United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.D., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Anaheim, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-163 

Issued: March 19, 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 3, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 1, 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 met his burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

compensation for wage loss for the period April 10 to November 1, 2013 causally related to his 

April 10, 2013 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 17, 2013 appellant, then a 43-year-old city letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim indicating that he injured his left ankle and lower back due to years of repetitive 

movement. He first realized his condition was caused or aggravated by his employment on 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

April 10, 2013. Appellant stopped work prior to the claimed date of injury as he was removed 

from the employing establishment effective April 15, 2013 for cause. He was employed at 

Central Parking System from May 30 to July 2, 2013 as a full-time lead attendant. On July 12, 

2013 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for lumbar sprain and left ankle sprain. 

Appellant’s physicians Dr. Edward Mittleman, a Board-certified internist, Dr. D. 

Domenic Signorelli, a Board-certified neurologist, Dr. Maliheh Massih, a Board-certified 

physiatrist, and Dr. Serge Obukhoff, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, have provided diagnoses of 

multiple lumbar disc herniation, multiple lumbar level spinal stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy with 

left foot drip, left ankle multiple ligamentous sprains, left ankle multiple ligamentous 

tenosynovitis, tear of the calcaneofibular ligament, left peroneal neuropathy, and underlying 

peripheral polyneuropathy demyelinating in nature. 

In his initial report dated April 24, 2013 and progress reports thereafter, Dr. Mittleman 

opined that appellant was able to work modified duty with restrictions. 

In an October 3, 2013 report, Dr. Steven M. Ma, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon 

and second opinion examiner, noted that appellant had not worked since February 20, 2013 

because no light duty was available. He noted that when appellant was initially seen at the 

Performance Medical and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. he was given work restrictions, but lightduty work was not available. Dr. Ma noted the history of injury, appellant’s medical course, and 

his review of the records. He noted examination findings and provided an impression of 

nonindustrial neurologic condition of the lower extremities confirmed by the diagnostic studies. 

Dr. Ma stated that appellant had diffuse muscle loss of his entire left leg from the left hip down 

to his toes. He noted weakness about his right leg, but not as severe as his left leg. Dr. Ma 

indicated that appellant’s left foot drop was due to severe neurologic problems involving all the 

muscles and nerves of his left leg and was due to a nonindustrial problem involving the entire 

left leg. He indicated that appellant’s medical condition has not had further testing, had not been 

diagnosed yet, and opined that his severe weakness and severe pain was greater than what any 

back condition could cause. Dr. Ma indicated his agreement with appellant’s physicians that 

appellant was able to work with restrictions and opined that he was able to perform sedentary 

work for eight hours a day with restrictions. He completed a work capacity evaluation noting 

appellant’s restrictions. 

On October 31, 2013 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting 

total disability compensation benefits from April 10 through November 1, 2013. The employing 

establishment noted that he was off work pending removal. 

On November 6, 2013 OWCP forwarded a copy of Dr. Ma’s second opinion report to 

appellant’s physician, Dr. Mittleman, for comment, noting that Dr. Ma opined that appellant had 

a severe neuropathy of his lower extremity that was not related to his work. In a November 6, 

2013 letter, it advised appellant that Dr. Ma’s second opinion report had been forwarded to 

Dr. Mittleman for comment and that he had 30 days in which to submit the requested documents. 

No response was received from Dr. Mittleman. 

By letter dated December 5, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that additional evidence was 

needed to establish disability for work during the period claimed and that there was a conflict in 

the medical evidence between his treating physicians and the second opinion examiner as to the 
3

cause of his medical conditions. Appellant was accorded 30 days to submit the requested 

information. 

In a November 20, 2013 report, Dr. Mittleman reviewed Dr. Ma’s second opinion report 

and agreed that appellant’s peripheral neuropathy was not work related and that appellant had not 

sought medical care with regard to the peripheral neuropathy. He indicated that appellant had 

sought care in regards to the other pathology that was present and opined that his work activities 

performed in association with a peripheral neuropathy resulted in multiple left ankle ligamentous 

sprains with multiple ligamentous tenosynovitis. Dr. Mittleman indicated that Dr. Ma ignored 

the findings on several diagnostic tests which indicated ongoing left-side radiculopathy. In that 

report, as well as in a December 19, 2013 letter, he requested that appellant be examined by an 

impartial medical specialist. 

