United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Springfield, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0541 

Issued: April 27, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 1, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from October 1 and 

November 13, 2015 merit decisions 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 employment-related disability for the 

periods July 20 to August 19, September 22 to October 21, or November 21 to 

December 20, 2014. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 20, 2012 appellant, then a 48-year-old general expediter, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that she sustained a right foot injury in the performance of 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

duty on December 12, 2012. She noted on the claim form that a loaded wire container was rolled 

over her foot, causing abrasions on top of her right foot. The attending physician, Dr. Kenneth 

Aquilino, a Board-certified internist, submitted a Form CA-17 (duty status report) dated 

January 2, 2013 diagnosing a right foot contusion. He opined that appellant would be disabled at 

least two or three weeks. Dr. Aquilino also diagnosed lumbar degenerative disc disease. In a 

March 13, 2013 report, he noted that the lumbar condition was longstanding and appellant’s low 

back pain had been getting worse over the past two years. Dr. Aquilino reported that appellant’s 

physical limitations had been compounded by the December 12, 2012 foot injury, but could not 

say whether the foot injury had affected the back condition. 

The record indicates that appellant stopped working and did not return. In a May 20, 

2013 letter, appellant indicated that she had received a notice of termination of employment from 

the employing establishment on December 26, 2012.2

 She asserted that her supervisor had a 

personal issue against her. 

On August 1, 2013 OWCP advised appellant that it had accepted her claim for right foot 

contusion. Appellant submitted a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) on September 25, 2013 

claiming compensation commencing January 26, 2013. She continued to submit CA-7 forms 

claiming ongoing wage-loss compensation. 

By two decisions dated December 4, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for 

compensation for the periods January 26 to September 18, and September 19 to 

October 20, 2013, as the submitted evidence failed to support the claimed periods of disability. 

By report dated December 23, 2013, Dr. Aquilino reported that appellant continued to 

have chronic right foot pain and was not able to work. 

OWCP issued two decisions dated February 24, 2014, denying claims for compensation 

from October 20 to November 19, and November 20 to December 20, 2013 due to insufficient 

medical evidence. 

The record contains a right foot magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan dated 

February 25, 2014 from Dr. William Glucksman, a radiologist. He reported no evidence for 

osteomyelitis and no definite significant abnormality. Dr. Aquilino submitted a March 26, 2014 

report indicating that appellant continued to have right foot pain, and he encouraged her to seek 

treatment with a podiatrist or orthopedic surgeon. 

By decision dated April 24, 2014, OWCP denied a claim for compensation from 

December 21, 2013 to January 20, 2014 as the evidence was insufficient to establish her claim. 

In a letter dated May 12, 2014, appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative. 

Appellant was seen by Dr. Thomas Rossi, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, on 

April 28, 2014. Dr. Rossi provided a history that she had sustained a right foot injury at work on 

 2

 The record contains a notice of removal dated December 26, 2012 for failure to maintain regular attendance and 

failure to respond to official correspondence. 
3

December 12, 2012 and provided results on examination. He diagnosed a crush injury to her 

foot, reported appellant’s condition had shown marked improvement with some residual swelling 

pain and tenderness. Dr. Rossi noted the negative MRI scan results and concluded that he was 

not sure anything could be done with the right foot. 

In two decisions dated June 27, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s for compensation for the 

periods January 20 to February 18 and February 19 to March 20, 2014. It also issued two 

decisions dated October 20, 2014, denying appellant’s claims for compensation for the periods 

April 20 to May 19 and May 20 to June 18, 2014. Appellant had again failed to provide 

sufficient evidence to support her claims. 

Appellant, through counsel, timely requested hearings with respect to the June 27 and 

October 20, 2014 OWCP decisions. 

Appellant submitted an October 21, 2014 report from Dr. Aquilino, in which he related 

that she continued to be off work due to chronic right foot pain that “apparently arose” as a result 

of her December 12, 2012 injury. Dr. Aquilino opined that her “chronic right foot pain currently 

appears to be due to some type of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) that arose directly in 

relation to her injury and, as discussed on numerous occasions with the patient, is best managed 

in conjunction with orthopedics and physical and occupational therapy.” He further opined that 

appellant continued to be disabled. 

By decision dated December 23, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

April 24, June 27, and October 20, 2014 OWCP decisions. She found that the reports from 

Dr. Aquilino were speculative and without objective findings. 

In a report dated November 26, 2014, Dr. Aquilino again opined that appellant had 

chronic right foot pain that appears to be due to some sort of RSD. He also asserted in a separate 

report dated November 26, 2014 that he had never released her to return to work. 

By decisions dated January 16, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for compensation 

for the periods July 20 to August 19, 2014, and September 22 to October 21, 2014.3

 Appellant 

requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative in a letter dated January 22, 2015. 

