United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY & 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, Warrendale, PA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1238 

Issued: January 26, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 24, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 13, 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 intermittent periods of total disability on 

December 1 and 16, 2015, and January 11, February 9, and March 16, 2016 causally related to 

her accepted employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 12, 2015 appellant, then a 51-year-old mine safety and health inspector, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 31, 2014 she sustained carpal 

tunnel syndrome as a result of typing and driving long distances. The claim form did not 

indicate whether she stopped work. By letter received by OWCP on February 5, 2015, appellant 

requested that her case be considered an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) because her 

condition was caused by continued and repeated exposure to factors of her federal employment 

over a period of time. She believed that the employment duties of driving long distances for long 

periods of time, writing, keyboarding, climbing stairs, gripping hand rails, and accessing mines 

and equipment caused her condition. Appellant noted that she first recognized her symptoms in 

November 2014. 

On January 20, 2015 appellant underwent right carpal tunnel release surgery. She 

stopped work. On March 31, 2015 she underwent left carpal tunnel release surgery. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral 

trigger finger (acquired). It paid intermittent compensation for wage loss and leave buy back. 

Appellant received medical treatment from Dr. Lance J. Klingler, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, who indicated in an August 25, 2015 report that appellant complained of left 

thumb numbness. Upon examination of her upper extremities, Dr. Klingler observed well-healed 

carpal tunnel wounds. He reported tenderness in the left thumb A1 pulley and mild tenderness in 

the right thumb A1 pulley. Dr. Klingler diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger thumbs. 

He advised appellant to continue working with restrictions, including lifting up to five pounds 

and no climbing. 

On September 8, 2015 appellant returned to full-time limited duty. OWCP continued to 

pay for medical benefits. 

Dr. Klingler continued to treat appellant. In a November 6, 2015 work status form, he 

noted diagnoses of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral trigger thumbs. Dr. Klingler 

indicated that she was able to work with restrictions of no climbing. He also noted that appellant 

could drive occasionally. In a November 18, 2015 letter, Dr. Klingler explained that the only 

portion of her job that she could not perform was that of climbing. He reported that he had a 

follow-up examination with appellant in February 2016 and would reassess her need for any 

ongoing restriction. Dr. Klingler included a duty status report, which indicated that she was able 

to work with the restriction of no climbing and driving limited to two hours per day. 

Appellant filed claims for disability compensation (Forms CA-7) for eight hours of wage 

loss on each of the following dates: December 1 and 16, 2015, and January 11, February 9, and 

March 16, 2016.2

 She indicated that she was unable to work due to “bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome pain, home therapy, and restrictive medications.” 

 2

 Appellant also filed claims for wage-loss compensation for four hours of LWOP on December 15, 2015, 

January 15 and 19, February 2 and 3, and April 5, 2016 due to medical appointments. OWCP paid disability 

compensation for those claimed periods. 
3

In support of her claims appellant submitted various letters dated December 1, 2015 to 

February 9, 2016, which described the medications she was taking to treat her carpal tunnel 

syndrome condition. She noted that she took Hydrocol/acetam, 5-325 milligram, and 

Nortriptylin, 10 milligram daily. Appellant remarked that the medications cautioned against 

driving and other tasks which required one to be alert. She explained that on December 1 and 

16, 2015, and January 11, February 9, and March 16, 2016 she was “unable to attend work due to 

such symptoms and side effects, which would make driving and tasks hazardous as well as being 

in severe pain and unable to focus.” 

By e-mails dated December 14 to 16, 2015 from Danial Mitchel, a safety and health 

program coordinator for the employing establishment corresponded with OWCP regarding the 

physical requirements of appellant’s position. He indicated that she would drive extensively for 

her position as a mine inspector. Mr. Mitchell noted that appellant had been driving to work 

daily, but she claimed that due to her prescribed medications she would not drive to work 

because of the side effects of drowsiness and dizziness. OWCP advised the employing 

establishment that if appellant was unable to drive to work because of medications, there were 

various alternative means of transportation to work. It explained that if, however, appellant was 

disabled from work because the employing establishment could not accommodate her driving 

restrictions, compensation would be payable. 

In a December 18, 2015 e-mail, Barbara Foglia, an OWCP registered nurse, advised 

OWCP that appellant was on prescription pain medication. She noted that the medical records 

documented that appellant’s only work restriction was climbing. 

On December 29, 2015 OWCP e-mailed the employing establishment inquiring if the 

employing establishment would provide alternative work on those days when appellant could not 

drive. It advised that the inability to drive to report to work due to medications would not be 

payable since there were alternate means to report to work. In an e-mail dated January 8, 2016, 

the employing establishment responded to OWCP that appellant had been assigned light, 

sedentary duty performing office work. It also explained that the employing establishment did 

not have a temporary modified job assignment for a mine inspector that did not include climbing. 

By letters dated January 5 and 26, 2016, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claims for disability compensation on the dates of 

December 1 and 16, 2015 due to her inability to drive because of pain medication. It requested 

that she submit additional evidence to establish that she was disabled from work on the claimed 

dates as a result of her accepted conditions. 

