United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, IRVING VALLEY 

BRANCH STATION, Irving, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0607 

Issued: July 23, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Richard A. Daniels, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 24, 2014 appellant, through his representative, filed an appeal from an 

August 5, 2013 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 his burden of proof to establish employment-related 

disability from September 5 to November 9, 2012 due to the accepted right shoulder and bilateral 

knee injuries. 

On appeal appellant’s representative asserts that appellant is entitled to monetary 

compensation because he established a recurrence of disability when the employing 

establishment withdrew light-duty work. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 17, 2006 appellant, then a 49-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

alleging that he injured his right knee in the performance of duty. He stopped work that day. 

The claim, adjudicated by OWCP under file number xxxxxx921, was accepted for right knee 

sprain, internal derangement of the right knee, and medial meniscus tear on the right. Appellant 

returned to modified duty on May 22, 2006. On August 31, 2006 he underwent authorized 

arthroscopic repair of the medial meniscal tear. After a brief return to full duty in May 2009, 

appellant returned to restricted duty on July 25, 2009. On December 5, 2011 OWCP accepted 

that he sustained a consequential aggravation of localized osteoarthritis of the left leg.2 

On January 2, 2012 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim, alleging that on 

December 31, 2011 he injured his right shoulder while lifting tubs of mail. He did not stop 

work. OWCP adjudicated the claim under file number xxxxxx104. A January 9, 2012 magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right shoulder demonstrated moderate osteoarthritis, 

indicative of a partial tear of the supraspinatus and subscapularis tendons with a lesion from the 

superior labrum extending from anterior to posterior (SLAP). 

On January 10, 2012 Dr. Terry Madsen, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed 

OWCP-authorized bilateral total knee replacement arthroplasties. 

On April 3, 2012 OWCP accepted a sprain of the shoulder and upper arm and a SLAP 

lesion on the right. On April 24, 2012 Dr. Kevin Williams, an orthopedic surgeon, performed a 

right shoulder arthroscopic surgery with subacromial decompression, repair of SLAP tear and 

rotator cuff repair. On May 7, 2012 he reported that sutures were removed, that appellant should 

undergo physical therapy, and that appellant could return to work in six weeks. File numbers 

xxxxxx921 and xxxxxx104 were doubled on May 11, 2012. 

In a May 21, 2012 duty status report, Dr. Tuan Trinh, Board-certified in internal 

medicine, advised that appellant could not work due to a right shoulder injury. In a May 25, 

2012 work capacity evaluation, he provided diagnoses of sprain of right knee, internal 

derangement of right knee, tear of right medial meniscus, and left osteoarthritis. Dr. Trinh 

indicated that maximum medical improvement had not been reached and checked a form box 

“yes,” indicating that appellant could perform his usual job. A June 29, 2012 functional capacity 

evaluation that assessed appellant’s right shoulder indicated that he was unable to perform 

regular job duties. On July 31, 2012 Dr. Trinh assessed appellant’s right shoulder. He advised 

that appellant continued to have pain and weakness and could not perform regular duties. 

Dr. Trinh provided restrictions, which would apply for four weeks, indicating that reaching was 

limited to less than one hour with a lifting restriction of 25 to 50 pounds. On August 16, 2012 he 

advised that appellant could work full time with standing restrictions for six hours, sitting for two 

hours, no climbing, kneeling, or reaching above the shoulder, and a 25- to 50-pound weight 

restriction. 

Appellant returned to a modified-duty assignment on August 27, 2012 for eight hours a 

day sitting, doing computer work and data input for one to two hours; walking and standing for 

 2

 The record contains a number of decisions in which the left knee claim was denied. 
3

two to six hours; and checking letter carrier performance while delivering mail for two to six 

hours. The physical requirements indicated that he should lift up to 25 pounds, with intermittent 

driving from one to eight hours and simple data entry for one to two hours. Appellant received 

wage-loss compensation until his return to work. 

Effective October 9, 2012 appellant was off work. On November 9, 2012 he filed a CA-7 

claim for compensation for the period September 5, 2012 to “present.” Rodney Malone, 

postmaster, indicated on the claim form that appellant was placed off work on September 5, 2012 

because the street supervisor position was eliminated. On December 10, 2012 Angela R. Frazier, 

the employing establishment human resource officer, informed OWCP that the position to which 

appellant had returned was an acting supervisory position and the supervisor had returned to the 

position. She stated that appellant’s regular position was a city carrier. Ms. Frazier telephoned 

OWCP on December 12, 2012 and indicated that appellant had not been provided a modified 

position by the employing establishment because he had been released to full duty on 

May 21, 2012. There was no modified position provided to appellant after the supervisor 

returned to his position. Ms. Frazier maintained that at that time appellant should have been 

returned to his letter carrier position.3

By decision dated January 16, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage loss for 

the period September 5 to November 9, 2012 as the medical evidence of record established that 

he could return to full duty. Appellant timely requested a hearing. 

