United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0988 

Issued: August 12, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 30, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 19, 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 compensation for 

wage-loss benefits for the ongoing period commencing August 22, 2014.2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 30, 2014 appellant, a 57-year-old mail handler worked as an equipment operator. 

On that date he filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that he strained the sole of his left 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c) (1). Appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. The Board has no jurisdiction to 

review new evidence on appeal that was not before OWCP at the time of its final decision. 
2

foot/heel while trying to hook up a container to tow a motor on June 28, 2014. Appellant 

received care at St. Vincent Charity Hospital on June 29, 2014. He received continuation of pay 

until August 13, 2014. On August 11, 2014 Dr. Jeremy Perse, a podiatrist, indicated that 

appellant could return to his regular work on August 20, 2014. Appellant did not return to work. 

On August 26, 2014 OWCP received a Form CA-7 from appellant claiming disability 

compensation for the period August 14, 2014 and continuing. In support of his claim, appellant 

submitted several CA-17 duty status reports. He also submitted progress notes from Dr. Joe 

Schoenberger, an osteopath, Dr. Leo Moysaenko, a general surgeon, and Gail Mangan, a nurse 

practitioner. These reports noted that appellant was under treatment for the additional foot 

conditions of: plantar fascia tear/rupture, fibroma; plantar fasciitis; and pes planus (flat feet). 

On August 28, 2014 OWCP accepted the claim for left ankle sprain. In an August 28, 

2014 letter, it noted that the evidence submitted with his wage-loss claim did not establish his 

disability for the claimed period. OWCP advised him that medical evidence establishing 

disability for work due to his accepted work injury for the claimed periods was needed. 

Appellant was accorded 30 days to submit the requested information. 

In response, OWCP received medical records from Dr. Perse, a podiatrist. In his initial 

July 7, 2014 report, Dr. Perse noted the history in his injury that appellant experienced a 

dorsiflexed metatarsophalangeal joint complex while operating a tow motor at work and that he 

also felt an initial searing sharp pain to the plantar middle arch. Appellant presented to the clinic 

for left plantar foot pain following evaluation from St. Vincent Charity emergency room. 

Dr. Perse diagnosed a partial rupture of left mid substance plantar fascia. Appellant was 

provided a walking boot and was told to attempt weight bearing on a self-limiting basis. He 

received a written work excuse from work for one week. In an August 11, 2014 report, Dr. Perse 

found appellant in follow-up status post left plantar fascia rupture. He reported that appellant 

was currently stable and healing. Dr. Perse gave appellant a prescription for an orthotic device. 

There was discussion of possible removal of surgical hardware from the left fifth 

metatarsophalangeal joint where appellant had bunion reduction nine years earlier. 

In a September 22, 2014 report, Dr. Anthony A. Matalavage, a podiatrist, noted 

appellant’s allegations that he injured his left foot at work while pushing a cart. Appellant 

related that he felt sharp pain on the bottom of his left foot and noted bruising/swelling to the 

plantar foot. He reported that he was seen at St. Vincent Charity Hospital and had been told he 

tore his plantar fascia. Appellant was placed in a fracture boot for several weeks and given a 

prescription for custom orthotics. Dr. Matalavage diagnosed a left side plantar fascial tear from 

the original workers’ compensation injury with subsequent development of plantar fibromatosis 

in the left arch all related to the injury. He requested that OWCP accept the conditions of plantar 

fascial ligament tear, plantar fibromatosis, and left foot pain as causally related to appellant’s 

claim. In a September 21, 2014 report, Dr. Matalavage diagnosed work-related left plantar 

fascial tear/rupture, left plantar fibromatosis, and left foot pain. He advised that appellant was 

totally disabled from work from September 22 to December 31, 2014. On November 12, 2014 

Dr. Matalavage requested approval for physical therapy for the condition of plantar fibromatosis 

left foot. 

Records from St. Vincent Charity Medical Center dated June 29, 2014 were received. 

