United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE NATIONAL 

OFFICE, Richmond, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0325 

Issued: October 2, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Martin Kaplan, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 2, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

November 6, 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 has not met her burden of proof to establish total disability 

for the period September 26 to December 17, 2011. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. By decision dated August 18, 2014, the 

Board set aside a January 16, 2013 OWCP merit decision, which denied appellant’s claim for 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

disability compensation for the period September 26 to December 17, 2011.2

 The Board found 

that OWCP, in its January 16, 2013 decision, did not review all of the medical evidence in the 

record prior to the issuance of its decision and remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly 

consider all of the evidence. The findings and facts as set forth in the prior decisions are hereby 

incorporated by reference. The relevant facts are set forth. 

On December 3, 2009 appellant, then a 60-year-old tax examiner, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed hand, back, neck, shoulder, and arm 

problems as a result of repetitive data entry from her federal employment duties beginning on 

June 18, 2009. She noted that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan had confirmed a 

radiculopathy. The record indicates that appellant stopped work on June 18, 2009 and returned 

to work on July 22, 2009. 

In a June 16, 2009 medical report, Dr. Glenn R. Graves, Board-certified in family 

medicine, reported that appellant complained of increasing right upper extremity pain and 

weakness over the past several months, mainly after long hours at work when using a keyboard 

and mouse. Appellant stated that her symptoms were better when she was away from work. 

Upon physical examination, Dr. Graves diagnosed radicular arm pain with possible herniated 

nucleus pulposus or other cervical pathology aggravated by work. 

In a June 18, 2009 diagnostic report, Dr. Rodney Schmidt, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, reported that an MRI scan of the cervical spine revealed degenerative disc disease 

with bilateral foraminal narrowing at C5-6 and degenerative disc disease with right foraminal 

narrowing at C6-7. 

In a June 24, 2009 medical report, Dr. George A. Petroff, a Board-certified neurologist, 

reported that appellant complained of pain in the right arm and neck and numbness and tingling 

in the right arm, shoulder, and hand. Appellant’s symptoms were continuous and began in 

April 2009. Based on review of the MRI scan which showed C5-6 and C6-7 disc bulge with 

foraminal impingement, Dr. Petroff diagnosed cervical radiculopathy. 

By decision dated March 17, 2010, OWCP accepted the claim for brachial neuritis or 

radiculitis.3

 

Appellant stopped work and filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave 

without pay beginning September 26, 2011. 

In a September 27, 2011 return to work note, Dr. Graves reported that appellant was 

under his care since September 26, 2011, and that she could return to work on October 3, 2011. 

In an October 6, 2011 prescription note, he reported that she was evaluated on October 4, 2011 

for low back and neck pain which was attributed to cervical radiculitis. Appellant was referred 

to Dr. Mark Queralt, Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, for further 

evaluation. 

 2

 Docket No. 13-1666 (issued August 18, 2014). 

3

 Leave buyback was authorized for the period June 18 through July 22, 2009. 
3

In an October 3, 2011 medical report, Dr. Queralt reviewed previously taken diagnostic 

studies and diagnosed right cervical and trapezius syndrome, most suggestive for myofascial 

with associated occipital neuralgia with a duration of two plus years. He further diagnosed low 

back, buttock, and lower extremity pain. Dr. Queralt noted that appellant continued to miss 

work. In a work status report that same date he placed her off work from October 3 through 

November 11, 2011. 

In a November 7, 2011 report, Dr. Queralt provided findings on physical examination and 

diagnosed right over left cervicobrachial symptoms most suggestive for myofascial and 

associated occipital neuralgia, and thoracic outlet-type syndrome. He further found that the 

cervical MRI scan in 2009 was most notable for mild-to-moderate bilateral C5-6 foraminal 

encroachment, however, negative nerve root tension. Dr. Queralt also diagnosed low back 

pain/bilateral sciatica. 

