United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0625

Issued: December 7, 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 January 26, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 27, 2016 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 has established total disability on October 3, 2015 and 

from October 23, 2015 through April 10, 2016 causally related to her accepted employment 

injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 27, 2015 appellant, then a 60-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 26, 2015 while delivering mail she sustained a right 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

wrist fracture when her knee gave out and she fell while descending the stairs of a porch. She

stopped work on the date of injury. 

Appellant sought medical treatment with Dr. Paul J. Drouillard, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon. On June 8, 2015 Dr. Drouillard performed open reduction and internal 

fixation of the distal right radius. He restricted appellant from returning to work. 

By letter dated June 10, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that initially her claim appeared 

to be for a minor injury and therefore had been administratively handled. However, as expenses 

had exceeded $1,500.00, further evidence was necessary to establish her claim. Appellant was 

afforded 30 days to submit additional factual and medical evidence. 

By decision dated July 15, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim 

finding that the evidence of record failed to establish that the May 26, 2015 employment incident 

occurred as alleged. It noted that she failed to respond to OWCP’s development letter. 

On October 13, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s decision and 

submitted additional factual and medical evidence in support of her claim. 

By decision dated January 13, 2016, OWCP accepted the claim for nondisplaced fracture 

of right ulna styloid process, fracture of unspecified carpal bone right wrist, unspecified fracture 

of lower end of right radius, and closed fracture lower end of radius with ulna.

2

Beginning January 27, 2016, appellant filed claim for compensation forms (Form CA-7) 

for leave without pay for intermittent periods of wage loss from July 11, 2015 through 

April 30, 2016.3

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical reports from Dr. Drouillard, her 

treating physician. In an August 25, 2015 report, Dr. Drouillard reported that appellant 

complained of numbness in the right little and ring finger. He noted a history of thoracic outlet 

syndrome of the right upper extremity secondary to cervical rim. Findings on physical

examination revealed tenderness over the ulnar nerve of the right elbow and positive Tinel’s 

sign. Dr. Drouillard reported that x-rays revealed the fracture to be healed in satisfactory 

position and alignment. He recommended an electromyogram (EMG) and nerve conduction 

velocity (NCV) study of the right upper extremity to rule out ulnar nerve entrapment of the right 

elbow. 

In a September 15, 2015 medical report, Dr. Drouillard provided examination findings 

pertaining to appellant’s right wrist and restricted appellant from working. 

 

2 The Board notes that appellant has five other traumatic injury claims and one prior occupational disease claim 

with dates of injury ranging from July 7, 1997 through September 15, 2014. The record before the Board contains 

no other information pertaining to appellant’s prior claims.

3 The record reflects that appellant requested wage-loss compensation for the period of July 11 through 23,

September 26, October 3, and 23, 2015 and continuing. The Board notes that on February 8, 2015 OWCP approved 

wage-loss compensation for the period July 11 through 23, and September 26, 2015. It subsequently approved 

wage-loss compensation for the period April 11 through 30, 2016. Appellant retired on April 30, 2016. 
3

In an October 1, 2015 medical report, Dr. Drouillard reported that appellant’s

September 21, 2015 EMG revealed evidence of a severe brachial plexopathy in the right upper 

extremity and mild bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He noted that a September 15, 2015 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine revealed disc osteophyte 

complexes at C4-C5, mild stenosis at C5-C6, and a disc osteophytes complex with a disc 

herniation on the right at C6-C7 pressing on the nerve root. Dr. Drouillard reported that this was 

likely the etiology of the pain in her ring and little finger. He diagnosed herniated nucleus 

pulposus C6-C7 on the right and status post open reduction and internal fixation of the distal 

right radius June 8, 2015. Dr. Drouillard provided work restrictions of lifting no more than five 

pounds. 

In an October 29, 2015 report, Dr. Drouillard related that examination of appellant’s right 

wrist revealed full range of motion. He noted that she was five months postsurgery and appeared 

to be making good progress. Dr. Drouillard noted that Dr. Walkiewicz had scheduled appellant

for right knee replacement on November 17, 2015. He instructed her that she should continue 

with her right wrist therapy. Appellant informed him that she had decided not to go back to 

work and would be retiring from her job as a letter carrier. 

In a January 21, 2016 medical report, Dr. Drouillard reported that appellant informed him 

that she had done well after her knee replacement, and she was two months postsurgery. 

Appellant complained of decreased strength in the right hand. Examination revealed full range 

of motion, but decreased grip strength on the right compared to the left. Dr. Drouillard requested 

that appellant restart physical therapy and follow up in six weeks. He restricted her from work 

and noted that she was considering retirement.

In a January 22, 2016 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Drouillard 

diagnosed “closed distal radius fracture and ulnar of right wrist” as a result of the May 26, 2015 

employment incident. Appellant was treated with surgery to stabilize the fractured wrist and 

occupational therapy once immobilization of the right wrist by short arm cast was discontinued. 

Dr. Drouillard noted her period of disability from May 26 through October 1, 2015 and 

January 21 through March 3, 2016. He explained that appellant was initially off work from

May 26 through October 1, 2015 and then released to work with restrictions. At her January 21, 

2016 follow-up appointment, appellant was restricted from returning to work due to her need for 

occupational therapy. 

