United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, Miami, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1327 

Issued: October 10, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 19, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from November 20, 2013 and March 28, 

2014 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying his 

claim. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 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 he is entitled to wage-loss compensation 

for the period of April 14 to May 4, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 27, 2013 appellant, then a 36-year-old cook foreman, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained injury that day to his right rib cage after he 

slipped and landed on the corner of a desk. He stopped work and sought emergency medical 

treatment on February 27, 2013. The employing establishment controverted the claim. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

In a February 27, 2013 emergency room report, Dr. Karin A. Arnold-Dobal, Boardcertified in emergency medicine, reported that appellant slipped on a wet floor at work and fell, 

striking his right chest on the corner of a desk. Appellant complained of right chest pain 

radiating into his back and elbow. A chest x-ray revealed no active disease and a right elbow xray revealed no acute process. Dr. Arnold-Dobal diagnosed contusion to the chest and right 

elbow. 

In a March 4, 2013 OWCP Form CA-16, Dr. Alexandra Calandriello, Board-certified in 

internal medicine, reported that appellant fell at work on February 27, 2013 and hit his right side 

against a desk. She diagnosed right upper quadrant pain, right rib pain and right elbow lateral 

epicondylitis. Dr. Calandriello checked the box marked “yes” when asked if she believed the 

condition was caused or aggravated by the employment incident, stating that appellant developed 

pain after his work injury. She listed appellant totally disabled from February 27 to March 11, 

2013, until he could be reevaluated at his next appointment on March 11, 2013. 

In a March 11, 2013 medical report, Dr. Cindy C. Hsu, Board-certified in family 

medicine, reported that appellant fell on February 27, 2013 and struck his right rib cage against 

the edge of a desk, landing on his back and possibly on his elbow. She noted no history of elbow 

pain prior to the onset of injury. Physical examination revealed pain at the lateral epicondyle, 

radiating down into the forearm. Dr. Hsu diagnosed right lateral epicondylitis, right upper 

quadrant and rib pain. 

On April 19, 2013 Dr. Hsu reported that appellant complained of continued right elbow 

pain and diagnosed right lateral epicondylitis. She noted that the right upper quadrant and rib 

pain had resolved. The physician restricted appellant from working due to persistent right elbow 

pain, noting that it was not safe for him to work as a prison security officer when he was unable 

to pull and push with his right wrist due to pain. Dr. Hsu restricted appellant from pulling, 

pushing or lifting with the right arm. 

By decision dated April 25, 2013, OWCP accepted the claim for contusion of right chest 

wall and right elbow contusion. 

On April 30, 2013 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave 

without pay for the period of April 14 through May 4, 2013. 

By letter dated May 8, 2013, the employing establishment controverted the claim stating 

that despite claiming disability, appellant worked for his own company from March 13 to 

May 4, 2013. 

In a May 10, 2013 report, Dr. Steven P. Kalandiak, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

diagnosed right tennis elbow. He administered a cortisone injection, noting pain relief 

postinjection. Dr. Kalandiak advised that appellant could return to full-duty work without 

restrictions beginning May 10, 2013. 

By letter dated May 17, 2013, OWCP informed appellant that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to support his claim for total disability from April 14 through 

May 4, 2013. Appellant was asked to submit medical evidence establishing disability for the 

periods claimed. 
3

By letters dated May 28 and June 25, 2013, appellant stated that he owned a company 

and was not performing tasks that involved physical labor. He only answered his cell phone and 

organized his work schedule during the period of disability. Appellant further stated that the 

employing establishment did not accept light-duty assignments and he could not return to work 

until he was cleared for full duty. 

In a June 25, 2013 report, Dr. Hsu provided a timeline of treatment for appellant’s 

February 27, 2013 injury. 

By decision dated July 18, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

compensation for the period of April 14 through May 4, 2013. It found that the medical 

evidence failed to establish that he was totally disabled as a result of the February 27, 2013 

employment injury. 

On July 28, 2013 appellant requested review of the written record. He argued that his 

long recovery time was due to his inability to obtain authorization for the recommended tests. 

OWCP did not accept his claim until two months after the February 27, 2013 injury. Appellant 

further asserted that he was unable to return to work at the employing establishment until he was 

cleared for full duty. 