OWCP referred appellant’s case, along with a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) and 

the medical record, to Dr. Frank A. Graf, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an 

examination and second opinion on whether she required ongoing medical treatment for her 

work-related injuries and whether she was disabled from performing the physical duties of her 

date-of-injury job. 

The SOAF provided to Dr. Graf indicated that the physical requirements of a mine safety 

and health inspector included two hours of sitting, pulling/pushing, fine manipulation (includes 

keyboarding), and driving a vehicle, three hours of bending/stooping, climbing, kneeling, and 
4

twisting, four hours of simple grasping, five hours of standing, and six hours of walking. The 

employing establishment also provided a description of appellant’s duties as a mine safety and 

health inspector. 

In a February 3, 2016 report, Dr. Graf noted that appellant had worked for the employing 

establishment for 11 years and accurately described her duties as a mine safety and health 

inspector. He reviewed her medical history and related that sometime in 2013 she began to 

experience gradual onset of increasing bilateral hand symptoms, including pain, numbness, and 

tingling. Dr. Graf related appellant’s physical examination findings and diagnosed bilateral 

upper extremity cumulative trauma disorder with exposure to repetitive motion and vibration, 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome status post carpal tunnel neurolysis, and stenosis tenosynovitis 

A1 proximal pulleys of both thumbs and ring fingers. He reported that she continued to suffer 

“persistent and ongoing residuals of her work-related upper extremity cumulative trauma and 

vibration syndrome effecting [sic] both hands.” Dr. Graf noted that appellant still needed 

ongoing medical treatment and opined that additional surgery for her bilateral trigger thumbs and 

fingers would likely be reasonable and necessary to treat her symptoms. He determined that she 

was unable to climb ladders or onto equipment or drive the distances required to meet her job 

description as a mine inspector. Dr. Graf noted that appellant was presently employed full time 

in an office setting. 

Dr. Klingler continued to treat appellant. In various form and duty status reports (Forms 

CA-17) dated January 15 to February 2, 2016, he noted diagnoses of bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome and trigger thumbs. Dr. Klingler indicated that appellant could continue working with 

restrictions of no climbing and driving limited to two hours a day. 

In various letters dated January 19 and February 3, 2016, appellant responded to OWCP’s 

development letter. She explained that she was claiming disability compensation on the claimed 

dates due to “inability to drive, impaired alertness, and rapid mental and muscular coordination 

when taking medications as prescribed.” Appellant noted that she was providing a note of 

explanation from her physician. She also mentioned that she was including the written 

“Management Plan for Inspector.” Appellant related that the inspector position required driving 

as part of her job duties for any given day, without scheduled dates. She also noted that, with 

regard to alternative modes of transportation, there was no form of public transportation from her 

home to her place of work and there were no coworkers who lived near her to allow for 

carpooling. Appellant indicated that a taxi cab service was available and that she could utilize 

this form of transportation with written approval. She further explained that the inability to drive 

was not the only reason she was unable to work, but that, on those dates she claimed disability, 

she also experienced severe pain, dizziness, drowsiness, physical and mental impairments, and 

slow motor skills. Appellant provided the following: “a Summary of Key Requirements and 

Duties,” which indicated that her position required driving; an internet printout, which described 

the side effects of her prescribed pain medication, and her latest performance evaluation. 

Appellant continued to receive medical treatment. In a February 16, 2016 report, 

Joshua Dion, a nurse practitioner, noted appellant’s complaints of wrist and arm pain. He 

provided physical examination findings and diagnosed trigger finger and carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Mr. Dion provided workers’ compensation forms dated February 16 to March 15, 2016, which 

indicated that appellant could continue working per Dr. Klingler’s work restrictions. 
5

In a March 8, 2016 report, Dr. Dennis G. Rork, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

related appellant’s complaints of continued pain and limited function of the hands. He indicated 

that she was unable to work since right carpal tunnel surgery in January 2015. Dr. Rork noted 

that appellant’s job required driving, computer work, and pulling with hands. He asserted that 

she was unable to perform these job duties. Upon examination, Dr. Rork observed decreased 

range of motion, joint stiffness, and joint swelling. He diagnosed chronic pain syndrome, carpal 

tunnel syndrome. Dr. Rork opined that appellant remained disabled and was unable to perform 

the required tasks of her job due to physical limitations. He provided a workers’ compensation 

disability form, which detailed her work restrictions. 

In an e-mail dated March 17, 2016 to OWCP, the employing establishment advised 

OWCP that it would be unable to provide light work for appellant after April 16, 2016. 

In a letter received on April 11, 2016, nurse practitioner Mr. Dion noted that appellant 

was under his care for a chronic health condition that required ongoing treatment and use of 

potent analgesics to control her symptoms. He advised that she not drive when taking her 

analgesic medication and to be attentive to the effects of decreased reaction time, clouded 

judgment, drowsiness, and tolerance and would need to follow these work restrictions. 

