United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Plymouth, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1421 

Issued: December 12, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 27, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of an April 18, 2016 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 to 

consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she was 

totally disabled from January 14 through 16, 2016 due to her accepted March 3, 2015 

employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 3, 2015 appellant, then a 39-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she slipped and fell in the performance of duty injuring 

her left leg, lower back, and right arm. She accepted a light-duty position as a city carrier at the 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

employing establishment on March 13, 2015. OWCP initially allowed payment of a limited 

amount of medical expenses, but on March 31, 2015 formally accepted her claim for back 

contusion.2

Dr. Jai Duck Liem, a Board-certified physiatrist, examined appellant on March 26, 2015 

and noted that she had a history of chronic low back pain with L5-S1 disc protrusion. He 

reported that appellant was performing limited-duty work at the time of her March 3, 2015 work 

injury. Dr. Liem diagnosed left sacroiliac sprain. Appellant stopped work on April 14, 2015. 

Dr. Liem noted that appellant could return to work on April 16, 2015 with restrictions including 

no lifting over 10 pounds, no prolonged standing or walking, bending no more than 10 times an 

hour, and pushing or pulling up to 20 pounds. 

Appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for wage loss from April 18 

through May 1, 2015. She underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan on April 28, 

2015 which demonstrated mild disc desiccation with minimal disc bulge at L5-S1, but no 

appreciable canal stenosis or neural foraminal narrowing. On May 4, 2015 Dr. Liem opined that 

appellant was totally disabled diagnosing herniated lumbar disc, sacroiliac strain, and contusion 

of the back. Appellant requested leave-without-pay compensation beginning May 2, 2015. 

OWCP authorized compensation benefits. 

In a note dated May 18, 2015, Dr. Liem diagnosed severe trochanter bursitis. He noted 

that appellant did not have any hip pain problem prior to her fall on March 3, 2015. Dr. Liem 

diagnosed left sacroiliac sprain and trochanteric bursitis of the left hip. He continued to support 

her total disability from work. 

Dr. Carrie Stewart, a Board-certified physiatrist, examined appellant on June 18, 2015 

and noted her history of injury on March 3, 2015. She also reported that appellant had a previous 

low back injury at work in 2009. Dr. Stewart diagnosed left sacroiliac joint dysfunction 

following a slip and fall on March 3, 2015. She also diagnosed left lower extremity radicular 

pain with lumbar disc protrusion abutting the S1 nerve roots at L5-S1 as well as possible 

piriformis syndrome. Dr. Stewart found that appellant was totally disabled from work for six 

weeks. She found that appellant could return to light-duty work four hours a day on 

July 30, 2015. Appellant’s work restrictions included changing positions frequently and no 

walking or standing for more than 30 minutes at a time, with sitting breaks every 30 minutes. 

She was allowed to case mail and drive, but not lift more than 10 pounds at waist level and no 

lifting from the floor. 

Appellant returned to part-time limited duty on August 3, 2015. Dr. Stewart reduced 

appellant’s restrictions on September 3, 2015 to allow her to lift, push, and pull up to 15 pounds 

and to work six hours a day. On November 19, 2015 she indicated that appellant could lift, push, 

and pull up to 20 pounds. Dr. Stewart also increased her total amount of walking. 

OWCP requested additional information from Dr. Stewart on December 17, 2015. In a 

report dated January 13, 2016, Dr. Stewart described appellant’s history of injury on 

March 3, 2015. She noted that shortly before December 25, 2015 appellant required a few days 

 2

 Appellant has a previously accepted claim for lumbosacral sprain, lumbar strain, and disc protrusions L5-S1 

without nerve impingement. The prior claim, File No. xxxxxx272, has been combined with the present claim. 
3

off due to severe back pain which limited her ability to get out of bed. Dr. Stewart reported that 

she had an additional period of severe pain during the first week of January 2016. Appellant 

reported to work despite her pain. Dr. Stewart indicated that appellant continued to experience 

moderate back pain and that she attributed her condition to wearing ice cleats which were not 

well fitted and altered her gait resulting in back pain. She diagnosed left sacroiliac joint 

dysfunction, lumbar disc herniation L5-S1 with intermittent left S1 radicular symptoms, and left 

iliotibial (IT) band strain and tendinitis. Dr. Stewart found that appellant could continue to work 

six hours a day, but limited her walking to two hours per shift. She noted that appellant would 

continue to have episodic flare-ups. 

In a report dated January 14, 2016, Dr. Stewart found that appellant experienced severe 

pain on that date. She noted that appellant felt unable to bear weight on her left leg due to pain 

and numbness radiating down the left leg into the foot. Dr. Stewart found that appellant 

appeared uncomfortable sitting, transitioned from sitting to standing slowly, and walked with a 

markedly antalgic gait. She also noted that appellant was tender to palpation over the left 

sacroiliac joint and markedly tender to palpation over the left greater trochanteric bursa and IT 

band. Dr. Stewart did not find motor strength, reflex, or sensory deficits. She diagnosed a 

worsening of appellant’s left S1 distribution radicular pain and recommended an 

electromyogram. Dr. Stewart found that appellant was totally disabled through 

January 18, 2016. 

