United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

H.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Seattle, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1550 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 30, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 17, 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant is entitled to wage-loss compensation for the period July 4 

and 5, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 11, 2011 appellant, then a 56-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging that his work duties, including loading and unloading trucks, and lifting heavy 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

sacks, and tubs full of mail, caused severe degenerative arthritis of the hips. He stopped work on 

March 26 and returned on May 23, 2011. 

In a July 6, 2011 report, Dr. Edward J. Boyko, a Board-certified internist, noted providing 

care for appellant since October 22, 2003. He opined that appellant had severe degenerative 

arthritis of both hips as confirmed by x-rays taken on January 29, 2011 and of the pelvis on 

March 29, 2011. Dr. Boyko indicated that appellant underwent a total right hip replacement on 

March 29, 2011. He advised that the plan was to replace appellant’s left hip in 2012 to provide 

him with adequate time to recover from the first operation. Dr. Boyko opined that appellant’s 

condition was “likely aggravated or caused by his employment for the [employing establishment] 

which he joined as a regular employee on May 29, 2004. This employment involved activities 

that included: heavy lifting in the process of unloading, and loading trucks, and trailers, and 

lifting sacks of mail weighing up to 70 [pounds] and mail tubs weighing up to 30 [pounds] 

repetitively. [Appellant’s] work also required that he be on his feet constantly. As the type of 

arthritis he has developed is due to wear and tear, I believe that these employment activities 

aggravated or caused his hip arthritis.” 

OWCP accepted the claim for aggravated arthritis/osteoarthritis of the bilateral 

hips/thighs.2

 

On July 9, 2013 appellant filed a Form CA-7, requesting payment for wage-loss 

compensation due to time missed from work for the period July 4 through 6, 2013. The 

employing establishment verified that the claimant incurred 16 hours of leave without pay from 

July 4 to 5, 2013. It noted that appellant did not provide medical evidence to support the 

temporary total disability. 

By letter dated July 15, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the evidence needed to support 

the claim for wage-loss compensation. It requested that he provide a physician’s narrative report 

with a reasoned medical opinion explaining how the disability was caused or aggravated by the 

claimed injury. 

OWCP received a February 8, 2013 duty status report from Dr. Boyko, who indicated 

that appellant had hip pain and limited mobility. Dr. Boyko diagnosed aggravated osteoarthritis 

of the hips left and right. He checked the box “yes” in response to whether the condition was 

due to the injury. Dr. Boyko advised that appellant could return to work on February 8, 2013 

and prescribed restrictions. 

By decision dated September 9, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation on July 4 and 5, 2013 as the medical evidence of record was insufficient. It found 

that there was no reasoned medical opinion of record from a qualified physician, explaining why 

 2

 The record does not indicate that OWCP authorized appellant’s hip surgery or that it paid any wage-loss 

compensation. 
3

appellant was unable to work during the claimed period, and how his disability from work during 

the claimed period was the result of the accepted work injury.3

On September 10, 2013 appellant requested a hearing, which was held March 28, 2014. 

During the hearing, he indicated that he had been disabled from work on numerous dates due to 

the effects of his accepted conditions. However, appellant was using his sick leave to cover his 

absences from work. He noted that he had four accepted claims, for numerous medical 

conditions, including injuries to the shoulders, hips, wrists, and knee. Regarding the dates of 

July 4 and 5, 2013, appellant indicated that his arthritis in his hips flared up, and from time to 

time, he had difficulty walking. He noted that he had obtained a letter from his physician and 

would provide the documentation following the hearing. 

In a September 25, 2013 report, Dr. Boyko noted his history of treating appellant, 

advising that appellant had numerous conditions that caused him pain and disability. He advised 

that appellant had severe degenerative arthritis of both hips confirmed on x-ray. Dr. Boyko 

noted that appellant underwent total right hip replacement on March 29, 2011. He indicated that 

appellant would eventually need left hip replacement, as well, due to severe osteoarthritis. 

Dr. Boyko also indicated that appellant had severe degenerative arthritis of the left glenohumeral 

joint and might need a left shoulder joint replacement. He noted that appellant’s medical 

problems were more intense on some days than on others. Dr. Boyko stated that on July 4 and 5, 

2013 appellant was experiencing severe discomfort from his degenerative arthritis of his hips, 

and shoulder that rendered him unable to work. He explained that his opinion was based upon an

interview, and examination of appellant and reviews of recent x-rays. Dr. Boyko explained that 

appellant’s conditions were chronic and would result in progressive disability over time. 

Dr. Boyko indicated that appellant also had left median neuropathy at the wrist (carpal 

tunnel syndrome) as confirmed by electrodiagnostic study, and might need future surgery for this 

condition. He opined that “these illnesses were likely aggravated or caused” by his employment. 

