United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Dover, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0885 

Issued: June 16, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 15, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 26, 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly reduced appellant’s wage-loss compensation to 

zero effective October 16, 2016 under 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a) based on her earnings had she 

accepted a temporary light-duty assignment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The case record includes evidence received after OWCP issued its September 26, 2016 decision. However, the 

Board is precluded from reviewing evidence that was not part of the record at the time OWCP issued its final 

decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 21, 2005 appellant, then a 60-year-old rural carrier, injured her right upper 

extremity in the performance of duty. She was placing mail into a mailbox when it fell down 

with her right arm still inside the mailbox. OWCP accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) for right wrist/forearm/elbow abrasion (without infection) and right shoulder/upper 

arm sprain. It also authorized a June 28, 2007 right shoulder arthroscopic procedure.3 On 

February 22, 2010 appellant underwent a second OWCP-approved right shoulder arthroscopic 

procedure. She received wage-loss compensation dating back to May 1, 2007, and OWCP twice 

placed her on the periodic compensation rolls. Appellant remained on the periodic compensation 

rolls from June 7, 2009 through October 15, 2016. 

OWCP authorized a functional capacity evaluation (FCE), which was conducted on 

February 29 and March 2, 2016. During the FCE testing, appellant was able to lift up to 10 

pounds from floor to waist and horizontally, push up to 15 pounds, and pull up to 25 pounds. 

Her left hand grip strength went up 27 pounds and her right hand grip strength went up to 33 

pounds. 

On May 13, 2016 the employing establishment offered appellant a temporary limitedduty assignment as a sales retention team member. The assignment involved contacting 

customers by telephone for six to eight hours intermittently per day, light typing and data entry 

for one hour intermittently, answering the telephone for four to eight hours intermittently, and 

providing back office administrative assistance and engaging in computer-type duties for four to 

eight hours intermittently. The physical duties of the assignment included sitting in an office 

chair with supportive back and occasional standing for eight hours intermittently per day, simple 

grasping/pushing/pulling of one pound (computer mouse, telephone) for one hour intermittently, 

fine manipulation (computer keyboard) for one hour intermittently, and lifting telephone (up to 

two pounds) to speak for six to eight hours intermittently. 

On May 20, 2016 appellant declined the employing establishment’s offer of a temporary 

limited-duty assignment as a sales retention team member. 

In a May 20, 2016 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Stephen M. Desio, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted that, although appellant could not resume her usual job 

duties, she was able to perform full-time, sedentary work.4

 He noted limitations with respect to 

walking, twisting, and reaching, and no reaching above shoulder. Dr. Desio found that appellant 

could perform repetitive movements of the wrists and elbows for one hour per day. 

Additionally, he imposed a 10-pound restriction with respect to pushing/pulling, and a 5-pound 

lifting restriction. 

In an August 1, 2016 Form OWCP-5c, Dr. Desio indicated that appellant could perform 

sedentary work for eight hours per day with restrictions. Appellant could sit, walk, stand, twist, 

 3

 Appellant underwent bilateral carpal tunnel releases in January and February 2007, which OWCP did not 

authorize. 

4

 Dr. Desio performed both of appellant’s OWCP-approved right shoulder arthroscopic procedures. 
3

bend, and stoop for eight hours per day, reach for four hours, and reach above her shoulders for 

two hours. Dr. Desio noted that she could lift, push, or pull up to 10 pounds for two hours per 

day, and engage in repetitive movements of the wrists or elbows for one hour. 

On August 9, 2016 the employing establishment confirmed that the sales retention team 

member assignment was still available to appellant.5

In an August 16, 2016 letter, OWCP informed appellant of its proposed reduction of her 

compensation to zero as she had refused to accept a temporary limited-duty assignment as a sales 

retention team member which accommodated her work-related limitations and which would have 

paid her wages equal to those of her date-of-injury job.6

 It advised her of the provisions of 

20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a) and afforded her 30 days to accept the temporary assignment or provide 

good cause for not doing so. 

Appellant submitted a copy of the March 9, 2016 FCE report that was already in the 

record. She also submitted a December 16, 2015 prescription form for an FCE signed by 

Dr. Desio. 

In a September 26, 2016 decision, OWCP reduced appellant’s wage-loss compensation to 

zero, effective October 16, 2016, as she had not accepted the May 13, 2016 temporary limitedduty assignment offered by the employing establishment. It also found that limited-duty 

assignment would have paid appellant wages equal to her date-of-injury job. OWCP applied the 

formula set forth in Albert C. Shadrick7

 to calculate her loss of wage-earning capacity. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s regulations provide in relevant part: 

“(a) Benefits are available only while the effects of a work-related condition 

continue. Compensation for wage loss due to disability is available only for any 

periods during which an employee’s work-related medical condition prevents him 

or her from earning the wages earned before the work-related injury. For 

example, an employee is not entitled to compensation for any wage-loss claimed 

on a [Form] CA-7 to the extent that evidence contemporaneous with the period 

claimed on a [Form] CA-7 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. Similarly, an employee receiving continuing periodic payments for 

disability was not prevented from earning the wages earned before the workrelated injury if the evidence establishes that the employing [establishment] had 

 5

 On August 15 2016 the employing establishment advised that appellant could use a headset while speaking on 

the telephone. 