In a November 15, 2011 attending physician’s report, Dr. Queralt reported that appellant 

had a gradual onset of symptoms related to repeated activity at work, noting the date of injury as 

April 2009. He noted that a July 17, 2009 cervical MRI scan revealed C5-6 and right C6-7 

foraminal narrowing. Dr. Queralt diagnosed occupational neuralgia, thoracic outlet-type 

syndrome, and right over left cervical brachial symptoms probable myofascial. He checked the 

box marked “Yes” when asked if he believed that the condition was caused or aggravated by an 

employment activity, stating that appellant was aggravated per her report. Dr. Queralt placed her 

off work from October 3 through December 5, 2011. 

By letters dated November 22 and December 13, 2011, OWCP requested that appellant 

submit additional medical evidence in support of her claim for disability. 

OWCP thereafter received additional medical evidence from appellant’s treating 

physicians. In a November 30, 2011 report, Dr. Robert M. Cain, a Board-certified neurologist, 

reported that review of her cervical spine MRI scan revealed degenerative disc disease primarily 

at C5-6, but also at C4-5 and C6-7 with multilevel degenerative facet arthrosis and foraminal 

stenosis more prominent at C5-6. He noted that appellant’s findings were virtually unchanged 

when compared to her June 18, 2009 MRI scan. Dr. Cain recommended surgery. 

By report dated December 5, 2011, Dr. Queralt related that appellant complained of 

cervical pain and directly attributed her symptoms to work despite not having worked in over a 

month. He noted negative cervical and lumbar nerve root tension and neurologically intact. In a 

work status report of that same date, Dr. Queralt placed appellant off work from November 7, 

2011 through January 10, 2012. 

In a December 14, 2011 report, Dr. Randall F. Dryer, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, recommended a C5-6, C6-7 anterior discectomy and fusion. 

On January 10, 2012 Dr. Queralt reported that appellant’s return to work status was 

difficult to address without a surgical second opinion. 

By decision dated January 19, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that the 

medical evidence failed to support that she was disabled for work as a result of the accepted 
4

June 18, 2009 work injury entitling her to compensation for total disability for the period 

September 26 to December 17, 2011. 

In a January 24, 2012 report, Dr. Anthony Hicks, Board-certified in internal medicine, 

provided findings on physical examination and diagnosed headache, spasm disorders, tremor, 

upper extremity neuropathy, and upper extremity radiculitis. He noted that appellant had 

explained that on June 18, 2009 she was performing her job as a tax examiner repetitively 

inputting data when she developed tremors in her hands and shoulders and pain in her neck. 

Dr. Hicks stated that her reported cervical/trapezial and right shoulder joint/right and left upper 

extremity neurologic complaints were more likely than not directly related to the June 18, 2009 

employment incident. He noted that appellant’s complaints were consistent with the medical 

diagnoses and consistent with the required work duties performed which clearly established the 

repetitive June 18, 2009 work-related activities/incident. Dr. Hicks further noted that she had no 

complaints prior to the June 18, 2009 work-related incident and performed no other physical 

activities that could account for her symptoms. In addition, Dr. Hicks noted that appellant’s 

June 18, 2009 injuries were traumatic in nature as they commenced acutely on June 18, 2009 

while completing work-required repetitive activities. He concluded that her current complaints 

were likely caused by the June 18, 2009 work-required physical activities. Dr. Hicks noted that 

appellant was incapacitated through January 31, 2012 as a result of her work-related injuries and 

released her to work with restrictions. In a February 14, 2012 report, he found that she was 

unable to work. 

On February 15, 2012 appellant requested a hearing before the Branch of Hearings and 

Review. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Donald Mauldin, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

for a second opinion evaluation. In his February 20, 2012 report, Dr. Mauldin opined that there 

was no clear relationship between her symptoms and her employment, noting that there was no 

objective documentation as to why work should cause her to have brachial neuritis or significant 

radiculitis. He noted that tremors were the significant component of appellant’s complaints 

which were not related to degenerative disc disease in her cervical spine and as such, no clear 

linkage between her present symptoms and her work activity. Dr. Mauldin noted that she needed 

an additional independent evaluation by a Board-certified neurosurgeon relative to the status of 

her cervical spine and should also be seen by a neurologist to determine if her tremors were work 

related. He noted that, though he was not a spinal surgeon, he did not think that anterior cervical 

