United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.V., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Shreveport, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1850 

Issued: December 17, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

William Hackney, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 8, 2015 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 28, 2015 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 has met his burden of proof to establish an employmentrelated disability from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 29, 2010 appellant, then a 52-year-old carrier technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that carrying mail during his federal 

employment contributed to back and hip conditions. In a November 3, 2010 statement, he 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

indicated that he had worked at the employing establishment since 1983, with 16 years of 

carrying mail on a walking route, and an additional 11 years on a vehicle route. The reverse side 

of the claim form indicated that appellant had not stopped working. 

Appellant submitted an October 26, 2010 report from Dr. Austin Gleason, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Gleason indicated that appellant had radiating back pain and 

was not able to return to his regular job. He reported that a return to light duty was discussed as 

appellant was not able to stand and case mail for more than 45 minutes. 

OWCP denied the claim by decision dated December 15, 2010, finding that the medical 

evidence was insufficient to establish the claim. Appellant requested a hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative, which was held on April 15, 2011. At the hearing, appellant asserted 

that, in late October or early November, 2010, he had begun working five to five and a half hours 

per day. 

By decision dated June 23, 2011, an OWCP hearing representative remanded the case for 

further development. The hearing representative found that the medical evidence was sufficient 

to warrant further development. 

In a July 25, 2011 report, Dr. Gleason indicated that appellant continued to have 

lumbosacral pain. He noted that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan from 

November 2010 showed spondylolisthesis and lumbar degenerative disc disease. Dr. Gleason 

reported that appellant had to carry mail for 28 years and there seemed to be some progressive 

increase in pain and loss of back motion that was aggravated by walking and carrying mail. He 

reported that appellant can “continue to work on a light[-]duty basis.” According to Dr. Gleason, 

appellant could continue to case his route, load parcels up to 25 pounds, and drive a vehicle. 

Following the remand by the hearing representative, OWCP referred appellant for a 

second opinion examination by Dr. Robert Holladay, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In a 

report dated August 22, 2011, Dr. Holladay provided a history and results on examination. He 

diagnosed low back pain, bilateral hip osteoarthritis, and early bilateral knee osteoarthritis. 

Dr. Holladay opined that it appeared that genetic, nonwork-related factors were the more 

prevalent causation of current findings. 

By decision dated September 8, 2011, OWCP denied the claim for compensation, finding 

the medical evidence insufficient to establish the claim. Following appellant’s request for a 

telephonic hearing an OWCP hearing representative set aside the September 8, 2011 decision on 

December 1, 2011. The hearing representative found that the statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) should provide a more detailed description of appellant’s regular job duties, and 

Dr. Holladay should be asked to provide clarification regarding his opinion. 

On remand, OWCP provided Dr. Holladay with an amended SOAF and a list of 

questions. Dr. Holladay submitted a February 15, 2012 report based on a February 13, 2012 

examination. He opined that appellant had a temporary aggravation of his degenerative back and 

hip conditions. Dr. Holladay noted that appellant’s work had been modified. 

On March 8, 2012 OWCP accepted the claim for aggravation of bilateral leg 

osteoarthritis, aggravation of pelvic and thigh region osteoarthritis, and spondylolisthesis. 
3

On July 9, 2012 appellant submitted a (Form CA-7) claim for compensation for the 

period June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. The time analysis forms for the period show that he 

worked 4.79 hours on June 30, 2011, and 2.58 hours on July 1, 2011. From July 26 to 

August 19, 2011, appellant did not work. On August 29, 2011 he worked approximately five 

hours, and he continued to work generally from four to six hours through February 18, 2012 with 

intermittent periods of total disability (September 20 and 21 and September 28 to 

October 1, 2011). The record indicates that appellant stopped working on April 12, 2012 and has 

received compensation for total disability since that date. 

In support of his claim appellant submitted a form report dated September 6, 2012 from 

Dr. Gleason. Dr. Gleason diagnosed “back, both hips injury” and wrote that appellant was 

unable to work more than five hours from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. 

By decision dated September 20, 2012, OWCP denied the claim for compensation from 

June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. It found that the medical evidence was insufficient to 

establish the claim. 

Appellant requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative on 

October 1, 2012. A hearing was held on January 8, 2013. Appellant submitted an October 31, 

2012 report from Dr. Gleason, noting that appellant was no longer working and was scheduled 

for left hip replacement surgery.2

 Dr. Gleason opined that appellant would not be able to return 

to his previous occupation. In a report dated January 15, 2013, he reported that appellant 

continued to have problems in numerous areas, including the low back, left hip, and knees. 

Dr. Gleason opined, “From June 30, 2011 to February 28 [sic], 2012 [appellant] was only able to 

work [five] hours a day per my recommendation. This was due to degeneration of his hips and 

knee joints.” 

By decision dated March 26, 2013, a hearing representative affirmed the September 20, 

2012 OWCP decision. He found that the medical evidence did not establish the claimed periods 

of disability from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. 

On April 25, 2013 appellant submitted an April 10, 2013 report from Dr. Gleason. 