In a decision dated February 13, 2015, OWCP denied her claim for compensation for the periods 

October 22 to November 20, 2014. By decision dated March 13, 2015, it denied a claim for 

compensation for the period November 21 to December 20, 2014. Appellant also requested a 

hearing regarding this decision in a letter dated March 18, 2015. 

A hearing was held on July 13, 2015. Appellant’s counsel argued that OWCP should 

further develop the issue of whether an RSD condition was causally related to the December 12, 

2012 employment injury. 

 3

 A third decision dated January 16, 2015 was issued denying compensation from April 20 to May 19, 2014. By 

decision dated June 24, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative vacated this decision, noting that this period had 

already been adjudicated in the December 23, 2014 hearing representative decision. 
4

In a February 26, 2015 report, Dr. Aquilino noted that he was not a pain specialist. He 

opined that because of the December 12, 2012 employment injury appellant “most likely has 

some type of RSD as a result of her injury, but as I am not a pain specialist, I cannot say that that 

particular diagnosis is exactly what she has. I did advise [appellant], if possible, to seek the 

professional opinion of a licensed and certified pain specialist for further evaluation regarding 

this.” Appellant’s counsel submitted an April 30, 2015 letter requesting that OWCP expand the 

claim to include RSD. 

By decision dated October 1, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

January 16, 2015 decisions. With respect to the periods July 20 to August 19, and September 22 

to October 21, 2014, she found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. 

The hearing representative noted that counsel had requested that OWCP expand the claim to 

include RSD and it would be appropriate for OWCP to further develop the issue with a second 

opinion examination. 

In a decision dated November 13, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

March 13, 2015 OWCP decision. For the period November 21 to December 20, 2014, she found 

that the evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. The hearing representative also noted 

that OWCP had not adjudicated the request to expand the claim and should complete any 

necessary development. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.4

 The term disability is 

defined as the incapacity because of an 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.5

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.6

 Findings on examination are generally 

needed to support a physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled for work. When a 

physician’s statements regarding an employee’s ability to work consist only of repetition of the 

employee’s complaints that she hurt too much to work, without objective findings of disability 

being shown, the physician has not presented a medical opinion on the issue of disability or a 

basis for payment of compensation.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 

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

5

 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). 

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

7 Id. 
5

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

self-certify their disability and entitlement to compensation.8

To establish a causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment 

injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence, based on a complete factual and 

medical background, supporting such a causal relationship.9

 Causal relationship is a medical 

issue and the medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical 

evidence.10 The opinion of the physician must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must 

be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship.11 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a right foot contusion in the 

performance of duty on December 12, 2012. Appellant has been claiming compensation for 

wage loss since January 26, 2013. 

Appellant has the burden of proof to establish an employment-related disability for the 

periods claimed. The Board finds that the evidence of record is of diminished probative value 

and insufficient to establish the claim. Dr. Rossi saw appellant prior to the claimed periods and 

he did not discuss any disability from work. He noted that a February 25, 2014 MRI scan was 

essentially negative. 

There are numerous reports from Dr. Aquilino in the record, but none of these reports 

provide a rationalized medical opinion as to an employment-related disability for the periods 

claimed. Dr. Aquilino reported on October 21 and November 26, 2014 that it appeared that 

appellant had some sort of RSD and remained off work. He did not discuss the diagnosis or 

objective findings supporting the diagnosis. Dr. Aquilino did not provide an opinion supported 

by medical rationale relating a disabling diagnosed condition to the employment injury. In a 

February 26, 2015 report, he again indicated that he felt appellant had some sort of RSD, but he 

emphasized that he was not a pain specialist and she should seek the opinion of a pain specialist. 

The opinion is speculative and there is no medical rationale to support causal relationship 

between disability and the December 12, 2012 employment injury.12 

On appeal, counsel briefly argues that with respect to the November 13, 2015 decision 

the hearing representative should have held the decision in abeyance until the issue of expansion 

of the claim was resolved. However, it is appellant’s burden of proof to establish a period of 

employment-related disability, and she reviewed the relevant evidence of record. For the reasons 

 8 Id. 

9 Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

10 Elizabeth Stanislaw, 49 ECAB 540 (1998). 

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

12 Medical opinions that are speculative and not supported by medical rationale are generally entitled to little 

probative value and are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. Carolyn F. Allen, 47 ECAB 240 (1995). 
6

discussed above, the evidence was insufficient to establish an employment-related disability for 

the periods claimed. 

Appellant has one year from the date of this decision to request reconsideration of the 

October 1 or November 13, 2015 decisions and submit new evidence or argument regarding the 

issues presented, 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 an employment-related disability for 

July 20 to August 19, September 22 to October 21, or November 21 to December 20, 2014. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated November 13 and October 1, 2015 are affirmed. 

Issued: April 27, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board