United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Allen Park, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-2114 

Issued: March 7, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 16, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 21, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying a period of 

disability. 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 was disabled for work for intermittent 

dates from September 5, 2012 to January 25, 2013 due to an accepted left elbow injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on June 27, 2012 appellant, then a 31-year-old city letter carrier, 

sustained left elbow tendinitis and tenosynovitis when she tripped and fell on a sidewalk. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

Dr. Kirti Jain, an attending Board-certified family practitioner, diagnosed left elbow 

tendinitis due to the June 27, 2012 fall. She held appellant off work from June 28 to 

July 10, 2012. Dr. Jain restricted appellant to carrying mail for three hours per day, with limited 

duty such as casing mail for the remainder of her tour. She renewed these restrictions through 

November 16, 2012. 

In a November 16, 2012 report, Dr. Jain noted examining appellant on November 1, 2012 

for ongoing left elbow tendinitis. In a December 6, 2012 report, she held appellant off work 

from November 29 to December 4, 2012. Dr. Jain released appellant to light duty as of 

December 7, 2012 under the previous work restrictions. 

On December 10, 2012 appellant claimed compensation for intermittent dates from 

June 29, 2012 to January 9, 2013, as follows: September 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26 and 27; 

October 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26 and 31; November 8, 26 and 30; and 

December 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26 and 29, 2012; and January 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 

19 and 25, 2013. On the reverse of the claim forms and in a December 14, 2012 memorandum, 

the employing establishment noted that no work was available within her restrictions for the 

dates claimed but that she had provided no medical documentation. 

In a January 3, 2013 report, Dr. Jain limited appellant to part-time light duty with lifting, 

pulling and pushing limited to five pounds. She noted that appellant “should be able to take time 

off when needed.” 

In a March 15, 2013 letter, Dr. Jain opined that appellant’s condition had worsened. 

“With work affecting [appellant’s] condition she is allowed to take days off intermittently as 

needed due to pain in her left elbow and arm (June 28, 2012 to April 4, 2013).” 

In an April 16, 2013 letter, Dr. Jain noted that appellant’s job duties required repetitive 

motion of both upper extremities, which did not allow the accepted tendon inflammation to heal. 

She stated that she did “not want [appellant] to use her left arm at all.” 

In an April 23, 2013 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the additional evidence needed to 

establish her claim, including a statement from her attending physician explaining the objective 

findings related to the accepted injury, which supported the claimed period of disability. It 

afforded her 30 days to submit such evidence. 

In an April 29, 2013 letter, Dr. Jain opined that appellant was totally disabled for lightduty work “due to not being able to use her left arm from severe pain and inflammation of the 

tendons in her arm” on the following dates: September 5 and 6, October 3, 10, 23 and 31, 

November 26 and 30 and December 1, 3, 4, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24 and 29, 2012, and January 4, 5, 

7, 9, 11, 15 and 25, 2013.2

 

By decision dated June 11, 2013, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for intermittent 

periods of disability from September 1, 2012 to January 19, 2013 as the employing establishment 

 2

 On its face, Dr. Jain’s April 29, 2013 letter dated the January dates as occurring in 2012. However, the 

remainder of the letter demonstrates that the January dates were in 2013. 
3

was unable to accommodate her medical restrictions on September 1, 7, 8, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26 and 

27, October 4, 5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 25 and 26, November 8 and December 7, 11, 14, 26, 2012 

and January 19, 2013. It denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation on the following 

dates on the grounds that the medical evidence did not support total disability for work: 

September 5 and 6; October 3, 10, 23 and 31; November 26 and 30; December 1, 3, 4, 6, 17, 18, 

19, 20 24 and 29, 2012; and January 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 25, 2013.3

 OWCP found that Dr. Jain 

did not provide sufficient medical rationale explaining why the accepted left elbow injury would 

disable appellant from light duty on those dates. 

In a July 10, 2013 letter, appellant requested reconsideration. She contended that 

OWCP’s delay in approving her claim effectively barred her from seeking treatment, causing her 

condition to worsen. Appellant submitted June 2013 reports from an attending Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon that did not address the dates at issue. She also submitted physical therapy 

notes from May and June 2013. 