Dr. Maureen E. Allanson, a podiatrist, diagnosed appellant with plantar fascia rupture to the 
3

medial band of plantar fascia, stable; edema left foot 2/2 rupture, painful retained hardware left 

1st MPJ from an old left foot bunionectomy. She also diagnosed hallux limitus left hallux status 

post head osteotomy; pain in limb. 

Physical therapy notes from Amanda Sweeney, a physical therapist, dated October 20, 

2014 provided an assessment of fibromatosis of the left plantar fascia along with multiple 

requests for authorization. 

By decision dated November 19, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

compensation for the ongoing period commencing August 22, 2014.3

 It found that the medical 

evidence of file did not establish that appellant was disabled as a result of his accepted workrelated medical condition of left foot sprain. 

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 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 reliable, probative, and substantial medical opinion evidence.4

 Such medical 

evidence must include findings on examination and the physician’s opinion, supported by 

medical rationale, showing how the injury caused the employee disability for his particular 

work.5 

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

due to disability for employment resulting from the employment injury.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 his disability and entitlement to compensation.7 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant injured himself at work on June 28, 2014 and stopped work on or about 

July 7, 2014. He received continuation of pay until August 13, 2014, after which he filed a claim 

for wage-loss compensation. OWCP accepted the condition of left ankle sprain as being work 

related.8

 In the decision dated November 19, 2014, it denied appellant’s wage-loss claim for 

 3

 The Board notes that appellant claimed wage-loss for disability as of August 14, 2014. 

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

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

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

7 Supra note 4. 

8

 The Board notes that OWCP is developing Dr. Matalavage’s request to expand the accepted conditions of 

appellant’s claim to include the conditions of left plantar fascial tear, left plantar fibromatosis, and left foot pain. 

The Board does not have jurisdiction over that matter as a final adverse decision has not been issued. 
4

disability compensation from August 22, 2014 and continuing because the medical evidence did 

not establish that appellant was disabled as a result of his accepted work-related condition. 

The Board finds that appellant did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that 

he was disabled due to the accepted conditions caused by the June 28, 2014 work-related 

incident. 

The Board notes that on July 7, 2014 Dr. Perse authorized appellant to stay off work for 

one week. This was covered during the continuation of pay period as was appellant’s hospital 

visit on June 29, 2014. The Board finds that the reports received by OWCP after the 

continuation of pay period ended August 13, 2014 are insufficient to establish appellant’s 

continued disability claim due to his accepted left foot sprain. 

Dr. Matalage noted the history of injury, appellant’s medical course, and presented 

examination findings. He diagnosed a left side plantar fascia tear resulting from the June 28, 

2014 work-related injury. Dr. Matalage reported subsequent development of plantar 

fibromatosis in the left arch with left foot pain. He stated that appellant was totally disabled 

from September 22 to December 31, 2014, and did not address appellant’s status as of 

August 22, 2014. Furthermore Dr. Matalage failed to provide medical rationale on how the 

diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted June 28, 2014 work injury. As the 

conditions diagnosed are not presently accepted conditions, his reports pertaining to appellant’s 

disability are of little probative value on the issue of entitlement to wage-loss compensation. 

The physical therapy notes from Ms. Sweeney document that appellant was receiving 

medical services, not that he was totally disabled for work.9

 These reports are immaterial to the 

present claim as physical therapists are not considered physicians under FECA. 

There is no other probative medial evidence of record to show that appellant was disabled 

on the dates claimed and which also explains how any disability is related to the June 28, 2014 

work injury. 

On appeal appellant argues that the medical evidence supports that he was totally 

disabled as a result of the work injury during the relevant period. He also asserts that he suffered 

additional conditions other than the accepted left foot sprain. However, for the reasons given, 

the medical evidence does not support appellant’s 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 compensation 

for wage-loss benefits for the ongoing period commencing August 22, 2014. 

 9

 Appellant is entitled to compensation for those hours of leave without pay that are shown to have been taken for 

treatment for the effects of the accepted employment-related conditions. Daniel Hollars, 51 ECAB 355 (2000). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 19, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed as modified. 

Issued: August 12, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board