United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tyrone, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1382

Issued: February 14, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 July 2, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 22, 2018 

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 the case.3

 

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. 

3 The Board notes that, following the May 22, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “the Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that 

was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board 

for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. 
2

ISSUE

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

the periods December 19, 2014 to February 21, 2015, August 23, 2015 to January 13, 2016, and 

February 27, 2016 to February 10, 2017 causally related to his accepted July 22, 2013 employment 

injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 22, 2013 appellant, then a part-time rural carrier associate filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he injured his right forearm when lifting flats of mail while at 

work that day. He stopped work on the date of injury. The employing establishment noted that 

appellant had previously injured his right arm prior to working at the employing establishment 

when his arm was crushed in a printing press and his middle, ring, and little fingers were totally 

amputated, and his index finger partially amputated. On August 14, 2013 OWCP accepted the 

claim for sprain of elbow and forearm, right. 

On December 17, 2014 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) indicating that,

on December 11, 2014, his right arm and fingers hurt daily due to constant use. He stopped work 

on December 12, 2014. The employing establishment indicated that, following the employment

injury, appellant worked restricted duty until he was released to full duty without restrictions on 

September 3, 2014. 

In a work status note dated December 15, 2014, Dr. Christopher J. Lincoski, an attending 

orthopedic surgeon, provided restrictions that appellant could perform no heavy lifting, pushing, 

or pulling greater than five pounds and no grasping for more than three hours.

In December 2015 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Victoria M. Langa, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation. By report dated January 14, 2016, Dr. Langa

noted a history that in 2000 or 2001 appellant had a very significant injury when his right hand 

was caught in a printing press and he lost the middle, ring, and small finger in their entirety, and 

the index digit just distal to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint. The thumb was spared. 

Dr. Langa indicated that appellant had a very prolonged postoperative course and apparently 

returned to gainful employment in 2005. She reported that a July 22, 2013 employment injury was 

accepted for sprain of the right elbow/forearm. Dr. Langa noted that appellant reported that,

following his release to regular job duties in September 2014, he was almost immediately having 

problems due to weakness of grip. She explained that appellant did not have a true grip due to his 

missing fingers so that his complaint of weakness of grip was actually referring to pinch strength 

between his thumb and the remaining index finger digit. Dr. Langa continued that he reported that

Dr. Lincoski placed him on permanent restrictions which the employing establishment was unable 

to accommodate, and that he was taken off work on December 18, 2014. She noted that appellant 

also complained of a persistent muscle herniation through a fascial defect in his distal volar 

forearm with some occasional associated discomfort in that area. Following physical examination 

Dr. Langa diagnosed fascial defect of the right forearm with muscular herniation sustained on 

July 22, 2013. She concluded that appellant had long since reached maximum medical 

improvement, and his right forearm condition was medically stable.

Dr. Lincoski provided a January 23, 2017 duty status report (Form CA-17) in which he 

diagnosed right elbow tendinitis and fascial herniation due to the employment injury. He provided 
3

permanent restrictions of three to four hours of simple grasping per day and a five-pound weight 

restriction.

On January 26, 2017 OWCP expanded acceptance of the claim to include right forearm 

fascial herniation. 

On February 10, 2017 appellant accepted a limited-duty assignment delivering Express and 

Priority Mail and verifying undeliverable bulk business mail for 2.5 hours daily, 6 days a week. 

Simple grasping was limited to .75 hours. He returned to this position on February 11, 2017 and 

received compensation on the supplemental rolls based on his wage-earning capacity. 

Appellant filed three claims for compensation (Form CA-7) on May 24, 2017 for the 

periods December 19, 2014 to February 21, 2015, August 23, 2015 to January 13, 2016, and 

February 27, 2016 to February 10, 2017. The employing establishment verified that he was on 

leave-without-pay (LWOP) for the periods claimed. 

By development letter dated September 19, 2017, OWCP informed appellant of the 

medical evidence needed to establish disability. It noted that Dr. Lincoski’s December 14, 2014

report provided no diagnosis or medical rationale regarding appellant’s continued absence from 

work. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

Appellant thereafter submitted a February 17, 2014 treatment note in which Dr. Lincoski 

diagnosed right fascial herniation, resolved biceps tendinitis, and status post finger amputation. 

He advised that the fascial herniation and biceps tendinitis had healed, noting that appellant mostly 

had overuse given that he had limited function in his ability to use his right hand due to a prior 

injury. Dr. Lincoski recommended four hours of restricted duty daily, indicating that restrictions 

were permanent, and that appellant’s symptoms were due to overuse from the prior injury. In a 

December 15, 2014 treatment note, he noted that appellant presented with a new problem, pain 

over the lateral aspect of the right elbow. Right elbow examination demonstrated tenderness over 

the right lateral epicondyle with positive Cozen and Mills tests. There was very mild tenderness 

over the right biceps, and the fascial herniation was not tender to palpation. Dr. Lincoski 

diagnosed asymptomatic right fascial herniation, resolved biceps tendinitis, and symptomatic right 

lateral epicondylitis. He recommended medication, permanent work restrictions, and a short 

course of physical therapy with home exercise. 

