United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Rossville, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0655

Issued: May 7, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 31, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 9, 2017 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 the case.

2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish compensation for 

medical treatment or that she was disabled for the period May 10 through 12, 2016 due to her 

accepted employment injury.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The record provided the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its January 9, 2017 decision. The 

Board’s review is limited to the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Therefore, the Board 

is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 9, 2015 appellant, then a 47-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging a left shoulder condition. She indicated that she became aware 

of her left shoulder condition as of June 1, 2014 and first realized that it was caused or aggravated 

by her employment duties on July 30, 2015. Appellant was working in a limited-duty capacity 

due to a right hand/wrist injury on January 2, 2014.3 She stopped work on February 7, 2015 and 

underwent left shoulder surgery on February 9, 2015. Appellant returned to work part time on 

May 4, 2015 and resumed full-time duties later on July 15, 2015. On November 25, 2015 OWCP 

accepted the claim for adhesive capsulitis of left shoulder and left rotator cuff tear. In 

December 2015, appellant transferred from the employing establishment in Georgia to Utah and 

began work as a data conversion specialist.4

On May 16, 2016 OWCP received appellant’s Form CA-7 requesting wage-loss 

compensation for May 10, 11, and 12, 2016. The accompanying time analysis form (Form CA-7a) 

indicated that appellant took eight hours leave without pay on May 10, 2016 for a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan with anesthesia, on May 11, 2016 for physician appointment to 

discuss MRI scan results, and eight hours of leave without pay on May 12, 2016 awaiting clearance 

to return to work. 

In a May 19, 2016 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that the necessary medical 

documentation pertaining to the dates claimed due to lost time from work to attend a medical 

appointment or therapy session had not been received. It requested that she submit a medical note 

or therapy slip verifying treatment on May 10, 2016 due to the work-related injury. OWCP noted 

that the medical care appellant received on May 11, 2016 was after her scheduled work hours of 

7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and indicated that claims for medical appointments outside of work hours 

were not compensable. It requested supporting documentation from appellant’s physician which 

verified the time of her May 11, 2016 appointment. OWCP also noted that there was no medical 

evidence that appellant was found incapable of working on May 12, 2016. It requested a 

comprehensive narrative report from appellant’s physician which provided a well-rationalized 

opinion as to how and why she was incapable of working on May 12, 2016. Appellant was 

afforded 30 days for a response. 

On May 23, 2016 OWCP received a progress note from Dr. Amy P. Powell, an internist 

specializing in sports medicine, dated May 12, 2016. In this report Dr. Powell related that 

appellant was seen on May 11, 2016 in follow up of left shoulder pain after a left shoulder MRI

scan was completed. She noted an impression of left shoulder proximal biceps tendinopathy after 

a work-related injury back in 2014. Intra-articular injections into the biceps were recommended 

along with physical therapy. The report was dictated at 5:55 p.m. on May 11, 2016. 

 

3 Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx974, it accepted that the October 2, 2013 injury, resulted in closed fracture of 

middle or proximal phalanx or phalanges right, and right carpal tunnel syndrome. These cases have been combined, 

with the OWCP File No. xxxxxx857 serving as the master file.

4 On April 1, 2016 OWCP received a Form CA-7 requesting wage-loss compensation from February 7 through 

April 17, 2015. 
3

By decision also dated July 11, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

for the period May 10 through 12, 2016. It found that the medical evidence submitted did not 

establish that she was disabled as a result of her accepted work-related medical conditions.

On August 15, 2016 OWCP received appellant’s August 5, 2016 request for review of the 

written record by a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The request was 

postmarked August 8, 2016.

By decision dated January 9, 2017, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the July 11, 

2016 OWCP decision denying disability compensation for the period May 10 through 12, 2016 as 

there was no medical evidence of record establishing disability.

