United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.W., Appellant 

and 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 

LOAN DIVISION, El Paso, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0527 

Issued: July 26, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 27, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from December 15, 

2015 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the 

Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish disability from 

December 1, 2013 to August 9, 2014, and on June 4 and 16, 2015, causally related to an 

October 25, 2012 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 29, 2012 appellant, then a 45-year-old loan servicing assistant, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained injuries to multiple parts of her 

body when she fell at work on October 25, 2012. OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a 

cervical strain, left hip and thigh sprains, lumbar sprain, disorder of the coccyx, left hip and thigh 

contusions, unspecific disorder of the cervical discs, and chronic pain syndrome.3

Appellant received medical treatment from several attending physicians, including 

Dr. John M. Dickason, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. The reports of record from 

October and November 2013 indicate that appellant primarily complained of neck and upper 

extremity pain. 

Beginning on December 17, 2013 appellant filed several claim for compensation forms 

(Form CA-7) alleging disability from December 1, 2013 to February 8, 2014 due to her accepted 

work conditions. In support of her disability claim, appellant submitted a December 2, 2013 

report in which Dr. Dickason indicated that she could not perform her usual job as she needed to 

take 10-minute breaks every two hours. 

In a January 9, 2014 report, Dr. Mahe T. Nadeem, an attending Board-certified physical 

medicine and rehabilitation physician, indicated that appellant could perform her regular work 

“with rest breaks.” In January 17 and February 19, 2014 reports, she diagnosed neck sprain, hip 

and thigh sprains, and hip and thigh contusions and noted that appellant could return to work 

“with restrictions.”4

By decisions dated February 13 and March 28, 2014, OWCP found that appellant did not 

meet her burden of proof to establish disability from December 1, 2013 to February 8, 2014 

because she did not submit sufficient medical evidence in support of her claim. 

Appellant filed several additional claims for compensation alleging disability between 

February 9 and August 9, 2014 due to her accepted work conditions. 

In reports dated March 25 and April 21, 2014, Dr. Nadeem diagnosed neck, hip, and 

thigh sprains, hip and thigh contusions, and cervical disc disorder. In May 5 and 28, 2014 

reports, he added lumbar sprain and disorder of the coccyx to appellant’s diagnoses. In each of 

these reports, Dr. Nadeem indicated in the “work status” portion that appellant was on “Full duty 

 3

 Appellant stopped work on October 25, 2012 and returned to work on October 29, 2012 in her usual job. 

4

 In January 21 and February 18, 2014 letters, OWCP advised appellant about the factual and medical evidence 

needed to support her claim. 
3

as of December 13, 2013.” On May 30, 2014 he noted that appellant also had chronic pain 

syndrome. 

In a report dated May 14, 2014, Dr. Nadeem indicated that, upon physical examination on 

that date, appellant exhibited limitation of cervical and lumbar range of motion. He noted that, 

based on this physical examination, appellant had restrictions of no lifting, carrying, pushing, 

and pulling; no sustained grasping/gripping activity; no constant/repetitive wrist and hand 

activity; no constant bending, squatting, and twisting; and no prolonged sitting/standing posture. 

In a form report dated June 19, 2014, Dr. Mike Shah, an attending Board-certified 

physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, listed the date of injury as October 25, 2012 and 

indicated that appellant was totally disabled from June 19 to August 19, 2014 and partially 

disabled thereafter. 

Dr. Shah noted, in reports dated August 4, 2014, that appellant reported pain in her neck 

which radiated into her upper extremities. He listed appellant’s accepted conditions in the 

present case, indicated that her “injuries are work related,” and noted that she had been totally 

incapacitated since June 19, 2014. Dr. Shah recommended keeping appellant off work “to allow 

her to get stronger and complete her therapy program.”5

Appellant requested reconsideration of her disability claim and, by decisions dated 

October 2 and 14, 2014, OWCP found that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to 

establish disability from December 1, 2013 to August 9, 2014 because she did not submit 

sufficient medical evidence in support of her claim.6

Appellant submitted several reports, dated between August 22 and September 29, 2014, 

in which Dr. Shah diagnosed herniated nucleus pulposus/bulge, brachial neuritis or radiculitis, 

thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, sciatica (neuralgia or neuritis of sciatic nerve), 

sprain of unspecified site of knee and leg, carpal tunnel syndrome, neck sprain/strain (whiplash 

injury), and lumbar sprain/strain. 

Appellant filed a claim for compensation alleging four hours of disability on June 4, 2015 

and two hours of disability on June 16, 2015 due to attending doctor’s appointments on those 

dates in order to treat her work-related conditions. 

In a decision dated December 15, 2015, OWCP found that appellant did not meet her 

burden of proof to establish disability from December 1, 2013 to August 9, 2014 because she did 

not submit sufficient medical evidence in support of her claim. It indicated that the medical 

evidence submitted by appellant did not contain medical rationale. 

In another decision of December 15, 2015, OWCP found that appellant did not meet her 

burden of proof to establish disability on June 4 and 16, 2015 because she did not submit 

 5

 In a September 25, 2014 report, Dr. Shah discussed the options for treating appellant’s pain, including physical 

therapy, medications, and injection therapy. 