In a January 23, 2017 report, Dr. Lincoski noted seeing appellant for follow-up.4 He 

reported that appellant’s fascial herniation was unchanged, and that there was no tenderness over 

the medial or lateral condyle of the right elbow. Dr. Lincoski diagnosed right fascial herniation, 

and provided permanent restrictions of no heavy pushing, pulling, or lifting greater than five 

pounds, and no grasping for more than three to four hours.5

By decision dated November 16, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for disability 

compensation for the periods December 19, 2014 to February 21, 2015, August 23, 2015 to 

January 13, 2016, and February 27, 2016 to February 10, 2017. It found Dr. Lincoski’s reports 

 

4 The record does not indicate that appellant saw Dr. Lincoski between December 15, 2014 and January 23, 2017.

5 Appellant also submitted additional treatment notes from Dr. Lincoski that are not relevant to the periods of 

disability claimed in this appeal. 
4

were of insufficient rationale to establish disability for work due to the accepted July 22, 2013 

employment injury. On November 27, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before 

an OWCP hearing representative.

In November 2017 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Langa for subsequent second opinion 

evaluation. Dr. Langa was asked to provide an opinion regarding whether appellant continued to 

suffer residuals of the accepted conditions and his work capabilities. 

By report dated December 13, 2017, Dr. Langa noted that she had previously examined 

appellant in January 2016. She diagnosed fascial defect of the right forearm with muscular 

herniation. Dr. Langa advised that the fascial herniation was permanent in nature, but was not 

disabling and that the accepted July 22, 2013 employment injury did not aggravate the preexisting 

devastating injury to his right hand. She opined that appellant should be able to perform full work 

duties as a rural carrier, and that he required no further treatment for the forearm fascial defect.

During the hearing, held on April 12, 2018, counsel maintained that, because appellant’s 

light-duty position was withdrawn in December 2014, he was entitled to wage-loss compensation. 

Appellant testified that he was placed on full duty in the Fall of 2014, and that in December 2014 

full duty required too much grabbing which caused right arm pain and loss of grip ability. He 

maintained that he reported this to the postmaster who sent him home because no light-duty work

was available, and that he did not return to work until February 14, 2017 when he began a parttime light-duty position. Appellant testified that he had resigned from the employing 

establishment on February 5, 2018 and began work at a chemical plant where he performed no 

physical labor, just monitored machines. The hearing representative advised appellant that to 

support disability he should submit medical or factual evidence that substantiated that there had 

been a withdrawal of light-duty work or that the disability stemmed from the July 2013 

employment injury. The record was held open for 30 days. Nothing further was submitted.

By decision dated May 22, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

November 16, 2017 decision. He found Dr. Lincoski’s reports insufficient to establish entitlement 

to wage-loss compensation for the three intermittent periods claimed between December 19, 2014 

and February 10, 2017 because he did not explain how any need for work restrictions stemmed 

from the July 22, 2013 employment-related lifting injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.7 For each period of disability 

claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled from work 

as a result of the accepted employment injury.8 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to 

 

6 Supra note 2.

7 See D.W., Docket No. 18-0644 (issued November 15, 2018); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

8

Id.
5

become disabled from work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be 

proven by a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.9

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.10 Furthermore, whether a particular injury 

causes an employee to be disabled from 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.11

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

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.12 Rationalized medical evidence is medical 

evidence which includes a physician’s detailed medical opinion on the issue of whether there is

causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors. The opinion of the physician must be 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.13 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 or incidents is sufficient to establish causal 

relationship.14

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 their disability and 

entitlement to compensation.15

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish total disability 

for the periods December 19, 2014 to February 21, 2015, August 23, 2015 to January 13, 2016, 

 

9 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).

10 Id.

11 T.O., Docket No. 17-1177 (issued November 2, 2018); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

12 D.W., Docket No. 18-0644 (issued November 15, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

13 C.B., Docket No. 18-0633 (issued November 16, 2018); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 

45 ECAB 365 (1994).

14 D.W., supra note 12; Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

15 See B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018).
6

and February 27, 2016 to February 10, 2017 causally related to his accepted July 22, 2013 

employment injury. 

