United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Roanoke, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0314 

Issued: May 17, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 25, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 5, 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 that he was disabled from work during the 

period May 5 to June 6, 2016 due to his accepted May 5, 2016 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 11, 2016 appellant, then a 50-year-old carrier assistant, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 5, 2016 he sustained an injury in the performance of 

duty. On the claim form he related that hit his head on a beam and fell to the ground while 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

delivering mail. Appellant also noted that he jammed his neck during this incident. He stopped 

work on May 5, 2016. Appellant received treatment on the evening of May 5, 2016 at a health 

clinic, from Dr. Kimberly Abel, an emergency medicine specialist. Dr. Abel diagnosed 

concussion and cervical sprain. 

In a form report dated May 10, 2016, Dr. Hetzal Hartley, Board-certified in occupational 

medicine, diagnosed cervical strain and indicated that appellant could work full duty as of 

May 10, 2016. He also completed a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated May 10, 2016 

diagnosing acute cervical strain and indicating that appellant could work regular full-time duties. 

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated May 11, 2016, Dr. Hartley diagnosed 

acute cervical strain and closed-head injury. He checked a box marked “yes” that the conditions 

were employment related, and indicated that appellant could resume regular work. 

In a June 3, 2016 letter, the employing establishment indicated that appellant was initially 

hired on April 16, 2016. Following the May 5, 2016 injury, appellant was paid continuation of 

pay benefits and was subsequently released to full duty on May 10, 2016. The employing 

establishment also related that appellant’s supervisor had ordered him to report to work on 

May 20, 2016. According to the employing establishment, appellant did not report for work and 

his employment was terminated effective May 25, 2016. It was also noted that appellant had 

submitted medical evidence on June 1, 2016 regarding a 10-pound lifting restriction, and work 

could have been provided within that restriction. 

OWCP accepted the claim on June 1, 2016 for cervical strain of the muscle, fascia, and 

tendon. On June 3, 2016 appellant submitted a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for the 

period May 5 to June 6, 2016. 

In a form report dated June 1, 2016, Dr. Hartley indicated that appellant could work 

modified duties from June 1 to 6, 2016, and he could work regular duty as of June 6, 2016. In an 

undated report received by OWCP on June 3, 2016, he wrote that on May 10, 2016 appellant had 

informed him that his employment was terminated. Dr. Hartley noted that, because of this 

information, he had reported that appellant could return to full duty. He wrote that if appellant 

could have returned to work his lifting restriction would have been 10 pounds due to the 

accepted cervical strain. 

By letter dated July 22, 2016, OWCP noted that Dr. Hartley had released appellant to full 

duty on May 10, 2016 in his Form CA-20 report. It requested that appellant submit additional 

medical evidence within 30 days. On July 28, 2016 appellant resubmitted the undated report 

from Dr. Hartley. He also submitted a report dated June 17, 2016 from Dr. Hartley, which 

provided examination findings and diagnosed acute cervical strain. Dr. Hartley indicated that 

appellant reported his neck was feeling better. 

By decision dated October 5, 2016, OWCP denied the claim for disability from May 5 to 

June 6, 2016. It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish the 

claimed period of disability. 
3

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 

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

wage-earning capacity.4

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be disabled from work and the 

duration of that disability are medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.5

 Findings on examination are generally 

needed to support a physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled for work.6

 The Board will 

not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of any medical evidence 

directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so 

would essentially allow employees to self-certify their disability and entitlement to 

compensation.7

 To establish causal relationship between the disability claimed and the 

employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence, based on a 

complete factual and medical background, supporting such a causal relationship.8 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a cervical strain on May 5, 2016 while in the 

performance of duty. Appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for compensation for disability from 

work during the period May 5 to June 6, 2016. To establish disability, he must submit 

rationalized medical evidence supporting causal relationship.9

The record indicates that appellant was seen on May 10, 2016 by Dr. Hartley. 

Dr. Hartley submitted three form reports dated May 10, 2016, each indicating that appellant 

could work full duty. He did not discuss whether appellant was disabled during the claim period. 

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

 2

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

3 Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

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 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

9 See B.S., Docket No. 16-1121 (issued September 16, 2016). 
4

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

claimed.10

In a brief undated report initially submitted on June 3, 2016, Dr. Hartley wrote that he 

had released appellant to full duty because appellant had told him his employment had been 

terminated. He then reported that appellant continued to have a 10-pound lifting restriction. 

This report is not sufficient to establish an employment-related disability from May 5 to 

June 6, 2016 as Dr. Hartley did not discuss the May 5, 2016 employment injury, the physical 

examination, or diagnostic test findings.11 Moreover, Dr. Hartley did not provide a reasoned 

medical opinion explaining that appellant was disabled from performing his carrier position 

duties due to the May 5, 2016 employment injury, or the duration of any disability. A physician 

must clearly identify the specific dates of disability and provide an explanation of how the 

accepted condition contributed to disability for work.12 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish the claimed period of disability.13 For the 

reasons discussed above, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof in this 

case. 

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(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that he was disabled from work during 

the period May 5 to June 6, 2016 due to his accepted May 5, 2016 employment injury. 

 10 N.G., Docket No. 16-1421 (issued December 12, 2016). 

11 A probative medical report includes findings on examination, a firm diagnosis, and medical rationale 

supporting the opinion offered. See K.W., Docket No. 16-1176 (issued November 2, 2016). 

12 See R.P., Docket No. 12-1455 (issued January 10, 2013). 

13 Supra note 8. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated October 5, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: May 17, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board