disc and fusion would resolve appellant’s issues. Dr. Mauldin further noted that there was no 

objective evidence as to why she could not do office-type work. He observed that appellant’s 

inability to work was purely based on her history. As her complaints related to typing on her 

computer, Dr. Mauldin opined that she would most likely not be able to continue to do data input 

for a prolonged or extended period of time, but could do light-duty work that did not involve 

constant sitting at a computer. He also noted that there was no objective documentation as to 

why appellant’s work activity would cause her to have brachial neuritis or significant radiculitis 

and certainly would not explain the tremors that she developed. Dr. Mauldin concluded that her 

degenerative conditions in her neck were not causally related to her work activity as a tax 

examiner and would be considered a disease of life. There was no literature that supports that 

appellant’s predominantly computer input work would have increased the chance of developing a 

progressive degenerative condition in the cervical spine. 
5

In duty status reports dated March 3 to April 18, 2012, Dr. Hicks reported that appellant 

was unable to return to work until provided with modified duty at her employment and that her 

current complaints were likely caused by the June 18, 2009 work-required physical activities as 

described in the prior causality statement. 

By letter dated April 12, 2012, the employing establishment provided appellant a limitedduty position, observing her work restrictions. 

By letter dated May 17, 2012, OWCP provided Dr. Hicks, appellant’s treating physician, 

with a copy of the second opinion examination for review and comment on whether he concurred 

with Dr. Mauldin’s report. 

By decision dated May 23, 2012, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

January 19, 2012 decision denying appellant’s claim for disability for the period September 26 

through December 17, 2011, finding that the medical evidence failed to show that disability was 

due to the June 18, 2009 employment injury. 

On June 1, 2012 OWCP received Dr. Hicks May 22, 2012 response to OWCP’s May 17, 

2012 request and disagreed with Dr. Mauldin’s findings. Dr. Hicks explained that appellant’s 

symptoms would worsen when returning to work and improve when removed from work which 

showed that her work-related factors contributed to her disabling condition. He further noted 

that Dr. Mauldin was not a qualified spinal surgeon and thus his opinion was of limited probative 

value. Medical reports and duty status reports (Form CA-17) were also submitted from 

Dr. Hicks dated April 18, July 5, August 9, and October 11, 2012. 

In medical reports dated June 5 to 16, 2012, Dr. Scott Spann, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, diagnosed cervicalgia, spinal stenosis in the cervical region, degeneration cervical IV 

disc, and brachial neuritis/radiculitis. He submitted a request for surgical intervention and 

recommended an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion of the C5-6 and C6-7 levels. 

The case file was referred to Dr. Michael M. Katz, a district medical adviser (DMA) and 

a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an opinion on appellant’s diagnosed conditions and 

whether surgical intervention was warranted. In a July 31, 2012 report, the DMA diagnosed 

brachial neuritis or radiculitis, recommended surgery, and opined that the surgical procedure was 

related to the accepted work-related injury. 

On August 17, 2012 OWCP found a conflict of opinion between the reports of Dr. Hicks 

and Dr. Mauldin’s second opinion report. It referred the case file to Dr. Joshua T. Woody for an 

independent medical evaluation regarding appellant’s diagnosed condition, whether she was 

totally disabled due to her work injury, whether the surgery requested was due to the accepted 

work injury, and whether her accepted condition of brachial neuritis and radiculitis were caused 

by her work duties. OWCP did not specifically ask Dr. Woody to opine whether she was 

disabled due to the accepted conditions during the alleged period September 26 to 

December 17, 2011. 

In a September 10, 2012 referee report, Dr. Woody opined that appellant was totally 

disabled as a result of cervical degenerative disc disease, a nonwork-related issue. He found that 

the accepted condition of aggravated brachial neuritis or radiculitis was not caused by her work 
6

duties and that her condition was a result of age-related degenerative changes. Dr. Woody 

further noted that surgery was due to cervical degenerative disc disease and central canal 

stenosis, which were nonwork-related issues. 4

On October 9, 2012 appellant requested reconsideration of the May 23, 2012 decision, 

which denied her claim for disability for the period September 26 through December 17, 2011. 