By letter dated February 9, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to support her claim for compensation for October 3, 2015 and ongoing 

compensation commencing October 23, 2015. Appellant was advised of the evidence needed to 

support her claim and was afforded 30 days to respond. 

By letter dated March 9, 2016, appellant reported that Dr. Drouillard provided her work 

restrictions which she submitted to her supervisor. However, she remained off work because no 

work was available within her restrictions. At her next appointment on January 21, 2016, 

appellant complained of right arm weakness and Dr. Drouillard restricted her from returning to 

work. A subsequent x-ray was taken and the physician suggested that the hardware which was

placed in her right wrist at the time of surgery needed to be removed. 
4

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a March 3, 2016 medical report, duty status 

report (Form CA-17), and a disability statement from Dr. Drouillard. Dr. Drouillard reported 

that she complained of continued right wrist pain, numbness in the right ring and little finger, and 

neck pain. Physical examination findings revealed that appellant could extend the right wrist 

about 30 degrees compared to 45 on the left, decreased grip strength on the right compared to the 

left, and positive Tinel’s sign in the right elbow consistent with cubital tunnel syndrome.

Dr. Drouillard reported that x-rays of the right wrist demonstrated the fracture to be healed. 

However, he noted that the distal screws were closer to the joint than he would like and in this 

regard, was concerned that they could be causing her difficulty. As appellant still had right wrist 

discomfort, he recommended the hardware be removed. Dr. Drouillard further noted that prior 

September 21, 2015 EMG/NCV studies showed evidence of thoracic outlet syndrome on the 

right, ulnar neuropathy right elbow, and bilateral mild carpal tunnel syndrome. He diagnosed 

status post open reduction internal fixation of right wrist with persistent pain; ulnar neuropathy 

of the right elbow (cubital tunnel syndrome); thoracic outlet syndrome right upper extremity; 

mild bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; history of cervical spine and chronic low back pain; status 

post right total knee arthroplasty November 17, 2015; and status post right shoulder rotator cuff 

repair. Dr. Drouillard noted that he would proceed with hardware removal of the right wrist and 

restricted appellant from work for six weeks. On the Form CA-17 he noted clinical findings of 

decreased range of motion and strength of the right upper extremity. Dr. Drouillard diagnosed 

healed fracture with irritating hardware and restricted appellant from returning to work for six 

weeks due to surgery for removal of hardware. 

By letter dated March 22, 2016, OWCP requested the employing establishment advise 

whether appellant was provided with restrictions of lifting no more than five pounds, as noted on

Dr. Drouillard’s October 1, 2015 medical report, and whether it was able to honor these 

restrictions. It also requested that the employing establishment advise regarding whether it had 

any other restrictions on file for the period after October 1, 2015.

On April 1, 2016 OWCP received October 1 and 29, 2015 disability statements from

Dr. Drouillard providing work restrictions. The October 1, 2015 note provided work restrictions 

of no lifting over five pounds and no overhead work. In an October 1, 2015 Form CA-17,

Dr. Drouillard provided work restrictions of no lifting over five pounds and no overhead work 

due to fractured distal radius of the right wrist. The October 29, 2015 note provided work 

restrictions of no lifting over five pounds and no over shoulder lifting using the right upper 

extremity through November 17, 2015. The disability statements noted that, if the restricted job 

was not available, appellant must be placed on disability until her next appointment. 

In an April 5, 2016 e-mail correspondence, L.H., appellant’s supervisor, responded to 

OWCP’s development letter and reported that when documentation for an on-the-job injury is 

received, it is mailed to injury compensation in Detroit. Due to privacy laws, no medical 

documentation is kept in the office and, as such, she had no medical documentation in 

appellant’s file for the time period requested. In a supplemental e-mail, L.H. reported that when 

appellant’s claim was denied, she elected to use sick leave and leave without pay. The 

documentation appellant provided noted that she was to be off work. 

On April 11, 2016 Dr. Drouillard performed right wrist hardware removal and release of 

right wrist tenolysis flexor capri radialis tendon. The surgery was approved by OWCP. 
5

In an April 12, 2016 medical report, Dr. Drouillard reported that appellant was one day 

postsurgery from her right wrist hardware removal and should return for follow-up in two weeks. 

He noted that she was off work from May 26 through October 1, 2015. At that point, 

Dr. Drouillard released appellant to work with restrictions, but no work was available for her 

within her restrictions. As such, appellant was taken completely off work and rendered disabled. 

She failed to improve with conservative care and for this reason, underwent hardware removal 

with a tenolysis of the flexor capri radialis tendon on April 11, 2016. 

By decision dated May 12, 2016, OWCP denied, in part, appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for October 3, 2015 and ongoing compensation commencing October 23, 2015 

and continuing, finding that the medical evidence of record failed to establish that she was 

disabled as a result of her accepted May 26, 2015 injury.4 

By letter dated May 20, 2016, the employing establishment reported that appellant’s 

application for retirement had been approved by the Office of Personnel Management effective 

April 30, 2016.

