United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Columbus, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0315 

Issued: January 25, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 8, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 13, 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.2

 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he was 

intermittently disabled from work during the period June 1 through October 3, 2013 causally 

related to his accepted cervical condition. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its November 13, 2015 

decision. The Board cannot consider this evidence as its jurisdiction is limited to the evidence of record that was 

before OWCP at the time of its final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); P.W., Docket No. 12-1262 (issued 

December 5, 2012). 
2 

On appeal appellant contends that his claim was accepted for total disability beginning 

June 1, 2013, but that he was not compensated until October 4, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 6, 2014 OWCP accepted that appellant, a 51-year-old city carrier, sustained a 

displacement of cervical intervertebral disc without myelopathy as a result of delivering mail. It 

authorized cervical spine surgery at C3-4, performed by Dr. Jaideep Chunduri, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, on February 21, 2013.3

In an April 2, 2013 report, Dr. Chunduri diagnosed chronic cervical pain and status post 

cervical surgery. He advised that appellant could return to restricted duty with no carrying 

anything on the shoulder with a 25-pound weight restriction. A May 22, 2013 magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine demonstrated surgical changes, disc bulges 

at C4 and C7, and degenerative disc disease. 

On May 23, 2013 Dr. Chunduri noted the MRI scan findings and described appellant’s 

complaint of severe neck pain. He related that appellant was doing well until he went back to 

work and had to lift objects that weighed up to 35 pounds.4

 Dr. Chunduri recommended revision 

surgery at C3-4 and surgery at C6-7. He reiterated his concerns and surgical recommendation on 

July 5, 2013. In an August 22, 2013 treatment note, Dr. Chunduri reported appellant’s complaint 

of continued neck pain radiating into the right arm. He reiterated that appellant was doing well 

until he returned to work and began having increased symptoms to the point that it was difficult 

for him to work. Dr. Chunduri attributed appellant’s condition to cumulative trauma over years 

of carrying mail. He again recommended surgery. 

On March 12, 2014 appellant filed a claim for intermittent wage-loss compensation 

(Form CA-7) during the period June 1, 2013 through March 7, 2014. On the claim form, the 

employing establishment indicated that appellant stopped work on June 1, 2013 and was in 

leave-without-pay (LWOP) status for most of the claimed period. Time analysis forms 

(Form CA-7a) were attached that covered the period claimed. 

In an April 21, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of his claim and 

afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

In a June 13, 2014 report, Dr. Chunduri described appellant’s longstanding medical 

history regarding his neck. He related that he had released appellant to light-duty work with 

restrictions, but that he subsequently had an increase in pain and was not able to return to letter 

carrier duties due to continued neck pain radiating into his right shoulder. Dr. Chunduri 

specifically reported that when appellant carried a mailbag on his hip, this aggravated his low 

back, and he could not carry mail on his neck. He related that appellant had longstanding back 

pain, but that he was disabled from work solely due to his neck injury, which had been present 

for over a year and resulted in the February 2013 surgery. Revision surgery was scheduled in 

                                                             3

 Dr. Chunduri performed an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at C3-4, for decompression of the spinal 

canal on February 21, 2013. The record does not indicate that appellant received any wage-loss compensation at the 

time of the February 21, 2013 surgery. 

4

 The record does not indicate the exact date appellant returned to work. 
3 

June 2014. Dr. Chunduri maintained that the employing establishment was unable to 

accommodate his restrictions related to appellant’s accepted neck injury. 

Appellant had authorized additional cervical spine surgery on June 24, 2014. 

In a telephone call log dated July 2, 2014, the employing establishment indicated that, 

beginning June 1, 2013, there was no work available for appellant within the cervical spine 

restrictions provided by Dr. Chunduri, except for the brief period October 2 and 31, and 

December 30, 2013. 

On July 8, 2014 OWCP placed appellant on the periodic rolls, retroactive to 

October 4, 2013. 

On September 29, 2014 OWCP advised appellant of the medical evidence needed to 

establish his claim for total disability from June 1 through October 3, 2013. Appellant was given 

30 days to respond. He submitted nothing further at that time. 

By decision dated October 31, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

for the period June 1 through October 3, 2013 because the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to support disability from work due to the accepted cervical condition. 

On September 4, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration with OWCP.5 He asserted 

that the evidence on which the payment of compensation beginning October 2013 was based was 

the same evidence he submitted to support his request form compensation beginning 

June 1, 2013. 

Medical evidence submitted subsequent to the October 31, 2014 decision, relevant to the 

period of claimed disability included a disability slip dated May 6, 2013 in which Dr. Chunduri 

released appellant to limited duty with no lifting over 35 pounds, and no work longer than eight 

hours daily. On a September 17, 2013 duty status report, Dr. Chunduri advised that appellant 

could perform modified duty with climbing limited to four hours a day; bending, stooping, 

pushing, and pulling, to two hours a day; and reaching above the shoulder to one hour a day. 

Appellant could not carry a satchel or any type of bag on his neck, and weight was limited to 20 

pounds. 

In correspondence dated September 18, 2013, appellant requested light duty in 

conformance with Dr. Chunduri’s restrictions. On September 24, 2013 a postmaster denied this 

request because the employing establishment had no work available within his craft. 