On November 28, 2012 appellant underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion 

from C5-6 and C6-7. 

By decision dated January 16, 2013, OWCP affirmed the May 23, 2012 decision finding 

that appellant did not establish disability stemming from the accepted work injury for the period 

of September 26 through December 17, 2011. The senior claims examiner listed the evidence 

submitted in support of her claim, only noting letters from her, a November 6, 2012 letter to 

Dr. Hicks, authorization from counsel, a note from Dr. David S. Litton, Ph.D., and an 

October 11, 2012 Form CA-17. 

On July 8, 2013 appellant requested an appeal of the January 16, 2013 OWCP decision 

before the Board. The appeal was docketed as 13-1666.5 As previously noted, in an August 18, 

2014 decision, the Board set aside the January 16, 2013 finding that OWCP failed to review all 

of the medical evidence in the record prior to the issuance of its decision.6 The case was 

remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly consider all of the evidence. 

By decision dated August 23, 2013, OWCP affirmed the September 28, 2012 decision 

denying authorization for cervical surgery finding that the weight of the medical evidence rested 

with Dr. Woody. On May 6, 2014 appellant requested an appeal of OWCP’s August 23, 2013 

decision before the Board. The appeal was docketed as 13-2093. In a May 6, 2014 decision, the 

Board set aside the August 23, 2013 decision finding that OWCP abused its discretion in denying 

authorization for cervical surgery because it failed to resolve the conflict in medical opinion. 

The Board noted that Dr. Woody was not Board-certified. On remand, OWCP referred 

appellant, the statement of accepted facts, and the case file to Dr. Lloyd Youngblood, Boardcertified in neurological surgery, to resolve the conflict between Dr. Hicks and Dr. Mauldin 

regarding whether anterior cervical discectomy and fusion of the C5-6 and C6-7 was warranted. 

In a July 22, 2014 report, Dr. Youngblood provided findings on physical examination, 

summarized past medical records, and detailed appellant’s medical history. He stated that 

Dr. Hicks’ statements were inconsistent with the structural changes and pathophysiology in this 

case that necessitated surgical intervention. Surgery was reasonable, appropriate, and effective; 

it corrected an age-related wear and tear disease, not a condition related in any way to workrelated activities. By decision dated September 21, 2014, OWCP affirmed the September 28, 

2012 decision denying appellant’s request for cervical surgery finding that the weight of the 

 4

 By decision dated September 28, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s request for cervical surgery finding that the 

weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Woody. It noted that he concluded that the requested surgery was 

not a result of the accepted work-related condition. 

5 Supra note 2. 

6 Supra note 3. 
7

medical evidence rested with Dr. Youngblood. Appellant appealed the September 21, 2014 

decision to the Board on October 2, 2014. The appeal was docketed as No. 15-0020 and is still 

pending before the Board. 

By decision dated November 6, 2014, OWCP affirmed the May 23, 2012 decision 

denying appellant’s claim for disability for the period September 26 through December 17, 2011, 

finding that the medical evidence failed to show that disability was due to the June 18, 2009 

employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA,7 the term disability is defined as incapacity, because of employment injury, 

to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.8 Disability is not 

synonymous with a physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn the 

wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment 

injury, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn wages he or she was receiving at the time of 

injury has no disability as that term is used in FECA.9

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be disabled and the duration of that 

disability are medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, 

and substantial medical evidence.10 Findings on examination are generally needed to support a 

physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled for work. When a physician’s statements 

consist only of a repetition of the employee’s complaints that excessive pain caused an inability 

to work, without making an objective finding of disability, the physician has not presented a 

medical opinion on the issue of disability, or a basis for payment of compensation.11 The Board 

will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability without 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.12

For conditions not accepted by OWCP as being employment related, it is the employee’s 

burden to provide rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relation, not 

OWCP’s burden to disprove such relationship.13

 7

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

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

9 Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999); Maxine J. Sanders, 46 ECAB 835 (1995). 

10 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001); Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301, 303 (1989). 

11 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); see Huie Lee Goal, 1 ECAB 180, 182 (1948). 