Dr. Boyko noted that appellant’s duties included: heavy lifting in the process of unloading and 

loading trucks, and trailers with sacks and tubs of mail on a repetitive basis. He explained that as 

the type of arthritis appellant developed was due to wear and tear, he believed that these 

employment activities caused or aggravated appellant’s hip and shoulder arthritis and also 

contributed to his carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive motion injury. Dr. Boyko opined that the 

prognosis was poor due to the degenerative nature of his arthritic condition. On February 12, 

2014 he advised that appellant could work with restrictions. 

By decision dated June 17, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

September 9, 2013 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The Board notes that the term “disability,” as used in FECA means incapacity, because of 

an employment injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.4 

 3

 While OWCP referred to a July 6, 2013 report from Dr. Boyko, this appears to be a typographical error as the 

reports from Dr. Boyko are dated July 6, 2011 and February 8, 2013. 

4 Patricia A. Keller, 45 ECAB 278 (1993). 
4

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. 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.5

 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.6 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 her disability and entitlement to compensation.7

ANALYSIS 

Appellant’s claim was accepted for aggravated arthritis/osteoarthritis of the bilateral 

hips/thighs. He returned to regular duty on May 23, 2011, and later claimed wage-loss 

compensation on July 4 and 5, 2013. 

Appellant argued during his hearing that he would have occasional flare ups that 

prevented him from working. In support of his claim for disability for the period from July 4 and 

5, 2013, he provided a September 25, 2013 report from Dr. Boyko, his treating physician, who 

indicated that appellant had numerous conditions that caused him pain and disability, and often 

lead to his inability to work. Dr. Boyko advised that appellant had severe degenerative arthritis 

of both hips confirmed on x-ray and underwent a total right hip replacement on March 29, 2011. 

He noted that appellant would eventually need left hip replacement, as well, due to severe 

osteoarthritis. Dr. Boyko also indicated that appellant had severe degenerative arthritis of the left 

glenohumeral joint, confirmed on x-ray and may need a left shoulder joint replacement for this 

problem. He noted that appellant’s medical problems were more intense on some days than on 

others. Dr. Boyko indicated that on July 4 and 5, 2013, appellant had severe discomfort from his 

degenerative arthritis of his hips and shoulder that rendered him unable to work. He explained 

that his opinion was based upon an interview, examination, and reviews of recent x-rays. 

Dr. Boyko explained that appellant’s conditions were chronic and would result in progressive 

disability over time. He noted that his duties included heavy lifting in the process of unloading 

and loading trucks and trailers with sacks and tubs of mail on a repetitive basis. Dr. Boyko 

explained that as the type of arthritis appellant developed was due to wear and tear, he believed 

that these employment activities caused or aggravated his hip and shoulder arthritis and also 

contributed to his carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive motion injury. He opined that the 

prognosis was poor due to the degenerative nature of his arthritic condition. The Board notes 

that Dr. Boyko suggested that appellant was unable to work on July 4 and 5, 2013 due to severe 

discomfort from his degenerative arthritis of the hips but based that opinion primarily on 

appellant’s self-reporting; not on his own personal diagnosis on those days.8

 Dr. Boyko’s 

 5 Fereidoon Kharabi , 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

6 Manuel Garcia, 37 ECAB 767 (1986). 

7 Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); supra note 5. 

8 Id. 
5

opinion that “these illnesses were likely aggravated or caused” by his employment is not 

sufficiently supported by objective findings and medical reasoning. Other than to indicate that 

appellant reported pain and disability it does not appear that the physician examined appellant on 

these dates. It also appears that he may be attributing his disability to other conditions, such as a 

shoulder condition, other than the accepted aggravation of osteoarthritis of the bilateral 

hips/thighs. A physician’s opinion on causal relationship between a claimant’s disability and an 

employment injury is not conclusive simply because it is rendered by a physician. To be of 

probative value, Dr. Boyko must provide rationale for the opinion reached. Where no such 

rationale is present, the medical opinion is of diminished probative value.9

 

Other reports in the record did not provide any opinion that appellant was disabled from 

work due to the accepted aggravated arthritis/osteoarthritis of the bilateral hips/thighs for the 

period in question. 

Although appellant alleged that he was entitled to wage-loss compensation for the period 

claimed, due to his accepted employment injury, the medical evidence of record does not 

establish that his claimed disability during the time frame was related to his accepted condition. 

The Board finds that he has failed to submit rationalized medical evidence establishing that his 

disability on July 4 and 5, 2013 was causally related to his accepted conditions, and thus, he has 

not met his burden of proof. 

On appeal, appellant notes his physician provided sufficient rationale to support his 

disability for work. However, as noted above it was insufficiently rationalized and insufficient to 

establish his claim. 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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he was 

entitled to wage-loss compensation for the period July 4 and 5, 2013. 

 9 T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 17, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board