United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF 

DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, Washington, DC, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-584 

Issued: May 4, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Martin Kaplan, 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 January 23, 2015 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from the 

August 12, 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’s disability from December 15, 2013 to April 10, 2014 

was causally related to his June 18, 2013 employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 18, 2013 appellant, a 52-year-old courier, sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty while pushing a large, heavy crate off the back of a truck in an embassy 

compound. He felt a pop in his right knee. Appellant did not stop working. 

When the pain did not go away, appellant saw Dr. Randall S. Peyton, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, in September 2013. An imaging study showed a horizontal tear of the 

posterior horn and body of the right medial meniscus. 

On January 2, 2014 Dr. Peyton noted that appellant’s symptoms were moderate to severe 

and constant. Aggravating factors included walking down stairs, walking, and bearing weight. 

Relieving factors included elevation, pain medication, and rest. Appellant indicated that his 

symptoms had worsened. His knee locked up once and was very painful. Appellant had 

numbness and pain that went up on the right thigh. Pain was not constantly 7/10, but it was now 

much more painful most of the day. Appellant was no longer able to sit for prolonged periods of 

time. He wanted to discuss the merits of stopping work for a while until he got things sorted out 

at work to get a more definitive treatment for his knee. Appellant was awaiting OWCP’s 

approval of surgery. Physical examination showed moderate effusion, tenderness at the medial 

joint line, mild crepitation, a positive McMurray’s test, positive valgus stress with pain, limited 

active range of motion, and passive painful range of motion. Dr. Peyton diagnosed right medial 

meniscal tear, right medial collateral ligament tear/sprain/strain, right knee internal derangement, 

and unspecified joint effusion. He advised that appellant was still a candidate for surgery. 

Dr. Peyton found that appellant was currently unable to perform more than sedentary activities 

so he imposed work restrictions. 

On January 28, 2014 Dr. Peyton wrote a work status note indicating his history of 

treatment, aggravating factors, and the fact that appellant has constant knee pain. He advised 

that appellant needed surgery and that, if the meniscal tears were left untreated, the right knee 

would continue to worsen, and there would be further damage to the articular cartilages in the 

joint. Dr. Peyton found that appellant was unable to stand, walk, sit for prolonged periods of 

time, climb stairs, or rest comfortably. Appellant would not be able to return to work until he got 

the right knee surgically treated. 

Dr. Peyton completed an attending physician’s form report indicating that appellant was 

totally disabled for work beginning January 28, 2014. He explained that meniscal tears, even 

with treatment, were likely to cause degeneration of the cartilage in the knee, and were likely to 

cause pain, swelling, and necessitate further treatment. 

Appellant claimed a recurrence of disability beginning December 16, 2013. He noted 

that he previously had continued to work until the joint failed on December 11, 2013. 

On March 6, 2014 Dr. Peyton performed a right partial medial meniscectomy and 

chondroplasty of the patella. 

On April 9, 2014 Dr. Peyton provided a fitness-for-duty report. He noted the history of 

injury and the successful treatment appellant received through arthroscopic knee surgery. 
3

Appellant was greatly improved and ready to return to work. It was very possible, however, that 

he would need further treatment in the future including further surgery. Dr. Peyton opined, 

“Finally, [appellant] may return to work 14 April 2014.” 

Shortly thereafter OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a tear of the right medial 

meniscus. It advised that, if the injury resulted in lost time from work, appellant could claim 

compensation using Form CA-7. 

Appellant filed a claim seeking wage-loss compensation from December 15, 2013 to 

April 10, 2014. He submitted a time analysis form. The employing establishment indicated that 

appellant used annual leave from December 23 to 27, 2013, sick leave from December 30, 2013 

to March 27, 2014, and leave without pay from March 28 to April 4, 2014. 

In a decision dated August 12, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation. It noted that Dr. Peyton did not explain the additional medical conditions and 

treatment appellant received during the time in question, including right knee internal 

derangement and right knee effusion. Further, OWCP had requested but did not receive a time 

analysis form and leave buyback worksheet/certification. 

On appeal, appellant argues that Dr. Peyton’s June 2, 2014 note provided a rationalized 

opinion based on an accurate medical history that the compensable right knee meniscus tear 

rendered him unable to perform his job duties until April 14, 2014.2

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of duty.3 “Disability” means the incapacity, because 

of an employment injury, to earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of injury. It 

may be partial or total.4

A claimant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is 

disabled for work as a result of an accepted employment injury and submitting medical evidence 

for each period of disability claimed.5

 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be 

disabled for employment and the duration of that disability are medical issues.6

 To meet this 

burden, a claimant must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence, based on a complete 

factual and medical background, supporting a causal relationship between the alleged disabling 

condition and the accepted injury.7

 

 2

 Dr. Peyton’s June 2, 2014 fitness-for-duty report was identical to his April 9, 2014 fitness-for-duty report. 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f). 

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

6 Id. 

7 C.S., Docket No. 08-2218 (issued August 7, 2009). 
4

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of 

medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is 

claimed. To do so, would essentially allow an employee to self-certify his disability and 

entitlement to compensation. For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden 

of establishing that he was disabled for work as a result of the accepted employment injury.8

ANALYSIS 

Appellant did not stop working when he injured his right knee on June 18, 2013. When 

the pain did not cease after three months, he saw Dr. Peyton, an orthopedic surgeon, who 

discovered that appellant had a tear of the right medial meniscus. 

Appellant continued to work until, as he explained in his recurrence claim, the joint failed 

on December 11, 2013. He claimed compensation for wage loss beginning December 15, 2013, 

but the record contains no medical evidence from October 4, 2013 to January 2, 2014. 

Dr. Peyton saw appellant on January 2, 2014, but he did not find appellant totally disabled for 

work. He wanted to discuss the merits of stopping work, but he found that appellant could work 

with restrictions. 

It was not until his January 28, 2014 work status note that Dr. Peyton found appellant 

disabled for work. He had already described positive clinical findings during the January 2, 

2014 physical examination. Appellant was now unable to stand, walk, sit for prolonged periods 

of time, climb stairs, or rest comfortably. He would not be able to return to work until he 

underwent right knee surgery. 

The Board finds that the medical evidence is insufficient to establish that appellant’s 

June 18, 2013 work injury caused disability for work beginning December 15, 2013, as appellant 

claimed. The record is devoid of medical evidence to support this. However, the medical 

evidence does support that appellant was unable to work beginning January 28, 2014. He was 

clearly disabled for work as a result of the March 6, 2014 surgery Dr. Peyton performed to repair 

the accepted medical condition. Further, it seems reasonable that this surgery disabled appellant 

for approximately five weeks, during which time he greatly improved and was ready to return to 

work on April 14, 2014. 

The Board will set aside OWCP’s August 12, 2014 decision denying appellant’s wageloss claim and will remand the case for further development of the medical opinion evidence on 

the issue of disability for work. OWCP shall provide Dr. Peyton a statement of accepted facts 

and a description of the physical demands of appellant’s position as a courier. Following such 

further development as may be necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s wageloss claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. Further development is 

warranted. 

 8 Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 12, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded for further action. 

Issued: May 4, 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