Dr. Gleason reported that appellant continued to have chronic low back pain. He noted that in 

reviewing appellant’s past problems and the November 2010 MRI scan, which showed 

spondylolisthesis and a spontaneous fusion at L5-S1 without surgery, with degenerative disc 

changes at L4-5, he opined that “for this reason” he placed appellant on restrictions of five hours 

per day with lifting restrictions from June 30, 2011 to April 11, 2012. 

On May 8, 2013 appellant, through his representative, requested reconsideration. The 

representative argued that the April 10, 2013 report from Dr. Gleason was sufficient to establish 

the claim for compensation commencing June 30, 2011. In a brief report dated August 8, 2013, 

Dr. Gleason opined that appellant would not be able to return to work as a letter carrier. 

 2

 Appellant underwent right hip surgery on June 4, 2012 and left hip surgery on February 11, 2013. 
4

By decision dated November 6, 2013, OWCP reviewed the case on its merits and denied 

modification. It found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish an employmentrelated disability from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. 

Appellant, through his representative, requested reconsideration by letter dated 

February 3, 2014. He argued that Dr. Gleason had provided a reasoned medical opinion. He 

submitted copies of diagnostic studies. 

In a decision dated May 14, 2014, OWCP reviewed the merits of the claim and denied 

modification. It again found that the evidence did not establish an employment-related disability 

from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. 

By letter dated March 12, 2015, appellant, through his representative, requested 

reconsideration. Appellant submitted a December 11, 2014 report from Dr. Gleason, who 

reported that at the time he reduced appellant’s work hours from eight to five hours a day, 

appellant had twisted his knee and had pain and swelling in the knee. Dr. Gleason reported that 

x-rays showed degenerative changes in the knee and that appellant was not capable of working 

eight hours. He noted in an addendum that appellant had both hip replacement and knee 

replacement surgeries.3

By decision dated August 28, 2015, OWCP reviewed the merits of the claim and denied 

modification. It found that the evidence failed to establish an employment-related disability 

from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.4 The term disability is 

defined as the incapacity because of an employment injury to earn the wages the employee was 

receiving at the time of the injury, i.e., a physical impairment resulting in loss of wage-earning 

capacity.5

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be disabled for employment and the 

duration of that disability are medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.6 Findings on examination are generally 

needed to support a physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled for work. When a 

physician’s statement regarding an employee’s ability to work consist only of repetition of the 

employee’s complaints that she hurt too much to work, without objective findings of disability 

 3

 The record indicates that appellant underwent right total knee replacement surgery on May 19, 2014. 

4 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see e.g., Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999) (where appellant had an injury but no 

loss of wage-earning capacity). 

6 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 
5

being shown, the physician has not presented a medical opinion on the issue of disability or a 

basis for payment of compensation.7 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.8

To establish a causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment 

injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence, based on a complete factual and 

medical background, supporting such a causal relationship.9 Causal relationship is a medical 

issue and the medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical 

evidence.10 The opinion of the physician must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must 

be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship.11 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant claimed wage-loss compensation from June 30, 2011 to 

February 18, 2012. The Board notes that during this period appellant was working a modifiedduty position, at approximately five hours per day. There were also periods of total disability, 

including July 26 to August 19, September 20 and 21, and September 28 to October 1, 2011. It 

is not clear why appellant’s claim for disability began on June 30, 2011, as he indicated that he 

began working five hours a day sometime in late October or early November, 2010. 

To meet his burden of proof, appellant must submit rationalized medical evidence that 

addresses the specific dates of claimed disability. The only contemporaneous report of record 

was a July 25, 2011 report from Dr. Gleason. As to disability, Dr. Gleason reported only that 

appellant could continue light duty. He does not limit appellant to five hours of modified duty or 

explain why appellant could not work full time as a result of an employment-related condition. 

In a January 15, 2013 report, Dr. Gleason now stated that appellant was limited to five 

hours of work commencing June 30, 2011. He does not address the specific periods of total 

disability from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012, nor does he provide a complete factual and 

medical background or explain why he believed that appellant could work only five hours as of 

June 30, 2011. In his April 10, 2013 report, Dr. Gleason refers to the November 2010 lumbar 

MRI scan results and opines that this is the reason he placed appellant on restrictions of five 

hours of work per day. The diagnosis of spondylolisthesis is an accepted condition, but he does 

not explain why this limited appellant to five hours of work per day, and in his December 11, 

2014 report, he now refers to the work restrictions as being based on a knee injury. Dr. Gleason 

 7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9 Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

10 Elizabeth Stanislaw, 49 ECAB 540 (1998). 

11 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 
6

reported that appellant had twisted his knee, without providing further explanation. OWCP 

never accepted a traumatic knee injury in the current case. 

The Board finds that the evidence of record is not sufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof. The medical evidence does not address the specific periods of total disability claimed 

from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. 

On appeal, appellant’s representative argues that Dr. Gleason’s reports are sufficient and 

OWCP had authorized the knee surgery. The knee surgery was on May 19, 2014 and the issue in 

this case was the claims for disability from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. For the reasons 

discussed, the medical evidence is not sufficient to establish the 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 has not met his burden of proof to establish an 

employment-related disability from June 30, 2011 to February 18, 2012. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated August 28, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: December 17, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board