By letter dated July 25, 2013, Dr. Hsu reported that appellant sustained a work-related 

fall on February 27, 2013. On March 4, 2013 Dr. Calandriello diagnosed right lateral 

epicondylitis, right rib contusion and abdominal pain. Appellant was referred to physical therapy 

and an orthopedic specialist due to complaints of continued pain, but approval of such services 

took a long time. He was released to light-duty work on March 11, 2013 but there was no 

available work within his restrictions. Dr. Hsu stated that appellant’s right elbow pain did not 

resolve until May 10, 2013, when he received a cortisone injection from Dr. Kalandiak. She 

noted that because appellant could not get the recommended tests and specialist visits authorized, 

his injuries took longer to recover. Dr. Hsu noted that an abdominal ultrasound, physical therapy 

(which was never approved) and orthopedic visit were requested because appellant had persistent 

abdominal pain, rib pain and elbow pain without clear explanation. 

By letter dated September 18, 2013, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

submit any comment or evidence related to appellant’s claim or his July 28, 2013 statement. The 

employing establishment did not respond. 

By decision dated November 20, 2013, the Branch of Hearings and Review affirmed the 

July 18, 2013 decision. The hearing representative found that appellant failed to establish that he 

was totally disabled for the period of April 14 through May 4, 2013 as he had not provided 

sufficient evidence. 

By letter dated February 8, 2013, appellant requested reconsideration. He referenced a 

January 10, 2014 medical report from Dr. Hsu. Appellant argued that he was released to work 

with restrictions on March 11, 2013, but that the employing establishment had no available work 

which could accommodate him. 

In a January 10, 2014 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Hsu reported that 

on February 27, 2013 appellant slipped on water and fell at work. He struck his right rib and 

right elbow. Dr. Hsu diagnosed right rib contusion and right elbow epicondylitis. She checked 
4

the box marked “yes” to the form question of whether the condition was caused or aggravated by 

the employment activity. Dr. Hsu stated that appellant was totally disabled from February 27 

through May 13, 2013. She advised that he could return to work on May 10, 2013. 

By letter dated January 10, 2014, the employing establishment reported that on the date 

appellant was released to work in a light-duty capacity, there were no temporary-duty 

assignments being offered. An article discussing lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) was also 

submitted to the records. 

By decision dated March 28, 2014, OWCP affirmed the November 20, 2013 decision. It 

found that the medical evidence of record was not sufficient to establish appellant’s disability for 

the period claimed. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA,2 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.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 

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

For conditions not accepted by OWCP as being employment related, it is the employee’s 

burden to provide rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relation, not 

OWCP’s burden to disprove such relationship.8

 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). 

7 Id.

8 G.A., Docket No. 09-2153 (issued June 10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Alice J. Tysinger, 51 

ECAB 638 (2000). 
5

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a contusion of right chest wall and contusion of 

right elbow due to the February 27, 2013 employment injury. Appellant has the burden of 

proving by the weight of the substantial, reliable and probative evidence a causal relationship 

between his claimed disability from April 14 through May 4, 2013 to the accepted February 27, 

2013 employment injury.9 The Board finds that the reports of his physicians do not provide a 

rationalized medical opinion addressing his disability for the claimed period due to his accepted 

injuries. Therefore, the medical evidence submitted is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.10

In support of his claim, appellant submitted medical reports dated March 11, 2013 

through January 10, 2014 from Dr. Hsu. The Board finds that the reports of Dr. Hsu are not well 

rationalized.11 

Dr. Hsu’s April 19, 2013 report provided work restrictions due to appellant’s elbow pain, 

noting a diagnosis of right lateral epicondylitis and resolved right upper quadrant and rib pain. 

Her July 25, 2013 letter noted that appellant’s right elbow pain did not resolve until May 10, 

2013 when he received a cortisone injection. Dr. Hsu’s assessment that appellant was unable to 

work due to elbow pain is deficient. The April treatment note did not provide adequate opinion 

addressing disability for work. Dr. Hus’s June 25, 2013 narrative consisted of a timeline without 

sufficient explanation. Other reports of record provided checkmarks in response to an opinion of 

causal relation. 

Dr. Hsu’s January 10, 2014 Form CA-20 provided a diagnosis of right rib contusion and 

right elbow epicondylitis. The physician stated that appellant was totally disabled from 

February 27 to May 13, 2013. The Board notes that Dr. Hsu’s April 19, 2013 report indicated 

that the rib injury had resolved. The diagnosis of right lateral epicondylitis, however, has not 

been accepted as a compensable condition. Dr. Hsu failed to provide a sufficient explanation on 

how appellant’s right lateral epicondylitis was causally related to the accepted February 27, 2013 

employment injury. 

