United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Montgomery, AL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0369 

Issued: July 27, 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 December 7, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from June 13, September 13 and 15, 

and November 17, 2016 merit decisions 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 established that she was disabled from March 15 and 

16 and May 20 through 26, 2016 causally related to accepted employment injuries. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 29, 2014 appellant, then a 57-year-old correspondence clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed an ear infection, a sinus 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

condition, and an eye condition as a result of being exposed to mold and mildew in the course of 

her federal employment. On July 8, 2015 OWCP accepted her claim for chronic sinusitis; 

allergic rhinitis; and asthma. 

On April 21, 2016 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA 7) for intermittent 

leave without pay (LWOP) from March 14 through 16, 2016. She claimed two hours of LWOP 

on March 14, 2016 and eight hours of LWOP on March 15 and 16, 2016. 

In support of this period of disability appellant submitted a report dated March 14, 2016, 

signed by a nurse. 

On April 29, 2016 OWCP authorized a payment for two hours of LWOP on March 14, 

2016, but noted that appellant had not submitted sufficient evidence to support eight hours of 

LWOP on March 15 and 16, 2016. It stated that she had not submitted any medical evidence 

documenting disability, or documenting a medical appointment that would require her to take off 

work for the entire day on both days. 

By decision dated June 13, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation to 

obtain medical care on March 15 and 16, 2016. It noted that the report of March 14, 2016 was 

not signed by a qualified physician, nor did it contain any indication that she was disabled from 

work on March 15 and 16, 2016. 

On June 15, 2016 appellant filed a claim for compensation for LWOP for the period 

May 20 through 26, 2016. In support of her claim, she submitted reports from a physician 

assistant dated February 19 and July 22, 2016. Appellant also submitted a report from 

Dr. Adahli Massey, Board-certified in rheumatology, dated July 13, 2016. In this report, 

Dr. Massey noted appellant’s asthma condition, but related that the visit was for “rheumatoid 

arthritis.” 

On July 5, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s June 13, 2016 decision, 

which had denied compensation for the March 15 and 16, 2016 alleged period of disability. In 

support of her request, OWCP received February 9 and July 22, 2015 reports from Dr. David R. 

Thrasher, Board-certified in pulmonary disease, which related that she was seen for wheezing, 

which was due to environmentally-induced asthma. 

Appellant also submitted encounter reports from a physician assistant dated February 19 

and July 22, 2016, return to work excuse slips which were either unsigned or bore an illegible 

signature dated February 19 and 23 and March 14, 2016; and unsigned encounter notes from an 

arthritis center dated July 13, 2016. 

By decision dated September 13, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

compensation for the period May 20 through 26, 2016 as the medical evidence of record did not 

support employment-related disability. It found that the reports from the physician assistant 

were not signed by a qualified physician, and were therefore of no probative value; that the 

report from Dr. Massey dealt with a condition not accepted under appellant’s claim; and that the 

return to work slips did not excuse her from work for the claimed periods. 
3

By decision dated September 15, 2016, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim 

and denied modification of its prior decision of June 13, 2016, relating to claim for the disability 

for March 15 and 16, 2016. It reviewed the same evidence as in the decision dated 

September 13, 2016 and found that she had not provided medical documentation 

contemporaneous to the claimed dates. 

On October 26, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s September 15, 

2016 decision. In support of her request, she submitted an encounter note from Dr. William 

Jones, a Board-certified family practitioner, dated September 12, 2016. The note indicated that 

appellant had presented repeatedly to his office over the past two years. She also submitted 

encounter notes from a physician assistant dated September 29, 2016. 

By decision dated November 17, 2016, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim 

and denied modification of its decision of September 15, 2016. It found that she had not 

submitted any medical evidence contemporaneous with March 15 and 16, 2016 that would 

indicate disability from work, or medical appointments that would prevent her from working for 

the entire day. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.2 Disability is thus not 

synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in incapacity to earn wages. 

An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment injury, but 

who nevertheless has the capacity to earn the wages he or she was receiving at the time of injury, 

has no disability as that term is used in FECA.3 Whether a particular injury causes an employee 

disability for employment is a medical issue which must be resolved by competent medical 

evidence.4

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

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

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.5

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.6

 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 her disability and entitlement to compensation.7

 2 William Nimitz, Jr., 30 ECAB 567, 570 (1979). 

3 Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397, 401 (1999). 