In periodic reports dated December 5, 2013 onward, Dr. Mittleman continued to opine 

that appellant’s conditions of exacerbation of lumbar region sprain, lumbar disc herniations with 

radiculopathy, and left ankle strain were causally related to appellant’s work duties. He also 

continued to opine that appellant was capable of modified work. 

Reports from Dr. Obukhoff were also received. In his January 17, 2014 report, 

Dr. Obukhoff disagreed with Dr. Ma’s findings and requested that appellant’s diagnoses be 

revised to include lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy and lumbar canal stenosis with 

neurogenic claudication. He opined in all his reports that appellant was able to work modified 

duty, per his primary treating physician. 

In an initial report of July 3, 2014, Dr. Gary L. Baker, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, 

provided pain medicine reevaluation for appellant’s work-related lumbar radiculopathy. An 

August 18, 2014 periodic report was also received. 

A copy of an October 4, 2013 arbitration award2

 was also received, regarding his claim 

for back pay, along with several diagnostic tests. 

By decision dated October 1, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

compensation for the period April 10 through November 1, 2013. 

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. For each period of disability 

claimed, the employee must establish that he or she was disabled for work as a result of the 

accepted employment injury. Whether a particular injury causes an employee to become 

disabled for work and the duration of that disability are medical issues that must be supported by 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical opinion evidence.3 Such medical evidence must 

 2

 The arbitration award found that just cause did not exist for management’s emergency placement of appellant in 

an off-duty status without pay on February 20, 2013 and awarded appellant back pay from February 20, 2013 

onwards. 

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

include findings on examination and the physician’s opinion, supported by medical rationale, 

showing how the injury caused the employee disability for his or her particular work.4 

Monetary compensation benefits are payable to an employee who has sustained wage loss 

due to disability for employment resulting from the employment injury.5 The Board 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. To do so would 

essentially allow an employee to self-certify his or her disability and entitlement to 

compensation.6

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left ankle sprain/strain and lumbar spine 

sprain/strain. Appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation for the period April 10 to 

November 1, 2013, which OWCP denied. He has the burden to provide medical evidence 

establishing that he was partially or totally disabled on and after April 10, 2013 through 

November 1, 2013 due to his accepted work-related conditions. 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit medical evidence in support of total 

disability during the period claimed. Dr. Mittleman stated in his medical report dated April 24, 

2013 and in subsequent reports that appellant was able to work modified duty with restrictions. 

The second opinion examiner Dr. Ma agreed that appellant was capable of working eight hours a 

day with restrictions. While the file reflects there is a medical disagreement as to the extent of 

appellant’s work conditions, there is no medical opinion evidence within the claimed period 

which states that appellant was totally disabled due to the accepted work conditions.7 In fact, 

none of the contemporaneous medical reports of file indicate that appellant had any employmentrelated disability for the period April 10 through November 1, 2013. 

There is also no evidence that the employing establishment could not accommodate 

appellant during the claimed period. Appellant was placed off work in February 2013 pending 

removal for disciplinary reasons. He was not off work because he was totally disabled or 

because the employing establishment could not accommodate his work restrictions. 

Appellant failed to submit any medical reports from a physician who, on the basis of a 

complete and accurate factual and medical history, concluded that he was disabled for the period 

April 10 to November 1, 2013 due to his accepted work-related conditions.8

 Accordingly, he has 

 4 Dean E. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989). 

5 Laurie S. Swanson, 53 ECAB 517, 520 (2002). See also Debra A. Kirk-Littleton, 41 ECAB 703 (1990). 

6 Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 3. 

7

 While the record includes medical reports which diagnose a myriad of medical conditions including multiple 

lumbar disc herniation, multiple level spinal stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy with left foot drop, left ankle 

tenosynovitis, tear of the calcaneofibular ligament, left peroneal neuropathy, and underlying peripheral 

polyneuropathy, OWCP has not issued a final decision as to whether any of these conditions have been established 

to be work related. 

8

 The remaining medical evidence of record postdated the period claimed and, thus, was not relevant to this claim. 
5

failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing an employment-related disability and is not 

entitled to wage-loss compensation for the claimed period.9 

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 entitlement to wage-loss benefits for 

periods of disability claimed from April 10 to November 1, 2013 causally related to his April 10, 

2013 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 1, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 19, 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 

 

 9 The Board also notes that the record indicates that appellant worked as a toll attendant from May 30 to July 2, 

2013, which negates a total disability status.