the diagnosed conditions and work restriction were causally related to the September 18, 2013 

work incident. His report did not explain how being hit on the left ankle by a gate on 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see, e.g., Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999) (where appellant had an injury but no 

loss of wage-earning capacity). 

4 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

5 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

6 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 

7 Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005). 

8 See William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); supra note 4. 

9 Alfredo Rodriguez, 47 ECAB 437 (1996). 
5

September 18, 2013 caused appellant’s consequential conditions and medical restrictions. 

Moreover, while Dr. Khan found that appellant was totally disabled during the claimed period, 

he did not adequately explain how his disability was causally related to the accepted employment 

injury. Thus, the Board finds that his opinion regarding causal relationship is of limited 

probative value as he did not provide adequate medical rationale in support of his conclusions.10 

Similarly, Dr. Khan’s March 11, 2014 report is of limited probative value because he failed to 

explain how appellant’s plantar fasciitis and tenosynovitis, work restriction, and disability were 

causally related to the accepted employment injury.11 His June 19 and July 10, 2014 reports 

found that appellant had a subtalar and calcaneal contusion with tenosynovitis and plantar 

fasciitis and addressed his medical treatment. Dr. Khan did not provide an opinion addressing 

whether the diagnosed conditions and any resultant disability during the claimed period were 

caused by the accepted work injury.12 The remaining reports from him predate the claimed 

period of disability and fail to provide an opinion stating that appellant was totally disabled from 

February 9 to March 11, 2014 due to the accepted employment injury.13 Therefore, these reports 

do not establish appellant’s disability claim for this period. 

The medical records from the employing establishment dated November 14, 2002 to 

September 28, 2010 also predate the claimed period of disability and fail to provide an opinion 

stating that appellant was totally disabled from February 9 to March 11, 2014 due to the accepted 

employment injury.14

The reports from Mr. Evans and Ms. Polishchuck, physical therapists, and Ms. Langley, a 

nurse practitioner, have no probative medical value. Neither a physical therapist nor a nurse 

practitioner is a physician as defined under FECA.15

Appellant failed to submit rationalized medical evidence establishing that his disability 

from February 9 through March 11, 2014 resulted from residuals of his accepted employmentrelated left ankle condition. 

On appeal, appellant contended that OWCP falsely stated that he had undergone left 

ankle surgery. Contrary to appellant’s contention, OWCP did not state that he had undergone 

 10 C.A., Docket No. 14-1123 (issued August 21, 2014); S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008); William C. Thomas, 45 ECAB 

591 (1994). 

11 Id. 

12 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); 

Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

13 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009). 

14 Id. 

15 The term physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, 

and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); A.C., 

Docket No. 08-1453 (issued November 18, 2008) (records from a physical therapist do not constitute competent 

medical opinion in support of causal relation, as physical therapists are not physicians as defined under FECA); 

L.D., 59 ECAB 648 (2008) (a nurse practitioner is not a physician as defined under FECA); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 

ECAB 238 (2005). 
6

left ankle surgery. In its February 24, 2014 developmental letter, it stated that appellant had 

received an injection on November 6, 2013 to treat left ankle conditions that had not been 

accepted as work related. 

Appellant further contended on appeal that his plantar fasciitis and tenosynovitis were 

caused by his employment-related left ankle subtalar and calcaneal contusion. As discussed, 

however, he has the burden to submit rationalized medical evidence supporting his allegation. 

Appellant’s lay opinion on the cause of his conditions is insufficient to discharge his burden of 

proof as lay individuals are not competent to render a medical opinion.16 The issue of causal 

relationship is a medical one and must be resolved by probative medical evidence.17

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 failed to establish that he was totally disabled from 

February 9 to March 11, 2014 due to his September 18, 2013 employment injury. 

 16 Gloria J. McPherson, 51 ECAB 441 (2000). 

17 Luis M. Villanueva, 54 ECAB 666 (2003). 
7

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 13, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board