4 Donald E. Ewals, 51 ECAB 428 (2000). 

5 Tammy L. Medley, 55 ECAB 182 (2003); see Donald E. Ewals, id. 

6 See Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005). See also David H. Goss, 32 ECAB 24, 27 (1980). 

7 See William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674, 679 (2004); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001). 
4

An injured employee may be entitled to compensation for lost wages incurred while 

obtaining authorized medical services.8

 This includes the actual time spent obtaining the medical 

services and a reasonable time spent traveling to and from the medical provider’s location.9 As a 

matter of practice, OWCP generally limits the amount of compensation to four hours with 

respect to routine medical appointments.10 However, longer periods of time may be allowed 

when required by the nature of the medical procedure and/or the need to travel a substantial 

distance to obtain the medical care.11

ANALYSIS 

Appellant’s claim was accepted for chronic sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, and asthma. She 

filed claims for compensation for March 15 and 16, 2016, and for the period May 20 through 

26, 2016. Appellant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the substantial, 

reliable, and probative evidence that she was disabled for work for the claimed periods due to her 

accepted injuries.12

Appellant has submitted no probative evidence specifically addressing the claimed dates 

of disability that would indicate she was disabled from work either directly due to her accepted 

injuries, or due to a medical appointment that would prevent her from working for the entire day. 

The evidence she submitted in support of her claims was not relevant to the claimed dates, was 

not signed by a physician, or was not relevant to the claimed periods of disability. 

OWCP received reports from Dr. Thrasher. However, these reports were dated 

February 9 and July 22, 2015, predating the periods of disability alleged. While these reports 

noted appellant’s asthma condition, they did not address her disability during the alleged periods 

at issue.13 

Regarding the claim for period of disability on March 15 and 16, 2016, while the record 

contains an excuse note dated March 14, 2016, this note is signed by a nurse, not a qualified 

 8 See 5 U.S.C. § 8103(a); Gayle L. Jackson, 57 ECAB 546-48 (2006). 

9

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Compensation of Claims, Chapter 2.901.19a(1) 

(February 2013). 

10 Id. at Chapter 2.901c. 

11 Id. 

12 Alfredo Rodriguez, 47 ECAB 437 (1996). 

13 Id. 
5

physician.14 As a nurse is not considered a physician under FECA, the note, therefore, does not 

constitute probative medical evidence.15 

There is also no medical evidence supporting disability from May 20 through 26, 2016. 

While appellant submitted a report from Dr. Massey dated July 13, 2016 in support of this claim, 

it did not address the claimed dates nor was it relevant to her accepted conditions. 

OWCP also received a September 12, 2016 report from Dr. Jones. While Dr. Jones noted 

that he had seen appellant on repeated occasions during the past two years, he did not 

specifically address whether she was disabled during any of the dates in question, due to the 

accepted employment conditions.16

The remainder of the evidence was irrelevant to the claimed dates and was either 

prepared by a physician assistant, or was unsigned. Certain healthcare providers such as 

physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and social workers are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA.17 Consequently, their medical findings and/or 

opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.18 As such 

these reports are not medical evidence and cannot establish appellant’s claim for disability 

compensation. The Board has also held that unsigned reports or ones that bear illegible 

signatures cannot be considered as probative medical evidence because they lack proper 

identification.19

As appellant has not submitted medical reports containing medical rationale relating her 

claimed dates of disability to her accepted conditions, she has not met her burden of proof to 

establish disability for the periods March 15 and 16, 2016 or May 20 through 26, 2016. 

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. 

 14 A medical report may not be considered as probative medical evidence if there is no indication that the person 

completing the report qualifies as physician as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). Section 8101(2) of FECA provides as 

follows: (2) “physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, 

and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law.” See Merton J. Sills, 39 

ECAB 572, 575 (1988). 

15 See P.S., Docket No. 17-0598 (issued June 23, 2017); R.R., Docket No. 16-1901 (issued April 17, 2017). 

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

17 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See also S.T., Docket No. 17-0913 (issued June 23, 2017); David P. 

Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316 320 n.11 (2006). 

18 R.E., Docket No. 16-1568 (issued February 9, 2017). 

19 J.P., Docket No. 16-0501 (issued July 11, 2016). 
6

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to establish that she was disabled from 

March 15 and 16 and May 20 through 26, 2016 causally related to accepted employment injuries. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated November 17, September 15 and 13, and June 13, 2016 are 

affirmed. 

Issued: July 27, 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