12 Id.

13 G.A., Docket No. 09-2153 (issued June 10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Alice J. Tysinger, 

51 ECAB 638 (2000). 
8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained brachial neuritis or radiculitis as a result of her 

repetitive employment duties on June 18, 2009. Appellant has the burden of proving by the 

weight of the substantial, reliable, and probative evidence a causal relationship between her 

claimed disability from September 26 through December 17, 2011 and the accepted June 18, 

2009 injuries.14 The reports of her physicians do not provide a rationalized medical opinion 

finding her disabled for work for the claimed period due to her accepted injuries. Therefore, the 

medical evidence submitted is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.15

In a September 27, 2011 return to work note, Dr. Graves reported that appellant was 

disabled until October 3, 2011. He did not provide a diagnosis or relate her disability to her 

accepted June 18, 2009 injuries. As Dr. Graves failed to explain the cause of appellant’s 

disability, his report is insufficient to meet her burden of proof.16 

In an October 3, 2011 medical report, Dr. Queralt diagnosed right cervical and trapezius 

syndrome and low back, buttock, and lower extremity pain and placed appellant off work from 

October 3 through November 11, 2011. In a November 7, 2011 report, he concluded that the 

2009 cervical MRI scan showed mild-to-moderate bilateral C5-6 foraminal encroachment. In a 

November 15, 2011 report, Dr. Queralt diagnosed occupational neuralgia, thoracic outlet-type 

syndrome, and right over left cervical brachial symptoms probable myofascial. In subsequent 

reports he placed appellant off work through January 10, 2012. 

The Board finds that Dr. Queralt’s medical reports are insufficient to establish disability 

for the period September 26 through December 17, 2011. Dr. Queralt did not relate his finding 

of continued disability to the accepted June 18, 2009 injuries. Rather, he opined that appellant 

remained disabled as a result of conditions not accepted by OWCP as employment related. In 

his November 15, 2011 report, Dr. Queralt diagnosed occupational neuralgia, thoracic outlettype syndrome, and right over left cervical brachial symptoms. He checked the box marked 

“yes” that the conditions were employment related. The Board has held that an opinion on 

causal relationship that consists only of a physician checking yes to a medical form question on 

whether the claimant’s condition was related to the history given is of little probative value.17 

Because Dr. Queralt failed to provide a rationalized opinion as to why appellant was disabled as 

a result of her accepted June 18, 2009 work injuries, his reports are insufficient to meet her 

burden of proof.18 

 14 See Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005). 

15 Alfredo Rodriguez, 47 ECAB 437 (1996). 

16 S.P., Docket No. 09-1010 (issued March 2, 2010). 

17 C.Y., Docket No. 14-2075 (issued March 2, 2015); Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 334 (2003) (the checking of a 

box yes in a form report, without additional explanation or rationale, is insufficient to establish causal relationship). 

18 Deborah L. Beatty, id. 
9

In a January 24, 2012 report, Dr. Hicks determined that appellant was disabled through 

January 31, 2012 as a result of her work-related injuries. However, this opinion was actually 

based on diagnoses not accepted by OWCP as part of this claim. Dr. Hicks found that 

appellant’s reported cervical/trapezial and right shoulder joint/right and left upper extremity 

neurologic complaints were more likely than not directly related to the June 18, 2009 

employment incident. He specified that her injuries were traumatic because they began on 

June 18, 2009 while she was completing work-required repetitive activities. Without explaining 

how the employment incident caused the diagnosed conditions, Dr. Hicks’ opinion is of limited 

probative value.19 

Dr. Hicks did not discuss the role appellant’s degenerative conditions may have played in 

her alleged period of disability. Dr. Cain’s November 30, 2011 report noted that the cervical 

spine MRI scan was virtually unchanged from the June 18, 2009 MRI scan which revealed 

degenerative disc disease primarily at C5-6 and also at C4-5 and C6-7. Dr. Hicks failed to 

discuss how appellant’s preexisting degenerative conditions, would have been aggravated by the 

accepted injury He also did not discuss how her injury caused her preexisting condition to 

worsen beyond what might be expected from the natural progression of that condition.20 A 

well-rationalized opinion is particularly warranted in this case due to appellant’s history of a 

