United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-2146 

Issued: March 12, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 25, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 28, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying her claim for 

disability compensation. 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 established that she is entitled to compensation for total 

disability for the period September 22 to October 7, 2012. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 10, 2012 appellant, then a 37-year-old automation clerk, sustained a back injury 

from picking up a tray of mail. She notified her supervisor on June 20, 2012. By decision dated 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

September 26, 2012, OWCP accepted the claim for a lumbar sprain and brachial neuritis or 

radiculitis. 

Appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave without pay beginning 

July 14, 2012. She received wage-loss compensation for the period July 14 to 

September 21, 2012. On October 15, 2012 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for leave without pay for 

the period September 22 to October 7, 2012. 

In an October 5, 2012 medical report, Dr. Mark A. Cohen, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, reported that symptoms in appellant’s back and neck had resolved. Appellant was back 

to her normal routine without any problems and could return to full duty. 

By letter dated November 1, 2012, OWCP informed appellant that the medical evidence 

of record was insufficient to support her disability for work from September 22 through 

October 7, 2012. Appellant was advised to submit additional medical evidence for the period 

claimed. 

In an October 5, 2012 Duty Status Report (Form CA-17), Dr. Cohen advised that 

appellant could return to full duty and resume work beginning August 31, 2012. 

By decision dated August 28, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation from September 22 to October 7, 2012. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA,2 the term disability is defined as the incapacity, because of an employment 

injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.3

 Disability is not 

synonymous with a 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.4

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be disabled and the duration of that 

disability are medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the reliable, probative 

and substantial medical evidence.5

 Findings on examination are generally needed to support a 

physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled for work. When a physician’s statements 

consist only of a repetition of the employee’s complaints that excessive pain caused an inability 

to work, without making an objective finding of disability, the physician has not presented a 

medical opinion on the issue of disability or a basis for payment of compensation.6

 The Board 

 2

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

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

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

5 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001); Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301, 303 (1989). 

6 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); see Huie Lee Goal, 1 ECAB 180,182 (1948). 
3

will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability without 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 appellant’s claim for lumbar sprain and brachial neuritis or radiculitis. 

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

evidence a causal relationship between her claimed disability from September 22 to October 7, 

2012 and the accepted back conditions.8

 The reports of her physician do not provide a 

rationalized medical opinion finding her disabled for work for the claimed period due to her 

accepted conditions. Therefore, the medical evidence submitted is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.9

In an October 5, 2012 medical report and Form CA-17, Dr. Cohen advised that 

appellant’s back and neck condition had resolved. He noted that she could return to work full 

duty. The Form CA-17 stated that appellant could resume work beginning August 31, 2012, 

prior to the period of claimed disability. The medical reports submitted by appellant do not 

establish that she was disabled during the period September 22 to October 7, 2012. Rather, they 

indicate that she was no longer disabled as of August 31, 2012 and could resume work at full 

duty. Dr. Cohen does not support a finding that she was disabled from her back injury beginning 

September 22, 2012 as the reports indicated that her condition had resolved.10

Appellant has not submitted any further reasoned medical opinion to establish her 

disability for the period September 22 to October 7, 2012 as a result of her accepted lumbar 

sprain and brachial neuritis or radiculitis. The Board finds that OWCP properly denied her claim 

for disability compensation. 

On appeal appellant also alleges that she has dependents and that the wage-loss benefits 

she received were incorrectly paid at the basic statutory rate of two-thirds, rather than the threefourths augmented rate paid for employee’s with dependents.11 The record indicates that 

appellant was paid at the two-thirds rate, because her initial CA-7 forms did not list any 

dependents. On October 15, 2012 however appellant completed a CA-7 form in which she listed 

her four dependents. As the Board does not presently have jurisdiction of this issue, she may 

address this matter to OWCP. 

 7 Id.

8 See Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005). 

9 Alfredo Rodriguez, 47 ECAB 437 (1996). 

10 See Brenda L. DuBuque, 55 ECAB 212 (2004); see also David L. Scott, 55 ECAB 330 (2004); Willa M. 

Frazier, 55 ECAB 379 (2004). 

11 See 5 U.S.C. § 8110. 
4

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.606 and 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant failed to establish that she was disabled due to her 

June 10, 2012 injury for the period September 22 to October 7, 2012. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 28, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 12, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board