United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Richmond, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1859 

Issued: January 5, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

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 14, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal of an April 28, 

2015 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 met her burden of proof to establish disability from 

January 11 to 24, 2014 due to her employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 25, 2013 appellant, a 50-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral hand and wrist rheumatoid arthritis 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

causally related to employment factors. OWCP accepted the claim for aggravation of bilateral 

rheumatoid arthritis. 

On January 25, 2014 appellant submitted a Form CA-7 requesting compensation for 

wage loss from January 11 to 24, 2014. 

By letter to appellant dated February 21, 2014, OWCP requested additional factual and 

medical evidence to establish disability during the period claimed, including medical 

documentation to establish that she either had medical treatment or was unable to work as a 

result of her accepted work condition for all dates claimed. Appellant was afforded 30 days to 

submit the requested information. 

In a report dated December 2, 2013, received by OWCP on March 6, 2014, Dr. David B. 

Maxwell, Board-certified in internal medicine and rheumatology, advised that he was treating 

appellant for rheumatoid arthritis. He noted that she was currently working, but was 

experiencing good days and bad days and had difficulty sustaining her employment. Appellant 

had pain in both hands and had restrictions placed upon her following a functional capacity 

evaluation (FCE), which made it impossible for her to continue driving a mail delivery route and 

handle mail. Dr. Maxwell reported that she began to experience rheumatoid arthritis in 

October 2012 and was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in June 2013. He recommended that 

she discontinue driving a mail route to deliver mail given her permanent deformities and 

limitations in her hands and wrists. 

In a February 17, 2014 report, received by OWCP on May 14, 2014, Dr. Maxwell noted 

that appellant continued to experience pain in her hands and wrists, but was told by a surgeon 

that he was unable to perform surgery on her wrists. 

In an April 2, 2014 report, received by OWCP on August 4, 2014, Dr. Maxwell 

essentially reiterated his previous findings and conclusions. He advised that her degree of 

disability was significant and limited her ability to make a full fist formation to grip or lift 

anything greater than 10 pounds, climb, stand, or walk for prolonged periods, or work for more 

than two to three hours without rest. Dr. Maxwell noted that appellant had undertaken 

aggressive anti-inflammatory disease-modifying therapy, with only limited improvement. He 

reported that the slow deterioration of her functional ability was inevitable given her present 

arthritic symptoms. 

Appellant also submitted several duty status reports (Form CA-17) from Dr. Maxwell in 

which he advised that her work activities were limited due to pain in her wrists causally related 

to her accepted rheumatoid arthritis condition and he outlined work restrictions. 

By decision dated January 28, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

for wage loss from January 11 to 24, 2014, finding that the medical evidence failed to support 

disability. 

On February 2, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a report dated February 10, 2015, Dr. Maxwell essentially reiterated his previous 

findings and conclusions. He related that appellant’s diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis and 
3

severe destructive arthropathy of the wrists. Dr. Maxwell explained that he had recommended 

that appellant not continue driving a mail route given the permanent deformities and restrictions 

of her hands and wrists. He concluded that if his opinion did not provide sufficient 

documentation he would recommend referring appellant to a hand specialist for further 

evaluation and treatment. 

By decision dated April 28, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the January 28, 2015 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

It is the employee’s burden of proof to establish disability during the period of time for 

which wage-loss compensation is claimed. The term “disability” is defined by implementing 

regulations as “the incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages the employee 

was receiving at the time of injury. It may be partial or total.”2 The Board has long held that 

whether a particular injury causes an employee disability for employment is a medical question 

which must be resolved by competent medical evidence.3

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for aggravation of bilateral rheumatoid arthritis. It 

asked appellant to submit medical evidence to support the period of disability claimed. The 

Board finds that appellant, however, did not provide a probative, rationalized medical opinion 

establishing that she was disabled for work due to the accepted condition for the period 

January 11 to 24, 2014.4 

As noted above, to establish entitlement to compensation, an employee must establish 

through competent medical evidence that disability from work resulted from the employment 

injury.5 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.6 Appellant has the burden to demonstrate his disability for work 

based on rationalized medical opinion evidence. The issue of whether a claimant’s disability is 

related to an accepted condition is a medical question which must be established by a physician 

who, on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, concludes that the 

disability is causally related to employment factors and supports that conclusion with sound 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f). 

3 See Donald E. Ewals, 51 ECAB 428 (2000). 

4 William C. Thomas, 45 ECAB 591 (1994). 

5 Supra note 3. 

6 Paul E. Thams, 56 ECAB 503 (2005). 
4

medical reasoning.7 There is no such evidence in this case. Appellant did not provide any 

medical opinion, with supporting rationale, establishing disability for the period claimed. 

The only medical reports which described her conditions were the periodic reports from 

Dr. Maxwell. Dr. Maxwell advised that he was treating appellant for bilateral rheumatoid 

arthritis and noted that she was currently working, but was having difficulty performing her 

usual job as a letter carrier due to rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. He reported that she had 

restrictions placed upon her following an FCE, which made it impossible for her to handle mail 

and continue driving a mail delivery route. 

Dr. Maxwell noted in his April 2, 2014 report that appellant’s symptoms were significant 

and limited her ability make a full fist formation grip or lift anything greater than 10 pounds, 

climb, stand, or walk for prolonged periods. He advised that the slow deterioration of her 

functional ability was inevitable given her present arthritic symptoms. Dr. Maxwell provided 

restrictions to allow appellant to continue to work, however, he failed to establish total disability 

due to the accepted condition of aggravation of bilateral rheumatoid arthritis.8

 

OWCP continued to received medical reports from Dr. Maxwell which noted appellant’s 

restrictions, but Dr. Maxwell never opined in any of his reports that appellant was totally 

disabled from work during the period claimed. Appellant has thus failed to establish that her 

accepted condition caused disability for the period claimed.9

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden to establish disability from 

January 11 to 24, 2014. 

 7 Howard A. Williams, 45 ECAB 853 (1994). 

8 Id.

9

 The form reports from Dr. Maxwell which support causal relationship with a box marked “yes” are insufficient 

to establish the claim, as the Board has held that without further explanation or rationale, a checked box is not 

sufficient to establish causation. Debra S. King, 44 ECAB 203 (1992); Salvatore Dante Roscello, 31 ECAB 

247 (1979). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 28, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 5, 2016 

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