United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

Pearl Harbor, HI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0339 

Issued: March 24, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 December 5, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 31, 2016 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

                                                             1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

 2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish total disability for 

intermittent periods beginning June 19, 2014 causally related to the accepted June 18, 2014 

employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. In an August 26, 2016 decision, the 

Board affirmed a February 2, 2016 OWCP decision.3

 The facts and circumstances as set forth in 

the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The facts relevant to the present 

appeal are set forth below. 

On June 18, 2014 appellant, then a 35-year-old metal inspector and painter, injured his 

left ankle while performing penetrant testing on a submarine. He stopped work on June 19, 2014 

and returned to light-duty work on July 2, 2014. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left ankle 

tibial tendinitis. 

Appellant submitted claims for compensation (Form CA-7), for intermittent total 

disability for the period June 19, 2014 to February 11, 2015. The employing establishment 

indicated in time analysis forms (Form CA-7a) the dates on which appellant did not work. In a 

March 13, 2015 telephone call memorandum, it confirmed that light-duty work was available 

and that appellant returned to work on July 2, 2014, but thereafter missed work and submitted 

claims for compensation. 

On April 16, 2015 OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation as the medical 

evidence of record failed to establish any periods of employment-related disability. 

Appellant requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. In a decision 

dated February 2, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the April 16, 2015 decision. 

Appellant appealed his claim to the Board, and on August 26, 2016 the Board affirmed the 

February 2, 2016 OWCP decision.4

 The Board found that appellant did not meet his burden of 

proof to establish that his disability for the period beginning June 19, 2014 was causally related 

to the accepted June 18, 2014 employment injury. 

On September 12, 2016 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and 

submitted additional medical evidence. He submitted a February 1, 2016 report from 

Dr. Gregory Morris, a podiatrist, who treated him for a left inner ankle and arch condition which 

began on June 18, 2014 after standing all day at work while performing liquid penetration 

testing. Dr. Morris last treated appellant on October 24, 2014 for pain to his left ankle. He noted 

a left lower extremity magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan in August 2014 revealed a partial 

tear along the tendon. Dr. Morris indicated that appellant was treated conservatively by 

                                                             3

 Docket No. 16-0807 (issued August 26, 2016). 

4 See id. 
3

Dr. Antonio B. Cordero, a Board-certified orthopedist, for his left foot and ankle posterior tibial 

tendinitis and partial tear and underwent physical therapy which made his condition worse. He 

opined that appellant would most likely require surgery since he failed appropriate and 

exhaustive conservative treatment. Dr. Morris indicated that after surgery appellant would be in 

a cast for six weeks followed by a walking boot for four to six weeks followed by physical 

therapy. He indicated that a patient undergoing this surgical procedure would typically be able 

to progress back to normal activities and work with no restrictions. Dr. Morris noted that 

appellant had underlying medical conditions that may have made him prone to developing 

posterior tibial tendinitis, including congenital flatfoot deformity/pes planus, a history of 

osteogenesis imperfect, and gout. He further noted that appellant worked on his feet for 

extended periods of time and was mildly obese. Dr. Morris opined that all of these factors 

combined with the injury on June 18, 2014 caused his left ankle posterior tibial tendinitis/partial 

tear. He suggested that there was most likely some apportionment required for appellant’s 

condition if covered under workers’ compensation. 

By decision dated October 31, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the decision dated 

February 2, 2016. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish that he or she is disabled from work as a 

result of an accepted employment injury.5

 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to be 

disabled from employment and the duration of that disability are medical issues.6 The issue of 

whether a particular injury causes disability from work must be resolved by competent medical 

evidence.7 To meet this burden, a claimant must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence, 

based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting causal relationship between the 

alleged disabling condition and the accepted injury.8

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. For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden 

of proof to establish that he was disabled from work as a result of the accepted employment 

injury.9

                                                             5 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

6 Id. 

7 See Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

8 C.S., Docket No. 08-2218 (issued August 7, 2009). 

9 Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005). 
4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left ankle tibial tendinitis. Appellant stopped work 

on June 19, 2014. On March 12, 2015 he submitted Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss 

compensation for total disability beginning June 19, 2014. OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

compensation and an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the denial decision. Appellant 

appealed to the Board and the Board affirmed the hearing representative’s decision. Following 

the Board’s August 26, 2016 decision,10 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted new 

medical evidence to OWCP which again denied his claim for compensation for total disability 

beginning June 19, 2014. The Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to 

establish that the claimed periods of total disability beginning June 19, 2014 were caused or 

aggravated by the accepted condition. 

Appellant submitted a February 1, 2016 report from Dr. Morris who treated him for a left 

inner ankle and arch condition which began on June 18, 2014 after standing all day at work while 

engaging in liquid penetration testing. Dr. Morris last treated appellant on October 24, 2014 for 

left ankle pain. He noted an August 2014 MRI scan revealed a partial tear along the tendon and 

opined that appellant would most likely require surgery. Dr. Morris indicated that appellant had 

underlying medical conditions that may have made him prone to developing posterior tibial 

tendinitis including congenital flatfoot deformity/pes planus, a history of osteogenesis imperfect, 

and gout. He further noted that appellant worked on his feet for extended periods of time and 

was mildly obese. Dr. Morris opined that all of these factors combined with the injury on 

June 18, 2014 caused his left ankle posterior tibial tendinitis/partial tear. He indicated that there 

was most likely some apportionment required for appellant’s condition if covered under workers’ 

compensation. Dr. Morris did not specifically address how the June 18, 2014 employment injury 

caused any disability beginning June 19, 2014. This report did not clearly explain why appellant 

was totally disabled, or that he was undergoing medical treatment for his accepted condition,11

for the claimed dates in question. The need for medical reasoning regarding the claimed periods 

of disability is particularly important as the medical evidence indicates that appellant had 

preexisting conditions, including congenital flat foot deformity, a history of osteogenesis 

imperfect, obesity and gout, affecting his left foot and ankle. A mere conclusory opinion 

provided by a physician without the necessary rationale explaining how and why the incident or 

work factors were sufficient to result in the diagnosed medical condition is insufficient to meet a 

claimant’s burden of proof to establish a claim.12

The Board finds that the medical evidence of record fails to establish that the claimed 

period of disability was due to appellant’s accepted employment injury of June 18, 2014. 

Appellant has, therefore, failed to meet his burden of proof. 

                                                             10 Supra note 3. 

11 See Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005). 

12 J.D., Docket No. 14-2061 (issued February 27, 2015). 
5

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 failed to meet his burden of proof to establish total 

disability for intermittent periods beginning June 19, 2014 causally related to the accepted 

June 18, 2014 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 31, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 24, 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