By decision dated August 21, 2013, OWCP denied modification of the prior decision on 

the grounds that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish disability for work on the 

dates claimed. It found that Dr. Jain did not adequately explain why the accepted left elbow 

injury would disable her for light-duty work on those dates. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.4 Under FECA, the term 

“disability” is defined as an inability, due to an employment injury, to earn the wages the 

employee was receiving at the time of the injury, i.e., an impairment resulting in loss of wageearning capacity.5

 For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of 

establishing that he or she was disabled for work as a result of the accepted employment injury.6 

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to become disabled for work and the duration of 

that disability are medical issues that must be proved by a preponderance of probative and 

reliable medical opinion evidence.7 The fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of 

employment does not raise an inference that there is a causal relationship between the two.8

 The 

Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of medical 

 3

 The specific hours of compensation denied are as follows: 4 hours on September 5, 2012, 8 hours on 

September 6, 3.42 hours on October 3, 8 hours on October 10, 4 hours on October 23, 8 hours on October 31, 

November 26 and 30; 4 hours on December 1; 8 hours on December 3 and 4; 4 hours on December 6; 8 hours on 

December 17, 18, 19, 20 and 24; 4 hours on December 29, 2012; and 8 hours on January 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 

and 25, 2013. 

4 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

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

6 Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001). 

7 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

8 Manuel Garcia, 37 ECAB 767 (1986). 
4

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.9 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained left elbow tendinitis and tenosynovitis when she 

fell on a sidewalk on June 27, 2012. Appellant claimed that she was totally disabled for 

intermittent dates from September 5, 2012 to January 25, 2013 due to the accepted left elbow 

injury. She has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, reliable and probative 

evidence that she was totally disabled for work for the claimed period due to the accepted 

injuries.10 

Dr. Jain, an attending Board-certified family practitioner, retroactively allowed appellant 

to take time off “as needed at any time from June 28, 2012 to April 4, 2013.” She held appellant 

off work from November 29 to December 4, 2012. On April 29, 2013 Dr. Jain found that 

appellant had been totally disabled for light-duty work due to inflammation of the tendons in her 

left arm and severe pain on September 5 and 6, October 3, 10, 23 and 31, November 26 and 30, 

December 1, 3, 4, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24 and 29, 2012 and January 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 25, 2013. 

She stated that the repetitive upper extremity motion required by appellant’s light-duty work did 

not allow the accepted tendon inflammation to heal. The Board notes that Dr. Jain did not 

specify which job tasks required left upper extremity motion in excess of appellant’s limitations 

of carrying mail for no more than three hours a day with light duty for the remainder of her tour. 

Also, Dr. Jain did not clearly explain how or why the accepted injury disabled appellant for work 

for certain of the dates claimed. This lack of medical rationale diminishes the probative value of 

Dr. Jain’s reports.11 

OWCP advised appellant by April 23, 2013 letter of the evidence needed to establish her 

claim, including a physician’s opinion as to why the accepted injuries would disable her for work 

for the claimed intermittent dates from September 5, 2012 to January 25, 2013. Appellant did 

not submit such evidence. Dr. Jain did not provide sufficient medical rationale supporting that 

the accepted left elbow injury totally disabled appellant for work for the claimed period. 

Therefore, OWCP’s August 21, 2013 decision denying appellant’s claim for total disability 

compensation for intermittent dates from September 5, 2012 to January 25, 2013 is proper under 

the law and facts of the case. 

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. 

 9 Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

10 Alfredo Rodriguez, 47 ECAB 437 (1996). 

11 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003). 
5

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she was totally disabled for work 

on September 5 and 6; October 3, 10, 23 and 31; November 26 and 30; December 1, 3, 4, 6, 17, 

18, 19, 20 24 and 29, 2012; and January 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 25, 2013 causally related to 

accepted left elbow tendinitis and tenosynovitis. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated August 21, 2013 is affirmed.

Issued: March 7, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board