In January 2013, OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Donald M. Mauldin, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation regarding appellant’s lower extremities. 

Dr. Mauldin was provided with a statement of accepted facts for file number xxxxxx921, and the 

questions asked the physician referred only to the accepted lower extremity conditions. 

Dr. Mauldin provided a February 12, 2013 report in which he discussed appellant’s medical 

history in regard to his knees and provided lower extremity physical examination findings. He 

indicated that appellant continued to have symptoms referable to his knee replacement surgery 

which would prevent him from returning to a letter carrier position that required walking for 

prolonged periods. Dr. Mauldin provided permanent restrictions of no repetitive stair climbing, 

bending, or squatting, no prolonged walking on uneven ground, no carrying in excess of 25 

pounds. He opined that appellant could perform light-duty work for eight hours a day with some 

standing, sitting, and walking, within the restrictions he provided. 

Appellant’s representative asserted that, as appellant’s light duty had been withdrawn, he 

was entitled to wage-loss compensation. He also maintained that, at the time appellant returned 

to work, he continued to have residuals of his right shoulder condition. At the hearing, held on 

May 16, 2013, the representative maintained that limitations for the accepted shoulder injuries 

remained. Appellant testified that his “street management” job was withdrawn on 

October 9, 2012. He related that he was told by the postmaster that he was going to get appellant 

a floor supervisor position but appellant believed that position would not meet his work 

restrictions. Rather than discussing the issue further with the postmaster, appellant called 

 3

 On January 9, 2013 appellant was granted a schedule award for 31 percent impairment of the right lower 

extremity and 31 percent impairment on the left. 
4

OWCP. Appellant asserted that OWCP told him that if his job was eliminated he could just 

leave work that day and he would receive compensation. 

In an August 5, 2013 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the January 16, 

2013 decision as the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish entitlement to total 

disability for the period claimed. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA, the term “disability” is defined as incapacity, because of employment 

injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.4

 Disability is 

thus not synonymous with physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to 

earn the wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal 

employment injury but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn wages he or she was receiving 

at the time of injury has no disability as that term is used in FECA.5

 The test of “disability” 

under FECA is whether an employment-related impairment prevents the employee from engaging 

in the kind of work he or she was doing when injured.6

 Whether a particular injury causes an 

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

be proved by a preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial medical evidence.7 

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.8 Causal relationship is a medical issue. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.9 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he had 

any employment-related disability from September 5 to November 9, 2012 due to the accepted 

right shoulder and bilateral knee injuries. The accepted conditions for the 2006 employment 

injury, adjudicated under file number xxxxxx921, are right knee sprain, internal derangement of 

the right knee, medial meniscus tear on the right and consequential aggravation of localized 

osteoarthritis on the left. Under that claim, appellant had bilateral total knee replacements on 

 4 See Prince E. Wallace, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

5 Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999); Maxine J. Sanders, 46 ECAB 835 (1995). 

6 Corlisia Sims, 46 ECAB 963 (1995). 

7 Tammy L. Medley, 55 ECAB 182 (2003). 

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

9 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 
5

January 10, 2012. The 2012 injury, adjudicated under file number xxxxxx104, is accepted for a 

sprain of the shoulder and upper arm and a SLAP lesion on the right. On April 24, 2012 

appellant had surgical repair of his right shoulder injury, under this claim. 

The record contains information regarding the position to which appellant returned in 

August 2012 as an acting supervisor. Appellant held that position until the supervisor he was 

replacing returned in October 2012. The record supports that, at that time, the postmaster 

informed him that he would find another position for appellant and suggested the floor 

supervisor position. Appellant determined on his own that the suggested position would be 

outside his restrictions. While he maintained that he telephoned OWCP and was informed that 

he could stop work if his position were eliminated and be paid compensation, there is no record 

evidence to support this contention. Appellant left work that day. He therefore has not 

established a change in his light-duty position.10

Moreover, the medical evidence does not support appellant’s contention that he was 

disabled from work for the period claimed. On a May 25, 2012 work capacity evaluation, 

Dr. Trinh advised that appellant could perform his usual job, and on August 16, 2012 stated that 

he could work full time with restrictions of standing for six hours, sitting for two hours, no 

climbing, kneeling, or reaching above the shoulder, and with a 25- to 50-pound weight 

restriction. None of the other physicians, including Dr. Mauldin, discussed the period of claimed 

disability from September 5 to November 9, 2012. 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit sufficient rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to establish that he was unable to work from September 5 to November 9, 2012 due to 

the accepted conditions and thus he is not entitled to wage-loss compensation for the period 

claimed.11

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish employmentrelated disability from September 5 to November 9, 2012 due to the accepted right shoulder and 

bilateral knee injuries 

 10 See Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 

11 N.R., Docket No. 14-114 (issued April 28, 2014). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 5, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.12

Issued: July 23, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge, participated in the preparation of this decision but was no longer a member 

of the Board effective December 27, 2014.