United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Houston, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1794 

Issued: April 4, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 9, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 17, 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 disability from April 17 to 23, 2016 

causally related to her October 9, 2015 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 12, 2015 appellant, then a 62-year-old transportation security screener, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 9, 2015 she injured her left leg 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

and lower back lifting bags. Following her injury, she worked part time in a limited-duty 

assignment. OWCP accepted the claim for a ligament sprain of the lumbar spine and paid wageloss compensation for intermittent time lost from work beginning December 17, 2015. On 

January 27, 2016 Dr. Frank J. Kromelis, an attending Board-certified internist, released her to 

resume work for eight hours per day with restrictions of not lifting over 15 pounds. OWCP 

continued to pay appellant intermittent wage-loss compensation for medical appointments. 

Appellant, on April 25, 2016, filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7), requesting 

wage-loss compensation from April 17 to 23, 2016. 

By letter dated April 28, 2016, OWCP requested that appellant submit medical evidence 

to establish that she was unable to perform her modified employment from April 17 to 23, 2016. 

It noted that the evidence of record supported that the employing establishment had limited-duty 

work available within the limitations set forth by her physician. 

In a progress report dated April 15, 2016, Dr. Kromelis obtained a history of appellant 

experiencing pronounced low back pain after lifting bags. He provided examination findings and 

diagnosed a lumbar ligament sprain. Dr. Kromelis advised that appellant had been taken off 

work by Dr. Stephen I. Esses, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. 

In an April 15, 2016 work status form report, Dr. Kromelis determined that appellant 

could resume work with restrictions on April 15, 2016, including no lifting more than 15 pounds. 

Dr. Esses, in a work status form dated April 21, 2016, found that appellant could resume 

work on April 24, 2016 with restrictions. The form provided the date of injury as October 9, 

2015 and indicated that she experienced sharp pain in her low back after lifting bags. 

In a report dated April 21, 2016, Dr. Esses reviewed a November 25, 2015 magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan study showing L2-3 and L3-4 moderate stenosis and L4-5 severe 

stenosis. He noted that an electromyogram (EMG) revealed radiculopathy on the left at L5-S1. 

Dr. Esses opined that appellant’s condition had improved and that she could return to work with 

restrictions, including no lifting over 10 pounds. 

By decision dated August 17, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

from April 17 to 23, 2016. It found that she had not submitted rationalized medical evidence 

supporting that she was unable to perform her light-duty work from April 17 to 23, 2016. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.2

 For each period of 

disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that she was disabled for 

work as a result of the accepted employment injury.3

 Whether a particular injury causes an 

 2 See Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); see also Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 712 (1986). 

3 See Amelia S. Jefferson, id. 
3

employee to become disabled for work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that 

must be proved by a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.4 

Under FECA the term disability means incapacity, because of an employment injury, to 

earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.5

 Disability is, thus, not 

synonymous with physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages.6

 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to his or her federal 

employment, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages that she was receiving at 

the time of injury, has no disability and is not entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning 

capacity.7

 When, however, the medical evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an 

employment injury are such that, from a medical standpoint, they prevent the employee from 

continuing in her employment, she is entitled to compensation for any loss of wages. 

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 or her disability and 

entitlement to compensation.8

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a sprain of the ligaments of her lumbar spine 

due to an October 9, 2015 employment injury. She worked limited duty following her injury. 

On April 25, 2006 appellant filed a claim for compensation for lost time from work for the 

period April 17 to 23, 2016. The employing establishment confirmed that there was work 

available within her restrictions. 

Appellant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the substantial, reliable, 

and probative evidence, a causal relationship between her claimed disability for that period and 

the accepted conditions.9 The Board finds that she failed to submit sufficient medical evidence 

to establish employment-related disability for the period claimed due to her accepted injury.10

On April 15, 2016 Dr. Kromelis discussed appellant’s history of low back pain after 

lifting bags. He diagnosed a lumbar ligament sprain and noted that Dr. Esses had taken her off 

work. In a work status form dated April 15, 2016, Dr. Kromelis found that appellant could work 

with restrictions of no lifting over 15 pounds. While he noted that Dr. Esses indicated that she 

 4 See Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301 (1989). 

5 S.M., 58 ECAB 166 (2006); Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f). 

6 Roberta L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002). 

7 Merle J. Marceau, 53 ECAB 197 (2001). 

8 See William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

9 See J.S., Docket No. 16-1014 (issued October 27, 2016). 

10 See Alfredo Rodriguez, 47 ECAB 437 (1996). 
4

was not able to work, he did not render an independent finding of total disability but instead 

released her to resume her modified employment. 

Dr. Esses, on April 21, 2016, reviewed the findings of a November 25, 2015 MRI scan 

study of moderate stenosis at L2-3 and L3-4 and severe stenosis at L4-5, and the findings on an 

EMG study of left radiculopathy at L5-S1. He found that appellant had improved and that she 

could resume with restrictions of no lifting over 10 pounds. Dr. Esses also completed a form 

report on April 21, 2015 which indicated that she experienced low back pain after lifting bags 

and provided the injury date as October 9, 2015. He determined that appellant could resume 

work on April 24, 2016 with restrictions. Dr. Esses did not specifically address the dates of 

disability claimed or provide medical rationale explaining whether and why she was disabled 

from April 17 to 23, 2016. Consequently, his report is of little probative value.11

As noted, appellant must submit reasoned medical evidence directly addressing the 

specific dates of disability for work for which she claims compensation.12 She did not provide 

medical evidence containing a rationalized opinion supporting that she could not work from 

April 17 to 23, 2016 due to her accepted condition, and thus did not meet her burden of proof. 

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 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established disability from April 17 to 23, 2016 

causally related to her October 9, 2015 employment injury. 

 11 See C.S., Docket No. 08-22178 (issued August 7, 2009); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005). 

12 See K.A., Docket No. 16-0592 (issued October 26, 2016). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 17, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 4, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board