The Board has held that an opinion on causal relationship which consists only of a 

physician checking “yes” on a medical form report without further explanation or rationale is of 

diminished probative value.12 While Dr. Hsu opined that appellant was off work during the 

specific dates claimed, she failed to provide a fully rationalized explanation as to why appellant 

was disabled on those dates due to his accepted conditions. Other than noting restrictions of no 

pulling, pushing or lifting, Dr. Hsu did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of appellant’s job 

duties or provide a rationalized explanation as to why he could not work for the claimed 

periods.13 She failed to attribute disability to the accepted conditions of right elbow contusion 

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

10 Alfredo Rodriguez, 47 ECAB 437 (1996). 

11 R.W., Docket No. 13-656 (issued July 16, 2013). 

12 Alberta S. Williamson, 47 ECAB 569 (1996). 

13 A.J., Docket No. 13-614 (issued July 9, 2013). 
6

and right contusion of chest wall for the period of April 14 through May 4, 2013, her reports are 

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.14

The remaining medical evidence is also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim for 

disability for the period of April 14 through May 4, 2013. Dr. Arnold-Dobal’s February 27, 

2013 report predates the period of disability claimed due to right lateral epicondylitis. 

Dr. Calandriello’s March 4, 2013 report provided a diagnosis of right elbow lateral epicondylitis, 

but failed to provide a rationalized opinion that this condition was causally related to the 

accepted February 27, 2013 employment incident.15 She found that appellant was disabled from 

February 27 to March 11, 2013 and did not address the specific dates of disability in question.16 

Dr. Kalandiak’s May 10, 2013 report diagnosed right tennis elbow and opined that appellant 

could return to full-duty work without restrictions beginning May 10, 2013 due to pain relief 

from a cortisone injection. As noted, Dr. Kalandiak also did not address the specific dates of 

disability claimed, April 14 to May 4, 2013, or provide medical rationale or reasoning to explain 

why appellant was disabled due to the accepted conditions.17 Without reasoned medical 

evidence supporting that he had employment-related disability during the period in question, 

appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim for wage-loss compensation for 

the period of April 14 to May 4, 2013.18

The Board notes that OWCP has not accepted the condition of right elbow lateral 

epicondylitis. It is appellant’s burden to establish that this condition was causally related to the 

accepted February 27, 2013 employment injury.19 There is insufficient medical evidence of 

record addressing how this condition was caused by the accepted injury. Because appellant has 

not submitted any reasoned medical opinion evidence to show that he was disabled for the period 

of April 14 to May 4, 2013 as a result of his accepted conditions right elbow and right chest 

contusion, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied his claim for disability compensation.20

 14 L.J., Docket No. 14-523 (issued August 7, 2014). 

15 Supra note 13. 

16 Supra note 15. 

17 See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not 

fortified by medical rationale is of little probative value). Furthermore, for conditions not accepted or approved by 

OWCP, appellant bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally related to the employment 

injury. See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 

18 D.H., Docket No. 11-1739 (issued April 18, 2012). 

19 Medical reports without adequate rationale on causal relationship are of diminished probative value and do not 

meet an employee’s burden of proof. Ceferino L. Gonzales, 32 ECAB 1591 (1981). The opinion of a physician 

supporting causal relationship must rest on a complete factual and medical background supported by affirmative 

evidence, address the specific factual and medical evidence of record and provide medical rationale explaining the 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor of employment. See Lee R. 

Haywood, 48 ECAB 145 (1996). 

20 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. L.L., Docket No. 13-2146 (issued 

March 12, 2014). See also William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674, 679 (2004). 
7

On appeal, appellant argues that he was unable to work because the employing 

establishment could not accommodate his work restrictions. This argument is irrelevant as 

appellant’s physicians do not attribute any disability or work restrictions to the accepted 

conditions of right elbow and chest contusion for the period of April 14 to May 4, 2013.21 

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 failed to establish that he was disabled due to his 

February 27, 2013 injury for the period of April 14 to May 4, 2013. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 28, 2014 and November 20, 2013 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: October 10, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 21 See generally E.W., Docket No. 09-6 (issued February 17, 2009).