preexisting condition.21 Dr. Hicks supported his opinion by noting that she had no complaints 

prior to the June 18, 2009 work-related incident and performed no other physical activities that 

could account for her symptoms. The Board has held that an opinion that a condition is causally 

related because the employee was asymptomatic before the injury is insufficient, without 

adequate rationale, to establish causal relationship.22 

In a February 20, 2012 report, Dr. Mauldin, serving as the second opinion physician, 

found no objective evidence that appellant could not do office-type work. As her complaints 

related to typing, he opined that she could do light-duty work that did not involve constant sitting 

at a computer. Dr. Mauldin concluded that appellant was not disabled from the accepted 

June 18, 2009 injuries. He explained that her current problems related to her nonindustrial 

degenerative disease.23 Dr. Mauldin noted specifically that appellant’s major complaints were 

tremors, which were unrelated to the conditions of brachial neuritis or significant radiculitis, and 

found that her degenerative conditions were not causally related to her work activity as a tax 

examiner and would be considered a disease of life. Dr. Youngblood’s July 22, 2014 report also 

provided support for Dr. Mauldin’s opinion, explaining that appellant’s surgery corrected an 

age-related wear and tear disease, not a condition related in any way to work-related activities. 

 19 Id. 

20 R.E., Docket No. 14-868 (issued September 24, 2014). 

21 K.P., Docket No. 14-1330 (issued October 17, 2014). 

22 M.R., Docket No. 14-11 (issued August 27, 2014); T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009); 

Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006). 

23 See Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443 (1987). 
10

Following Dr. Mauldin’s report, Dr. Hicks provided a May 22, 2012 supplemental report 

disputing the conclusions in Dr. Mauldin’s reports. He found appellant disabled as a result of her 

work-related injury because her symptoms worsened when she worked and improved when she 

was removed from work. Dr. Hicks’ assessment is not supported by the medical evidence of 

record and is inconsistent with Dr. Queralt’s prior findings. Given the above deficiencies, the 

reports of Dr. Hicks fail to establish that appellant was disabled from September 26 through 

December 17, 2011 as a result of her June 18, 2009 employment injury.24 

The 2009 medical reports from Drs. Graves, Schmidt, and Petroff, upon which the claim 

was accepted, did not discuss her disability on September 26, 2011. The diagnostic reports 

interpreted imaging studies offer no opinion regarding appellant’s disability status during the 

period of disability in question. Drs. Dryer and Spann provided surgical findings with no 

opinion pertaining to disability beginning on September 26, 2011. Similarly, the reports from 

Drs. Katz and Woody identify the need for surgery, but do not find disability for the period in 

question. 

On appeal, counsel argues that OWCP should further develop the evidence because 

appellant provided numerous reports finding her disabled as a result of her work-related injury. 

The Board notes that OWCP has only accepted the condition of brachial neuritis or radiculitis. It 

is appellant’s burden to establish that any additional conditions were causally related to the 

accepted June 18, 2009 employment injury, not OWCP’s burden to disprove such relationship.25 

Because appellant has not submitted any reasoned medical opinion evidence to show that she 

was disabled for the period September 26 through December 17, 2011 as a result of her accepted 

brachial neuritis or radiculitis, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied her claim for 

disability compensation.26

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. 

 24 S.T., Docket No. 11-1316 (issued January 25, 2012). 

25 Medical reports without adequate rationale on causal relationship are of diminished probative value and do not 

meet an employee’s burden of proof. Ceferino L. Gonzales, 32 ECAB 1591 (1981). The opinion of a physician 

supporting causal relationship must rest on a complete factual and medical background supported by affirmative 

evidence, address the specific factual and medical evidence of record and provide medical rationale explaining the 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor of employment. See Lee R. 

Haywood, 48 ECAB 145 (1996). For conditions not accepted by OWCP as being employment related, it is the 

employee’s burden to provide rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relation, not OWCP’s 

burden to disprove such relationship. 

26 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. L.L., Docket No. 13-2146 (issued 

March 12, 2014). See also William A. Archer 55 ECAB 674, 679 (2004). 
11

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish total 

disability for the period September 26 through December 17, 2011. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 6, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board