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

compensation on the dates of December 1 and 16, 2015 and January 11, February 9, and 

March 16, 2016, finding that the medical evidence of record failed to establish that she was 

unable to work on the claimed dates as a result of her accepted conditions. It determined that 

disability compensation was not payable for “random” days when she decided not to report to 

work because she was unable to drive to work. OWCP found that the employing establishment 

accommodated appellant’s restrictions and that driving was not required in her modified 

position. 

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. Disability is thus 

not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an 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 Furthermore, whether a particular 

injury causes an employee to be disabled for employment and the duration of that disability are 

medical issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the probative, and substantial 

medical evidence.4

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish a 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.5

 The opinion of the physician must be 

 3 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999). 

4 Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

5 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 
6

based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable 

medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by 

the employee.6

 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

of employment nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors of incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.7

For each period of disability claimed, the employee must establish that she was disabled 

from work as a result of the accepted employment injury. 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 bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral 

trigger finger as a result of her employment duties as a mine safety and health inspector. 

Appellant underwent bilateral carpal tunnel release surgery and stopped work. On September 8, 

2015 she returned to full-time limited duty. In various wage-loss compensation claim forms, 

appellant requested eight hours of compensation each on December 1 and 16, 2015 and 

January 11, February 9, and March 16, 2016 due to her accepted conditions. She experienced 

side effects from her medication, including impaired alertness, a restriction against driving, 

severe pain, dizziness, and slow motor skills. By decision dated April 13, 2016, OWCP denied 

appellant’s claims for intermittent disability on the above dates. The Board finds that appellant 

has failed to establish that she was disabled from work on December 1 and 16, 2015 and 

January 11, February 9, and March 16, 2016 due to her accepted conditions. 

The Board notes initially that the evidence of record substantiates that appellant returned 

to modified work on September 8, 2015. Appellant’s only medical restriction at that time was no 

climbing. The employing establishment has explained that because climbing would be required 

for mine inspection, appellant was given sedentary work duties. 

During the periods of disability claimed, appellant received medical treatment from 

Dr. Klingler. In his November 18, 2015 letter, Dr. Klingler related that the only physical 

requirement of her job that she could not perform was climbing. He provided duty status reports 

dated November 18, 2015 to February 2, 2016, which indicated that appellant was able to work 

with restrictions of no climbing and driving limited to two hours. The Board notes that 

Dr. Klingler did not relate that she was totally disabled from work on any of her claimed dates of 

disability, but rather that she could work with specific restrictions. Dr. Klingler did not provide 

any opinion that appellant was unable to work her light-duty assignment on the specific dates 

claimed by her due to her employment-related conditions. Accordingly, his reports fail to 

 6 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

7 Dennis M. Mascarenes, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 

8 Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005). 
7

establish any disability from work on December 1 and 16, 2015 and January 11, February 9, and 

March 16, 2016 due to her accepted conditions. 

In his March 8, 2016 report, Dr. Rork related appellant’s complaints of continued pain 

and limited function of the hands. He conducted an examination and diagnosed chronic pain 

syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Rork discussed that the physical requirements of 

appellant’s job required driving, computer work, and pulling with hands. He opined that 

appellant was unable to perform the required tasks of her job due to physical limitations and was 

disabled. Dr. Rork did not identify the specific dates that she was disabled from work and failed 

to explain how she was no longer able to work her light-duty position due to her accepted 

employment injury. 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.9

 To do so, would essentially allow an employee to self-certify their 

disability and entitlement to compensation.10

In his February 3, 2016 report, Dr. Graf opined that appellant continued to suffer 

residuals of her work-related injuries and determined that she was unable to meet her job duties 

as a mine inspector. He noted that she had been placed in a sedentary position, but he did not 

opine that she was disabled from her modified position on any specific date.11 

Appellant was also treated by Mr. Dion, a nurse practitioner. Mr. Dion’s report is of no 

probative value, however, because nurse practitioners are not considered physicians as defined 

under FECA.12

On appeal, appellant alleges that she submitted probative evidence, which supported her 

inability to work on the contested dates, including the driving limitation and the side effects of 

the medication she was taking. She noted that she was absent for five days due to chronic pain, 

medication side effects, and conducting home therapy and that the “root cause” of these absences 

were for chronic pain or treatment for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. As noted above, 

however, the medical evidence submitted failed to adequately establish disability on December 1 

and 6, 2015 and January 11, February 9, and March 16, 2016 as a result of her accepted 

employment injury. 

While appellant has also alleged that narcotic medications prescribed for her accepted 

condition caused symptoms, which interfered with her drive to work on the days in question, 

Dr. Klinger’s restrictions indicated that she could drive up to two hours a day, and she has stated 

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

10 J.S., Docket No. 16-1014 (issued October 27, 2014). 

11 Id. 

12 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); E.H., Docket No. 08-1862 (issued July 8, 2009); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued 

May 6, 2009). 
8

that she had alternate forms of transportation available. OWCP therefore properly concluded 

that her alleged inability to work due to her alleged inability to drive was not compensable.13 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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. §§ 10.606 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established intermittent periods of total disability 

on December 1 and 16, 2015 and January 11, February 9, and March 16, 2016 causally related to 

her upper extremity conditions. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 13, 2016 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 26, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 13 See R.H., 58 ECAB 654 (2007).