                                                             5

 An April 14, 2014 cervical spine MRI scan showed findings similar to the May 22, 2013 MRI scan. 

Dr. Chunduri continued to submit status reports. A functional capacity examination (FCE) dated November 21, 

2014 showed that appellant could perform part-time, medium physical demand level work. When the employing 

establishment could not provide work within appellant’s restrictions, he was referred to vocational rehabilitation 

services on January 23, 2015. On March 9, 2015 Dr. Chunduri released appellant to work full-time restricted duty. 

On September 10, 2015 OWCP proposed to reduce appellant’s compensation as appellant did not respond to the 

June 15, 2015 modified job offered and failed to participate in vocational rehabilitation. It afforded him 30 days in 

which to submit evidence or argument regarding his capacity to perform the job and/or participate in vocational 

rehabilitation services. The issue of reduction of appellant’s compensation is not presently before the Board, as 

OWCP did not issue a final decision on this matter before the filing of the instant appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
4 

Appellant began private employment in the fall of 2015. 

In a November 13, 2015 decision, OWCP denied modification of its October 31, 2014 

decision. It found that appellant had returned to full-time, restricted duty on May 7, 2013 before 

he stopped work on June 1, 2013, and that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish disability for the period June 1 through October 3, 2013. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA the term “disability” means the incapacity, because of an employment 

injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury. Disability is thus 

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

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

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

time of injury, has no disability as that term is used in FECA.6

 Furthermore, 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.7

 

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.8 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 employee.9

 Neither the mere 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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he was 

totally disabled from work during the period claimed. 

OWCP accepted the condition of displacement of cervical intervertebral disc without 

myelopathy as a result of delivering mail. Dr. Chunduri performed authorized cervical spine 

surgery at C3-4 on February 21, 2013 and then released appellant to work with restrictions of no 

carrying anything on the shoulder and no lifting or carrying more than 25 pounds. On March 12, 

2014 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation for the period June 1, 2013 through 

March 7, 2014. Appellant had repeat authorized cervical surgery on June 24, 2014. OWCP paid 

wage-loss compensation beginning October 4, 2013. In its November 13, 2015 decision, OWCP 

                                                             6 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999). 

7 Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

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

9 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

10 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 
5 

denied appellant’s claim for disability compensation for intermittent dates during the period 

June 1 through October 3, 2013. It found that appellant had returned to work full-time restricted 

duty before he stopped work on June 1, 2013, and that the medical evidence submitted was 

insufficient to establish total disability for the period claimed. 

The medical evidence relevant to the period of claimed disability includes reports from 

Dr. Chunduri beginning with an April 2, 2013 report in which he advised that appellant could 

return to restricted duties. Dr. Chunduri noted that appellant complained of severe neck pain and 

recommended revision surgery at C3-4 and surgery at C6-7. 

The only report in which the physician discussed appellant’s disability from work was in 

correspondence dated June 13, 2014 in which Dr. Chunduri described appellant’s longstanding 

medical history regarding his neck. He related that he had released appellant to light-duty work 

with restrictions, but that appellant subsequently had an increase in pain and was unable to return 

to letter carrier duties due to continued neck pain that radiated into his right shoulder. 

Dr. Chunduri also reported that when appellant carried a mailbag on his hip, this aggravated his 

low back.11 Dr. Chunduri also opined that appellant was disabled from work solely due to his 

neck injury which had been present for over a year and resulted in the February 2013 surgery 

with revision surgery scheduled for June 2014. 

The Board has long held that a mere conclusion without the necessary medical rationale 

explaining how and why the physician believes that a claimant’s accepted exposure could result 

in a diagnosed condition is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. The medical 

evidence must also include rationale explaining how the physician reached the conclusion he or 

she is supporting.12 Dr. Chunduri found appellant disabled from work due to his neck condition 

without providing a rationalized explanation. 

The issue of whether a claimant’s disability is related to an accepted condition is a 

medical question which must be established by a physician who, on the basis of a complete and 

accurate factual and medical history, concludes that the disability is causally related to 

employment factors and supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.13 The Board 

has long held that medical conclusions unsupported by rationale are of diminished probative 

value and insufficient to establish causal relationship.14 None of the medical reports explain with 

sufficient rationale why appellant could not perform his modified job duties due to the accepted 

conditions.15

As appellant failed to submit sufficient rationalized medical opinion evidence to establish 

that he was unable to work for the period June 1 through October 3, 2013 due to accepted 

                                                             11 A low back condition has not been accepted under this claim. 

12 Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004). 

13 Sandra Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005). 

14 See Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000). 

15 See S.B., Docket No. 13-1162 (issued December 12, 2013). 
6 

cervical condition, he failed to establish that the claimed disability was employment related. He 

was thus not entitled to wage-loss compensation for the period claimed.16

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 his burden of proof to establish that he was 

intermittently disabled from work during the period June 1 through October 3, 2013 causally 

related to the accepted cervical condition. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 13, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 25, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

                                                             16 N.R., Docket No. 14-114 (issued April 28, 2014).