On January 22, 2016 appellant filed a Form CA-7, claiming compensation for 

intermittent leave without pay from January 9 through 22, 2016. The employing establishment 

indicated that appellant used 2.33 hours of leave without pay on January 9, 2016 4.24 hours on 

January 13, 2016 and eight hours each on January 14 through 16, 2016. Appellant used 2.38 

hours of leave without pay on January 19, 2016 and 2.46 hours on January 21, 2016. She used 

two hours of leave without pay on January 11 and 22, 2016. On January 26, 2016 OWCP 

authorized compensation for 21.4 hours from January 9 through 22, 2016 which included the 

specific times under eight hours claimed, as well as two hours a day each on January 14 

through 16, 2016. 

In a letter dated February 9, 2016, OWCP requested additional medical evidence in 

support of appellant’s January 22, 2016 Form CA-7. It noted that appellant claimed 39.40 hours 

and had received compensation for 21.40 hours based on her light-duty job restrictions. OWCP 

requested additional medical evidence explaining why appellant was totally disabled from work 

from January 14 through 16, 2016. It allowed appellant 30 days for a response. 

Dr. Stewart completed a report on February 4, 2016 addressing appellant’s total disability 

for work on February 2, 2016. She described her work duty on February 1, 2016 including 

carrying over 80 stacks of flyers weighing eight pounds each stack. Appellant sought additional 

medical treatment on February 27, 2016 due to left leg pain. 

On March 3, 3016 Dr. Stewart noted appellant’s increased back and left leg pain on 

February 26, 2015. She indicated that appellant had flare-ups from January 15 through 17, 

January 22 and 25, and February 2, 22, 25, and 26, 2016. Dr. Stewart noted that appellant 

attributed her flare-ups to walking on snow and ice with metal gripper shoes. She noted that 

wearing those shoes in the snow was very hard on appellant’s back causing several recent flare-
4

ups such that she was unable to get out of bed due to pain. Dr. Stewart recommended an 

additional MRI scan. 

In a report dated March 16, 2016, Dr. Stewart noted appellant’s history of injury on 

March 3, 2015. She indicated that appellant continued to experience pain in her low back and 

down the left leg. Dr. Stewart opined that appellant had “struggled especially this past winter 

due to wearing metal cleats when walking on snow and ice.” She noted that appellant had a 

walking route. 

By decision dated April 18, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for total disability for 

the period January 14 through 16, 2016. It authorized compensation for two hours a day during 

the period January 9 through 22, 2016 in keeping with appellant’s restriction of working six 

hours a day. OWCP found that appellant had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to 

establish that she was totally disabled from January 14 through 16, 2016. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish 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.3

 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.4 

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

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

being shown, 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 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.7

 

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.8

 Rationalized medical evidence is medical 

 3 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

4

 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). 

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

6 Id.

7 Id. 

8 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 
5

evidence which includes a physician’s detailed medical opinion on the issue of whether there is a 

causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported 

by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition 

and the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.9

 Neither the fact that a disease or 

condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the belief that the disease or 

condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish 

causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted the necessary medical opinion evidence 

to meet her burden of proof to establish that she was totally disabled from work from January 14 

through 16, 2016. 

In support of her claim for total disability from January 9 through 22, 2016, due to her 

accepted condition of contusion of the back, appellant submitted a note dated January 14, 2016 

from Dr. Stewart finding that she experienced severe pain on that date. Dr. Stewart reported her 

findings on examination and diagnosed a worsening of appellant’s left S1 distribution radicular 

pain. She found that appellant was totally disabled through January 18, 2016. This report is 

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish total disability from January 14 

through 16, 2016 as Dr. Stewart did not explain how or why appellant’s accepted employmentrelated condition rendered her totally disabled for the periods claimed. Dr. Stewart did not offer 

any medical rationale supporting her opinion that appellant was totally disabled from work due 

to her employment injuries on the dates claimed. 

Dr. Stewart completed notes on March 3 and 16, 2016 indicating that appellant had flareups from January 15 through 17, 2016 of her back and left leg pain. She indicated that appellant 

attributed her flare-ups to walking on snow and ice with metal gripper shoes. Dr. Stewart noted 

that wearing the gripper shoes in the snow was very hard on appellant’s back causing several 

recent flare-ups such that appellant was unable to get out of bed due to pain.11 The Board finds 

that Dr. Stewart’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim for total disability from 

January 15 through 17, 2016 due to her accepted condition of contusion of the back. Appellant 

has failed to meet her burden of proof. 

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

10 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 

11 The Board notes that the report attributed appellant’s condition to a new employment factor, the wearing of 

metal gripper shoes while delivering her route. This report does not attribute appellant’s disability for work due to 

her accepted employment injury, but instead to a new occupational disease resulting from additional employment 

factors. 
6

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that she was 

totally disabled from January 14 through 16, 2016 due to her accepted March 3, 2015 

employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 18, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 12, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board