United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Charlotte, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0910 

Issued: August 28, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 20, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 11, 2017 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 to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish disability for eight 

hours on November 25, 2016 due to her accepted employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 1, 2000 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she injured her lower back and left leg loading mail into a jeep 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

at work. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim on March 15, 2000 for lumbar strain. It authorized 

wage-loss compensation. 

Appellant accepted a light-duty position at the employing establishment as a modified 

carrier effective November 17, 2001. By decision dated March 14, 2002, OWCP found that the 

modified carrier position fairly and reasonably represented her wage-earning capacity and 

reduced her compensation benefits to zero based on her actual earnings. 

Appellant filed claims for intermittent wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) beginning 

June 25, 2002, which OWCP authorized. 

Appellant filed a notice of recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) on September 26, 2005 

and listed her date of recurrence as January 7, 2005. She asserted that she was required to 

exceed her restrictions at work. OWCP authorized wage-loss compensation beginning 

October 15, 2005 and on December 13, 2005 appellant was placed on the periodic rolls. It 

thereafter accepted the additional conditions of displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc at 

L4-5 and L5-S1. Appellant returned to light-duty work at the employing establishment on 

January 25, 2006. She requested and received intermittent periods of wage-loss compensation. 

On October 24, 2006 appellant underwent an authorized left L4-5 lateral microdiscectomy and 

was placed on total disability. 

Appellant accepted a modified full-time work assignment at the employing establishment 

on April 18, 2007. By decision dated June 29, 2007, OWCP found that appellant’s new modified 

position, effective April 18, 2007, fairly and reasonably represented her wage-earning capacity. 

OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation benefits to zero based on her actual earnings. 

Appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting wage-loss 

compensation beginning February 10, 2009. On November 16, 2009 OWCP accepted that 

appellant sustained a recurrence of disability on February 10, 2009, authorized compensation 

benefits, and modified the June 29, 2007 wage-earning capacity decision based on a material 

change in her injury-related condition. 

Appellant accepted a new modified-duty position at the employing establishment on 

July 30, 2010. On July 22, 2014 she accepted another modified position as a passport scheduler. 

The employing establishment removed appellant from her light-duty passport scheduler position 

on May 4, 2015. Beginning on May 4, 2015 appellant filed a series of claims for compensation 

(Form CA-7) and OWCP authorized compensation benefits. Appellant returned to full-time 

light-duty work at the employing establishment on September 19, 2015 as a modified city carrier, 

but stopped work that same day and filed claims for compensation. OWCP authorized 

compensation benefits. 

On December 1, 2015 appellant notified OWCP by telephone that she had returned to 

work for approximately two hours a day delivering express mail. Appellant submitted claims for 

compensation and OWCP authorized compensation for approximately six hours a day through 

November 11, 2016. 
3

In letters dated May 23 and July 6, 2016, OWCP informed the employing establishment 

that appellant could work with restrictions and instructed the employing establishment to provide 

appellant a full-time job within her restrictions. 

On November 30, 2016 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting 

intermittent wage-loss compensation from November 12 through 25, 2016. 

In a letter dated December 8, 2016, OWCP authorized compensation benefits from 

November 12 through 24, 2016 for 32.92 hours. It found that appellant had not submitted 

medical evidence supporting disability for eight hours of work on Friday, November 25, 2016. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary medical opinion evidence to establish 

that she was disabled for eight hours on November 25, 2016. 

Appellant telephoned OWCP on December 12, 2016 and asserted that the employing 

establishment did not have work available for her on November 25, 2016, the Friday after 

Thanksgiving. In one of three letters dated December 16, 2016, a manager of customer service 

noted that appellant worked 16 hours and 8 minutes during the period Saturday, November 12 

through November 25, 2016. The manager asserted that there was no further work available to 

appellant. 

On December 13, 2016 the employing establishment completed appellant’s time analysis 

form and indicated that she worked less than two hours a day on November 29 and 

December 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9, 2016 as there was no work available. Appellant used a full eight 

hours of leave without pay on December 5, 2016 as there was no work available. On 

December 16, 2016 OWCP authorized compensation benefits for the period November 26 

through December 9, 2016 in the amount of $1,475.87. 

On January 11, 2017 OWCP telephoned the employing establishment to ascertain if work 

was available for appellant on November 25, 2016. The employing establishment responded that 

there was work available for appellant on November 25, 2016 and that there was always work 

available for appellant. 

By decision dated January 11, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for eight hours of 

compensation on November 25, 2016. It noted that appellant had not provided medical evidence 

supporting that she was disabled on November 25, 2016 due to her accepted employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2

 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.3

 The term 

disability is defined as the incapacity because of an employment injury to earn the wages the 

 2 Id. 

3 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 
4

employee was receiving at the time of the injury, i.e., a physical impairment resulting in loss of 

wage-earning capacity.4

 

When an employee, who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account 

of employment-related residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the medical evidence of 

record establishes that he or she can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden 

to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence of total 

disability and show an inability to perform such light duty. As part of this burden, the employee 

must show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a change in the 

nature and extent of the light-duty requirements.5

 

OWCP regulations have codified this burden by noting that compensation for wage loss 

due to disability is available only for any periods during which the employee’s work-related 

medical condition prevents her from earning the wages earned before the work-related injury. 

An employee is not entitled to compensation for any wage loss to the extent that evidence 

establishes that an employee had medical work restrictions in place, that light duty within those 

work restrictions was available, and that the employee was previously notified in writing that 

such duty was available.6 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds this case not in posture for a decision. 

Appellant notified OWCP by telephone on December 1, 2015 that she had returned to 

work for approximately two hours a day delivering express mail. The record does not contain a 

copy of this job description and there is no evidence that the employing establishment offered 

appellant either a full-time job within her restrictions or a part-time job working more than two 

hours a day on or after December 1, 2015. OWCP authorized compensation benefits from 

December 1, 2015 through November 11, 2016 for approximately six hours a day. 

Appellant filed a claim for compensation on November 30, 2016 for the dates of 

November 12 through 25, 2016. The employing establishment noted that on November 25, 2016 

appellant used a full eight hours of leave without pay and had not provided medical evidence in 

support of total disability for that day. 

OWCP authorized compensation from November 12 through 23, 2016, but requested 

additional information in support of appellant’s claim for eight hours of leave without pay on 

November 25, 2016. A manager of customer service provided a note dated December 16, 2016 

reporting that for the period September 17 through November 30, 2016 appellant had worked 

15.54 hours during that period. The supervisor noted that there was no further work available to 

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see, e.g., Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999) (where appellant had an injury but no 

loss of wage-earning capacity). 

5 Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a). 
5

her. OWCP then contacted the employing establishment via telephone on January 11, 2017 and 

asked if there was work available for appellant on that date. The employing establishment 

representative claimed that there was work available for appellant on November 25, 2016 and 

that there was always work available for appellant. 

The Board finds factual inconsistencies in the record such that it is unable to determine 

whether there was appropriate light-duty work available for appellant on November 25, 2016. 

On remand OWCP must develop the case and make factual findings on the status of 

appellant’s employment at the time she requested compensation on November 25, 2016. Once 

factual findings are made, OWCP should evaluate the evidence to determine whether appellant 

established eight hours of disability on November 25, 2016. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision and must be remanded for 

additional development of the factual evidence from the employing establishment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 11, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and remanded for further development consistent 

with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: August 28, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board