5

 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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.6 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 a loss of wage-earning 

capacity.7

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 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.8 Findings on examination are generally 

needed to support a physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled from work. When a 

physician’s statements regarding an employee’s ability to work consist only of repetition of the 

employee’s complaints that he or she hurt too much to work, without objective findings of 

disability being shown, the physician has not presented a medical opinion on the issue of disability 

or a basis for payment of compensation.9 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 selfcertify their disability and entitlement to compensation.10

 

5 However, the hearing representative set aside the July 11, 2016 decision pertaining to wage loss due to an 

arthroscopy for the period February 7 through April 17, 2015 and remanded the case to OWCP for further development 

and issuance of a de novo decision of whether the February 9, 2015 surgery and resultant disability were related to the 

accepted left shoulder rotator cuff tear and adhesive capsulitis. This period of disability is therefore not before the 

Board as it is in an interlocutory posture. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(2).

6 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 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).

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

9

Id.

10 Id.
4

With respect to claimed disability for medical treatment, section 8103 of FECA provides 

for medical expenses, along with transportation and other expenses incidental to securing medical 

care, for injuries.11 Appellant would be entitled to compensation for any time missed from work 

due to medical examination or treatment for an employment-related condition.12 However, 

OWCP’s obligation to pay for expenses incidental to obtaining medical care, such as loss of wages, 

extends only to expenses incurred for treatment of the effects of any employment-related 

condition. Appellant has the burden of proof, which includes the necessity to submit supporting 

rationalized medical evidence.13 As a rule, no more than four hours of compensation or 

continuation of pay should be allowed for routine medical appointments. 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.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish compensation 

for medical treatment or that she was disabled for the period May 10 through 12, 2016 due to her 

accepted employment injury.

The record reflects that appellant saw Dr. Powell on May 11, 2016 to review the results of 

a left shoulder MRI scan.15 The date of the particular MRI scan reviewed on May 11, 2016 was 

not mentioned. Dr. Powell related an impression of left shoulder proximal biceps tendinopathy 

and the report was dictated at 5:55 p.m. and transcribed the following day. OWCP requested 

supporting documentation that the May 11, 2016 appointment was during appellant’s scheduled 

work hours, however, no documentation was received. Appellant has therefore not established 

that she was disabled from work on May 11, 2016 due to this medical appointment. Accordingly, 

she is not entitled to compensation for the May 11, 2016 medical appointment. 

Appellant also claimed eight hours of compensation on May 10, 2016 to obtain medical 

treatment for MRI scan -- anesthesia and eight hours on May 12, 2016 while “awaiting clearance 

to return to work.” Although it appears that she underwent the MRI scan on May 10, 2016 

beginning at 12:35 p.m. and ending at 1:30 p.m., there is no opinion of record from a physician 

establishing that appellant was disabled as a result of her accepted employment injuries on those 

dates. Dr. Powell’s May 11, 2016 report does not address disability from work on any of the dates 

in question. 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 

 

11 5 U.S.C. § 8103(a).

12 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Wages Lost for Medical Examination or Treatment,

Chapter 2.901.19a (February 2013). See also Vincent E. Washington, 40 ECAB 1242 (1989).

13 G.B., Docket No. 16-0515 (issued September 14, 2016); Dorothy J. Bell, 47 ECAB 624 (1996); Zane H. Cassell,

32 ECAB 1537 (1981).

14 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Administrative Matters, Chapter 3.900.8 

(November 1998).

15 Id. (no more than four hours of compensation or continuation of pay is allowed for routine medical appointments). 
5

is claimed. To do so would essentially allow employees to self-certify their disability and 

entitlement to compensation.16

Appellant therefore has not established that she was entitled to wage-loss compensation 

from May 10 to 12, 2016 due to her accepted June 1, 2014 employment injury. 

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 met her burden of proof to establish compensation 

for medical treatment or that she was disabled for the period May 10 through 12, 2016 due to her 

accepted employment injury.

ORDER

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

Programs dated January 9, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: May 7, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, 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

 

16 L.L., Docket No. 15-1489 (issued December 18, 2015); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).