On June 8, 2016 appellant requested review of the written record before an OWCP 

hearing representative. In an accompanying narrative statement, she reported that she had

provided her supervisor her work restrictions of no lifting over five pounds, but was informed by

L.H. that no work was available for her. Appellant believed that this was because her claim had 

not yet been approved by OWCP in October 2015. She noted that she was already on limited

duty for a prior workers’ compensation claim from September 2014. Appellant explained that 

while she did have knee surgery when she was off work, it had nothing to do with why she was 

disabled as a result of her right wrist injury. She reported that when her claim was finally 

approved by OWCP, she sought a follow-up with Dr. Drouillard who placed her off work due to 

weakened grip strength. In March 2017, Dr. Drouillard decided that the hardware from her right 

wrist should be removed because it was causing problems with her healing process. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a May 4, 2016 addendum to the April 11, 

2016 operative report from Dr. Drouillard. Dr. Drouillard noted that at the time of removal of 

hardware from her right wrist, he encountered extensive scarring about the flexor capri radialis 

tendon. He opined that this was directly related to her initial injury and the required surgery. As 

such, Dr. Drouillard performed tenolysis of the flexor capri radialis tendon at the time of the 

hardware removal.

By decision dated October 27, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

May 12, 2016 decision finding that the medical evidence of record failed to establish that 

appellant was disabled on October 3, 2015 and from October 23, 2015 through April 10, 2016 as 

a result of her accepted May 26, 2015 injury.

 

4 The Board notes that compensation filed for intermittent wage-loss prior to October 3, 2015 had been approved. 

It further approved wage-loss compensation for the period of April 11, 2016 through April 15, 2016 and 

subsequently approved wage-loss compensation for the period of April 16, 2016 through April 30, 2016. 
6

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Under FECA,5the term disability is defined as incapacity, because of employment injury, 

to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.6 Whether a particular 

injury causes an employee to be disabled 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 

A recurrence of disability means an inability to work after an employee has returned to 

work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition which resulted from a previous 

compensable injury or illness and without an intervening injury or new exposure in the work 

environment.8 This term also means an inability to work because a light-duty assignment made 

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations and which is necessary because 

of a work-related injury or illness is withdrawn or altered so that the assignment exceeds the 

employee’s physical limitations.9

OWCP is not a disinterested arbiter, but rather performs the role of adjudicator on the one 

hand and gatherer of the relevant facts and protector of the compensation fund on the other, a 

role that imposes an obligation to see that its administrative processes are impartially and fairly 

conducted.10 Although the employee has the burden of establishing entitlement to compensation, 

OWCP shares responsibility in the development of the evidence.11 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.12

On May 26, 2015 appellant sustained a work-related right wrist fracture and stopped 

work immediately following the injury. On June 8, 2015 Dr. Drouillard performed an open 

reduction with internal fixation of the distal right radius and restricted appellant from returning to 

work. On October 1, 2015 he released her to work with restrictions of no lifting over five 

pounds. 

 

5

Supra note 1.

6

See Prince E. Wallace, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

7

See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001); Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301, 303 (1989).

8

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see S.F., 59 ECAB 525 (2008). See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(y) (defines recurrence of a medical 

condition as a documented need for medical treatment after release from treatment for the accepted condition). 

9

Id.

10 Richard F. Williams, 55 ECAB 343, 346 (2004); Thomas M. Lee, 10 ECAB 175, 177 (1958).

11 D.N., Docket No. 07-1940 (issued June 17, 2008); Mary A. Barnett, 17 ECAB 187, 189-90 (1965).

12 T.B., Docket No. 13-1400 (issued June 19, 2014).
7

The record reflects that OWCP initially denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim on 

July 15, 2015. It subsequently accepted the claim by decision dated January 13, 2016 for 

nondisplaced fracture of right ulna styloid process, fracture of unspecified carpal bone right 

wrist, unspecified fracture of lower end of right radius, and closed fracture lower end of radius 

with ulna. 

Appellant alleged that she had submitted Dr. Drouillard’s October 1, 2015 work 

restrictions to her supervisor and remained off work because no work was available within her 

restrictions. By letter dated March 22, 2016, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

advise as to whether appellant had provided Dr. Drouillard’s October 1, 2015 work restrictions 

of lifting no more than five pounds, and whether it was able to honor these restrictions. 

The Board notes that, while OWCP attempted to develop the claim, it failed to obtain a 

response from the employing establishment as to whether appellant had provided her October 1, 

2015 work restrictions and whether it was able to accommodate these restrictions. The record 

remains unclear regarding whether the employing establishment could accommodate appellant 

on or after October 1, 2015. 

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a disinterested 

arbiter. While the claimant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP 

shares responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that justice is done.13 Because the 

record lacks sufficient evidence for the Board to render an informed decision, the case shall be 

remanded to OWCP for further development.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision regarding whether appellant’s 

employment injury caused disability on October 3, 2015 and from October 23, 2015 through 

April 10, 2016. 

 

13 A.A., 59 ECAB 726 (2008); Phillip L. Barnes, 55 ECAB 426 (2004). 
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 27, 2016 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision.

Issued: December 7, 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