6

 OWCP denied modification of its decisions dated February 13 and March 28, 2014. 
4

sufficient medical evidence in support of her claim. It indicated that appellant did not show that 

she was treated for an accepted work injury on these dates. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the 

United States” within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as 

alleged and that any disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are 

causally related to the employment injury.7

 In general the term disability under FECA means 

incapacity because of injury in employment to earn the wages which the employee was receiving 

at the time of such injury.8

 This meaning, for brevity, is expressed as disability for work.9 

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship between a claimed 

period of disability and an employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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.10

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on October 25, 2012 appellant sustained a cervical strain, left hip 

and thigh sprains, lumbar sprain, disorder of the coccyx, left hip and thigh contusions, unspecific 

disorder of the cervical discs, and chronic pain syndrome.11 Appellant claimed disability from 

December 1, 2013 to August 9, 2014, and on June 4 and 16, 2015 due to the accepted conditions 

related to her October 25, 2012 employment injury. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish disability 

from December 1, 2013 to August 9, 2014, and on June 4 and 16, 2015. Appellant did not 

submit sufficient medical evidence to establish her claim. 

In support of her disability claim, appellant submitted a December 2, 2013 report in 

which Dr. Dickason indicated that she could not perform her usual job as she needed to take 10-

minute breaks every two hours. In a January 9, 2014 report, Dr. Nadeem indicated that she could 

perform her regular work “with rest breaks.” In January 17 and February 19, 2014 reports, he 

diagnosed neck sprain, hip and thigh sprains, and hip and thigh contusions and noted that 

 7 J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009). 

8 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f). 

9 Roberta L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002); see also A.M., Docket No. 09-1895 (issued April 23, 2010). 

10 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010). 

11 Appellant stopped work on October 25, 2012 and she returned to work on October 29, 2012 in her usual job. 
5

appellant could return to work “with restriction.” The submission of these reports would not 

establish appellant’s claim because none of these reports contain an opinion that appellant had 

disability during the claimed period due to the accepted conditions related to her October 25, 

2012 injury. The Board has held that medical evidence which does not offer a clear opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition/disability is of limited probative value on the issue 

of causal relationship.12 

In reports dated March 25 and April 21, 2014, Dr. Nadeem diagnosed neck sprain, hip 

and thigh sprains, hip and thigh contusions, and cervical disc disorder. In May 5 and 28, 2014 

reports, he added lumbar sprain and disorder of coccyx to appellant’s diagnoses. In each of these 

reports, Dr. Nadeem indicated in the “work status” portion that appellant was on “Full duty as of 

December 13, 2013.” The submission of these reports do not establish appellant’s claim because 

Dr. Nadeem did not indicate any period of disability. In a report dated May 14, 2014, 

Dr. Nadeem reported that, upon physical examination on that date, appellant exhibited limitation 

of cervical and lumbar range of motion. He noted that, based on this physical examination, 

appellant had restrictions of no lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling; no sustained 

grasping/gripping activity; no constant/repetitive wrist and hand activity; no constant bending, 

squatting, and twisting; and no prolonged sitting/standing posture. The Board finds that this 

report is of limited probative value regarding appellant’s claim for disability because 

Dr. Nadeem did not provide any indication that appellant’s need for work restrictions was due to 

the accepted work conditions. 

In a form report dated June 19, 2014, Dr. Shah listed the date of injury as October 25, 

2012 and indicated that appellant was totally disabled from June 19 to August 19, 2014 and 

partially disabled thereafter. In a report dated August 4, 2014, he noted that appellant reported 

pain in her neck which radiated into her upper extremities. Dr. Shah listed appellant’s accepted 

conditions in the present case, indicated that her “injuries are work related,” and noted that she 

had been totally incapacitated since June 19, 2014. He recommended keeping appellant off work 

“to allow her to get stronger and complete her therapy program.” Although Dr. Shah identified 

periods of disability within a portion of the period claimed by appellant and indicated that the 

disability was work related, he did not provide a rationalized medical opinion explaining why 

this disability was related to the accepted work conditions.13 He did not discuss appellant’s 

accepted work conditions in any detail or explain how they could have caused disability for the 

denoted period. 

The Board notes that in addition to her claim of work-related disability from December 1, 

2013 to August 9, 2014, appellant has also alleged four hours of disability on June 4, 2015 and 

two hours of disability on June 16, 2015 due to attending doctor’s appointments on those dates in 

order to treat her work-related conditions. However, appellant has not established this aspect of 

her claim because the evidence of record does not show that she actually attended doctor’s 

appointments on those dates in order to treat her work-related conditions. 

 12 See Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988). 

13 See supra note 9. 
6

On appeal, counsel argues that the medical evidence of record establishes appellant’s 

disability claim, but the Board has explained why the medical evidence submitted by appellant is 

deficient.14

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 her burden of proof to establish disability 

from December 1, 2013 to August 9, 2014, and on June 4 and 16, 2015, causally related to an 

October 25, 2012 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 15, 2015 decisions of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: July 26, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 14 Counsel suggested that OWCP should have accepted additional work-related conditions, including several 

diagnosed by Dr. Shah, but this matter is not currently before the Board.