The record indicates that prior to his federal employment, appellant sustained a significant 

injury to his right arm when his hand was crushed in a printing press which caused amputation of 

his middle, ring, and little fingers and partial amputation of his index finger. The employing 

establishment reported that appellant had been released to full duty on September 3, 2014, and this 

was acknowledged by him at the April 12, 2018 hearing. Appellant stopped work on 

December 12, 2014, and in reports dated December 15, 2014, Dr. Lincoski, an attending 

orthopedic surgeon, described examination findings, diagnosed asymptomatic right fascial hernia, 

resolved biceps tendinitis, and symptomatic right lateral epicondylitis. He provided restrictions 

that appellant could perform no heavy lifting, pushing, or pulling greater than five pounds and no 

grasping for more than three hours.16 Dr. Lincoski, however, did not indicate whether the 

restrictions were due to appellant’s accepted sprains of the right elbow and forearm and right 

forearm fascial herniation or due to his prior serious right upper extremity injury. He provided no 

additional medical evidence until a January 23, 2017 duty status report in which he diagnosed right 

elbow tendinitis and fascial herniation and provided permanent restrictions of three to four hours 

of simple grasping per day and a five-pound weight restriction. 

The Board finds Dr. Lincoski’s reports are insufficient to establish that appellant was 

totally disabled due to the conditions caused by the July 22, 2013 lifting injury at work. 

Dr. Lincoski did not explain in any of his reports whether appellant’s restrictions and/or disability 

were due to the very serious nonemployment-related previous injury that caused amputation of 

three fingers and partial amputation of the fourth or by the July 22, 2013 employment injury. He 

did not express specific knowledge of appellant’s job duties or explain why he could not perform 

the specific duties due to the employment injury. Thus, Dr. Lincoski’s reports are insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish total disability for any of the periods claimed.17 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Langa who provided a January 14, 2016 report in which 

she described both right upper extremity injuries and noted that, following his release to regular 

job duties in September 2014, appellant reported that he immediately began having problems with 

his grip. Dr. Langa explained that appellant did not have a true grip due to the absence of three of 

his fingers of his right extremity and merely had pinch between his thumb and remaining portion 

of his index finger. She opined that he had reached maximum medical improvement with regard 

to his right forearm which was medically stable. Dr. Langa did not comment on his work 

capabilities. OWCP again referred appellant to Dr. Langa, and in a December 13, 2017 report, she 

advised that appellant’s fascial defect was permanent, but was not disabling, and that the accepted 

July 22, 2013 employment injury did not aggravate appellant’s preexisting injury to his right hand. 

Dr. Langa opined that appellant should be able to perform full work duties as a rural carrier.

 

16 Of interest, in a February 17, 2014 treatment note, prior to the period of claimed disability, Dr. Lincoski opined 

that appellant mostly had overuse given that he had limited function in his ability to use his right hand due to a prior 

injury. At that time he recommended four hours of restricted duty daily, indicating that these restrictions were 

permanent, and that appellant’s symptoms were overuse from his prior injury. 

17 See E.M., Docket No. 18-0275 (issued June 8, 2018)
7

The issue of disability from work can only be resolved by competent medical evidence.18 

In the absence of sufficient medical evidence, the Board finds that the medical evidence of record 

is insufficient to establish that appellant was totally disabled for the claimed period. Dr. Lincoski 

did not explain with sufficient rationale why appellant could not perform his job duties due to the 

accepted conditions.19 

Furthermore, contrary to counsel’s assertion on appeal that appellant was entitled to 

compensation because there was no work available within his restrictions, by appellant’s own 

testimony at the April 12, 2018 hearing, he was working full duty through December 18, 2014. 

The medical evidence of record does not establish that appellant required work restrictions due to 

his accepted conditions during the time periods involved.20

The Board finds that appellant did not submit sufficient rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to establish that he was disabled from work for the successive periods commencing 

December 19, 2014 due to accepted conditions and was thus entitled to wage-loss compensation 

for the periods claimed.

21

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 his burden of proof to establish total disability 

for the periods December 19, 2014 to February 21, 2015, August 23, 2015 to January 13, 2016, 

and February 27, 2016 to February 10, 2017 causally related to his accepted July 22, 2013 

employment injury. 

 

18 R.C., 59 ECAB 546 (2008).

19 See A.D., Docket No. 18-0255 (issued July 2, 2018).

20 When an employee, who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account of employment-related 

residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the medical evidence establishes that light duty can be performed, the 

employee has the burden to establish by the weight of reliable, probative and substantial evidence a recurrence of total 

disability. As part of this burden of proof, the employee must show either a change in the nature and extent of the 

injury-related condition, or a change in the nature and extent of the light-duty requirements. M.S., Docket No. 18-0877 

(issued November 21, 2018); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986).

21 N.R., Docket No. 14-0114 (issued April 28, 2014).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 22, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 14, 2019

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