United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LANCASTER POST 

OFFICE, Lancaster, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0973 

Issued: September 3, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 31, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 30, 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. 

ISSUE 

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

August 30 to September 26, 2014 due to an accepted left shoulder injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on June 8, 2012 appellant, then a 44-year-old city carrier, sustained 

a left shoulder sprain and a disorder of the tendons and bursae of the left shoulder when he 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

loaded a tub of mail.2 Following the injury, appellant returned to modified-duty work. He 

underwent arthroscopic decompression of the left shoulder on September 13, 2012, authorized by 

OWCP. Appellant returned to modified duty on March 7, 2013, working four hours a day. 

As appellant’s condition did not improve, Dr. Mark Hopkins, Board-certified in 

orthopedic sports medicine, performed a Mumford open distal clavicle resection on June 6, 2013, 

with removal of 1.2 centimeters of the distal clavicle. OWCP authorized the procedure. 

Appellant did not return to work. He received total disability compensation on the daily and 

periodic rolls through July 2014, and relocated from California to Denver, Colorado. OWCP 

approved appellant’s request to change physicians to Dr. Robert Kawasaki, a Board-certified 

physiatrist in the Denver area. 

On July 30, 2014 OWCP obtained a second opinion from Dr. John D. Douthit, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. On examination, Dr. Douthit found tendinosis of the left shoulder 

with mild atrophy and chronic pain. He opined that appellant could perform full-time modified 

duty, with permanent restrictions against overhead reaching, reaching outward, and lifting more 

than 50 pounds. 

On August 21, 2014 the employing establishment offered appellant a full-time modified 

letter carrier position, with no reaching above the left shoulder, and no lifting over 20 pounds. 

The position was available beginning on August 23, 2014. 

Appellant filed claims for total disability compensation for the period August 30 to 

September 26, 2014. The employing establishment advised appellant and OWCP that the 

modified letter carrier position remained open and available. 

In an October 8, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant that the medical evidence did not 

support a finding of total disability from August 30 to September 26, 2014. Appellant did not 

provide medical evidence that he could not perform the modified-duty position. OWCP noted 

that the job complied with the medical limitations provided by Dr. Douthit. 

In response, appellant submitted November 4, 2014 reports from Dr. Kawasaki, 

restricting lifting with the left arm to 10 pounds, with no repetitive reaching or reaching above 

shoulder level with the left arm. Dr. Kawasaki noted that he could not provide a comprehensive 

assessment of appellant’s condition as he did not have access to any of appellant’s surgical 

reports or medical records. He recommended imaging studies.3

On November 25, 2014 appellant refused the modified letter carrier position. He 

submitted reports from Dr. Kawasaki renewing prior work restrictions through 

December 9, 2014. In a December 12, 2014 report, Dr. Kawasaki reiterated that appellant could 

 2

 OWCP’s June 28, 2012 letter accepting appellant’s claim mentions the right shoulder and not the left. The 

Board finds that this is a Scrivener’s error, as subsequent documents in the record clearly accept the claimed left 

shoulder injury. 

3

 A November 18, 2014 left shoulder arthrogram demonstrated postsurgical changes, and supraspinatus and 

infraspinatus tendinosis. 
3

work eight hours a day, with lifting, pulling, and pushing with the left arm limited to 10 pounds, 

and no reaching above the shoulder. 

In a January 2, 2015 report, Dr. Michael S. Hewitt, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon 

to whom appellant was referred by Dr. Kawasaki, diagnosed impingement syndrome of the left 

shoulder. He did not address appellant’s work capacity. 

Dr. Kawasaki provided a January 6, 2015 report renewing his prior work restrictions. 

By decision dated January 30, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for total disability 

compensation for the period August 30 to September 26, 2014. It found that the medical 

evidence did not establish that appellant was totally disabled for work for the claimed period, or 

that he was unable to perform the offered modified-duty position. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA, 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.4 Disability is thus not 

synonymous with physical impairment which may or may not result in 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.5

 The test of disability under FECA is 

whether an employment-related impairment prevents the employee from engaging in the kind of 

work he or she was doing when injured.6 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be 

disabled for work and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be proved by a 

preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.7

ANALYSIS 

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

disability for the period August 30 to September 26, 2014 due to the accepted left shoulder 

injury. The employing establishment offered a modified letter carrier position within his 

restrictions formulated by Dr. Douthit, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and second opinion 

physician. However, appellant asserted that he remained disabled for work under medical 

limitations imposed by Dr. Kawasaki, an attending Board-certified physiatrist. 

Dr. Kawasaki provided work restrictions from November 4, 2014 to January 2, 2015, 

limiting lifting with the left arm to 10 pounds, with no overhead reaching or reaching outward. 

He explained, however, that he could not provide a comprehensive opinion on appellant’s 

 4 A.L., Docket No. 15-0238 (issued July 13, 2015). See Prince E. Wallace, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 

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

6 Corlisia Sims, 46 ECAB 963 (1995). 

7 Tammy L. Medley, 55 ECAB 182 (2003). 
4

condition as he did not have access to appellant’s medical records or surgical reports. 

Dr. Kawasaki’s work restrictions were not predicated on a complete factual and medical history 

and his opinion is insufficient to establish that appellant was unable to discharge the offered 

light-duty position for the period between August 30 to September 26, 2014.8 In contrast, 

Dr. Douthit, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and second opinion physician, found that 

appellant could lift up to 50 pounds, based on the complete medical record and the statement of 

accepted facts. His opinion on appellant’s work capacity remains controlling. 

Appellant also provided a January 2, 2015 report from Dr. Hewitt, an attending Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed impingement syndrome of the left shoulder. 

Dr. Hewitt did not offer work limitations or otherwise address appellant’s disability status. His 

opinion is therefore insufficient to outweigh that of Dr. Douthit. 

The Board finds that the evidence fails to show that appellant was disabled for the 

claimed period because of his accepted left shoulder injury. Appellant submitted insufficient 

medical evidence establishing that he was totally disabled for work from August 30 to 

September 26, 2014. 

On appeal, appellant asserted that Dr. Kawasaki’s opinion should be accorded the weight 

of the medical evidence as it was “accurate and reliable.” He contends that Dr. Douthit did not 

perform a thorough examination or obtain imaging studies of his left arm. As stated above, 

Dr. Kawasaki did not have sufficient information about appellant’s medical and surgical history 

to provide a complete opinion as to whether he was totally disabled for work for the claimed 

period. 

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 disability from 

August 30 to September 26, 2014 due to an accepted left shoulder injury. 

 8 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated January 30, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 3, 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