6

 The record reveals that the limited-duty assignment would pay $1,165.55 per week, which equals the current 

pay for appellant’s date-of-injury job of $1,165.55 per week. 

7

 5 ECAB 376 (1953) (codified by regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 10.403). 
4

offered, in accordance with OWCP procedures, a temporary light-duty assignment 

within the employee’s work restrictions. (The penalty provision of 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8106(c)(2) will not be imposed on such assignments under this paragraph.)”8

If the evidence establishes that injury-related residuals continue and result in work 

restrictions; that light duty within those work restrictions is available; and that the employee was 

notified in writing that such light duty was available, then wage-loss benefits are not payable for 

the duration of light-duty availability, since such benefits are payable only for any periods during 

which an employee’s work-related medical condition prevents him or her from earning the wages 

earned before the work-related injury.9

 The claims examiner must provide a pretermination 

notice if the claimant is being removed from the periodic rolls.10 When a temporary light-duty 

assignment either ends or is no longer available, the claimant is entitled to compensation and 

should be returned to the periodic rolls immediately as long as medical evidence supports any 

disabling residuals of the work-related condition.11

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim for right wrist/forearm/elbow 

abrasion (without infection) and right shoulder/upper arm sprain. It also authorized two right 

shoulder arthroscopic procedures, the latest of which Dr. Desio performed on February 22, 2010. 

Appellant also received wage-loss compensation for temporary total disability, and OWCP 

placed her on the periodic compensation rolls. 

On May 13, 2016 the employing establishment offered appellant a temporary limitedduty assignment as a sales retention team member on a full-time basis. The assignment involved 

contacting customers by telephone for six to eight hours intermittently per day, light typing and 

data entry for one hour intermittently, answering the telephone for four to eight hours 

intermittently, and providing the back office administrative assistance and engaging in computertype duties for four to eight hours intermittently. The assignment required sitting in an office 

chair with supportive back and occasional standing for eight hours intermittently per day, simple 

grasping/pushing/pulling of one pound (computer mouse, telephone) for one hour intermittently, 

fine manipulation (computer keyboard) for one hour intermittently, and lifting telephone (up to 

two pounds) to speak for six to eight hours intermittently. 

The determination of whether an employee has the physical ability to perform a position 

offered by the employing establishment is primarily a medical question that must be resolved by 

the medical evidence.12

 8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a). 

9

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Job Offers and Return to Work, Chapter 2.814.9c(1)(a) 

(June 2013). 

10 Id. at Chapter 2.814.9c(1)(b). 

11 Id. at Chapter 2.814.9c(1)(d).

12 See N.D., Docket No. 15-0027 (issued February 4, 2016); T.T., 58 ECAB 296 (2007). 
5

The Board finds that the medical evidence of record shows that appellant could perform 

the temporary limited-duty assignment offered by the employing establishment in May 2016. 

The physical requirements of the offered temporary limited-duty assignment were within the 

medical restrictions as provided by Dr. Desio in his May 20 and August 1, 2016 reports.13 The 

Board finds that the medical restrictions provided by Dr. Desio in these reports constitute the 

best picture of appellant’s ability to work at the time that the employing establishment offered 

her the temporary limited-duty assignment. 

The Board further finds that OWCP complied with its procedural requirements by 

advising appellant that the offered assignment was suitable, providing her with the opportunity to 

accept the assignment or provide reasons for her refusal, and notifying her that her wage-loss 

compensation would be reduced or terminated if she failed to submit sufficient evidence showing 

such reduction was not justified.14

The evidence of record reflects that appellant declined the temporary limited-duty 

assignment offered by the employing establishment, which was suitable and would have paid her 

wages equal to those of her date-of-injury job.15 Therefore, OWCP properly reduced appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation to zero effective October 16, 2016 under 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a) based 

on her earnings had she accepted the temporary limited-duty assignment.16

Appellant may request reconsideration of the wage-earning capacity determination, 

supported by new evidence of argument, at any time before OWCP. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly reduced appellant’s wage-loss compensation to 

zero effective October 16, 2016 under 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a) based on her earnings had she 

accepted a temporary light-duty assignment. 

 13 In his May 20, 2016 Form OWCP-5c, Dr. Desio noted that appellant could perform sedentary work for eight 

hours per day with restrictions. She could engage in repetitive movements of the wrists or elbows for one hour per 

day, push or pull up to 10 pounds, and lift up to 5 pounds. In his August 1, 2016 OWCP-5c, Dr. Desio indicated that 

appellant could perform sedentary work for eight hours per day with restrictions. She could sit, walk, stand, twist, 

bend, and stoop of eight hours per day, reach for four hours, and reach above her shoulders for two hours. Dr. Desio 

noted that appellant could lift, push, or pull up to 10 pounds for two hours per day, and engage in repetitive 

movements of the wrists or elbows for one hour. 

14 Supra note 9 at Chapter 2.814.9c(7) (June 2013). 

15 The Board finds that OWCP properly applied the provisions of Shadrick in determining appellant’s loss of 

wage-earning capacity. See supra note 7. The sales retention team member assignment would have paid $1,165.55 

per week, which equals the current pay for appellant’s date-of-injury job of $1,165.55 per week. 

16 G.C., Docket No. 17-0140 (issued April 13, 2017). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 26, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 16, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board