United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0288

Issued: June 8, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 22, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 18, 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 this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish total disability from 

July 18 to August 13, 2017 causally related to her accepted January 27, 2017 employment injuries.

 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of OWCP’s October 18, 2017 decision and on appeal, appellant 

submitted new evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence that was not before OWCP at the time of 

its final decision. Thus, the Board will not review this new evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1).
2

On appeal appellant contends that she developed spinal stenosis as a consequence of her 

accepted employment injury. She notes that she received two injections, which provided no pain 

relief. Appellant further contends that a medical report she submitted on appeal establishes the 

need to undergo surgery to treat her back condition. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 30, 2017 appellant, then a 56-year-old medical support assistant, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 27, 2017 she experienced pain and 

swelling in her right ankle, left knee, and lower/upper back, and radiating pain from her neck to 

right arm as a result of slipping on a wet floor as she walked down a hallway at work.

On February 22, 2017 OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of ligaments of the lumbar 

spine and cervical spine, sprain of other ligament of the right ankle, and sprain of the medial 

collateral ligament of the left knee.

On June 30, 2017 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7), requesting 

compensation for leave without pay (LWOP) from July 18 to August 13, 2017. In an attached 

time analysis form (Form CA-7a) dated June 30, 2017, she attributed her lost time for work to 

doctor visits and physical therapy. On the reverse side of the Form CA-7, the employing 

establishment indicated that appellant received intermittent continuation of pay from January 30 

to March 2, 2017. It noted that she stopped work on June 26, 2017.

OWCP, by development letter dated August 11, 2017, advised appellant that it had not 

received any medical evidence to support her claim and afforded her 30 days to submit additional 

evidence to establish disability for work during the claimed period.

Appellant submitted hospital records, including a June 12, 2017 radiology order and 

June 13, 2017 laboratory requisition from Dr. William H. Hadnott, III, and a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Hadnott diagnosed low back and lumbar radicular pain and ordered a 

lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. In a June 25, 2017 lumbar spine MRI scan

report, Dr. Stephen G. Parven, a Board-certified radiologist, provided an impression of spinal 

stenosis greatest at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 that was less pronounced at L5-S1 and multi-level 

foraminal stenosis.

Appellant submitted additional medical records from Dr. Hadnott. In a Texas Workers’

Compensation Work Status Report form dated August 8, 2017, Dr. Hadnott indicated a history of 

injury that appellant fell down on January 20, 2017. He diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and 

advised that appellant’s medical condition prevented her from returning to work as of July 24 

through August 23, 2017. In reports dated July 24 and August 21, 2017, Dr. Hadnott examined 

appellant and again diagnosed lumbar radicular pain. In a prescription dated August 22, 2017, he

ordered physical therapy, twice a week, for eight weeks and reiterated his diagnosis of lumbar 

radiculopathy.

On September 12, 2017 Dr. Nitesh A. Banker, a Board-certified radiologist, reported that 

appellant had a clinical history of lumbar radiculopathy and back pain. He treated her with a 

lumbar epidural therapeutic injection.
3

On October 16, 2017 OWCP accepted appellant’s recurrence claim for additional medical 

care.

By decision dated October 18, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for total disability 

compensation for the period July 18 to August 13, 2017. It found that the medical evidence of 

record failed to establish that the claimed disability was related to the accepted January 27, 2017 

employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.3 For each period of disability claimed, 

the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled for work as a result 

of the accepted employment injury.4 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to become 

disabled for work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be proved by a 

preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.5 

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

earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.6 Disability is, thus, not 

synonymous with physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages.7 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to his or her federal 

employment, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages that he or she was receiving 

at the time of injury, has no disability and is not entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning 

capacity.8 When, however, the medical evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an 

employment injury are such that, from a medical standpoint, they prevent the employee from 

continuing in his or her employment, he or she is entitled to compensation for any loss of wages. 

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.9

 

3 See Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); see also Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 712 (1986).

4 See Amelia S. Jefferson, id.

5 See Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301 (1989).

6 S.M., 58 ECAB 166 (2006); Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

7 Roberta L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002).

8 Merle J. Marceau, 53 ECAB 197 (2001).

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

ANALYSIS

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

work from July 18 to August 13, 2017 due to her accepted January 27, 2017 employment injuries.

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of ligaments of the lumbar spine and cervical 

spine, sprain of other ligament of the right ankle, and sprain of the medial collateral ligament of 

the left knee. It denied her claim for total disability compensation for the period July 18 to 

August 13, 2017, finding that she failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal 

relationship between her claimed total disability for that period and the accepted conditions. 

Appellant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the substantial, reliable, and 

probative evidence, a causal relationship between her claimed disability for that period and the 

accepted conditions.10 

Appellant submitted Dr. Hadnott’s August 8, 2017 Texas Workers’ Compensation Work 

Status Report form in which he found that appellant was totally disabled from work from July 24 

to August 23, 2017 due to lumbar radiculopathy, an additional condition not accepted as work 

related by OWCP. Where an employee claims conditions not accepted or approved by OWCP 

were due to an employment injury, appellant bears the burden of proof to establish that the 

condition is causally related to the work injury.

11

 Dr. Hadnott did not explain his reasoning for

why he believed that appellant was totally disabled due to her accepted conditions. Further, he did 

not explain how and why the additional condition was causally related to the accepted employment 

injuries. A physician’s opinion on causal relationship between a claimant’s employment injury

and additional conditions or disability is not conclusive simply because it is rendered by a 

physician. To be of probative value, the physician must provide rationale for the opinion reached. 

Where no such rationale is present, the medical opinion is of diminished probative value.12 

Dr. Hadnott also failed to provide an accurate history of injury. He reported that appellant 

fell down on January 20, 2017. However, appellant explained that she fell down at work on 

January 27, 2017. It is well established that medical reports must be based on a complete and 

accurate factual and medical background, and medical opinions based on an incomplete or 

inaccurate history are of little probative value.13 

In a radiology order dated June 12, 2017, a laboratory requisition dated June 13, 2017, and 

reports dated July 24 and August 21, 2017, Dr. Hadnott diagnosed lumbar radicular pain. The 

Board notes that he failed to provide a firm medical diagnosis as he only diagnosed lumbar 

radicular pain. The Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom, rather than a compensable 

medical diagnosis.

14

 Furthermore, Dr. Hadnott did not offer a specific medical opinion addressing 

 

10 Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 3.

11 L.N., Docket No. 16-0137 (issued October 14, 2016); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

12 L.N., id.

13 Douglas M. McQuaid, 52 ECAB 382 (2001).

14 C.F., Docket No. 08-1102 (issued October 10, 2008).
5

whether appellant had any total disability during the claimed period causally related to the accepted 

January 27, 2017 work injuries. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer any 

opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue 

of causal relationship.15 Likewise, Dr. Hadnott’s August 22, 2017 prescription is of limited 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship. He reiterated his diagnosis of lumbar 

radiculopathy, but failed to offer a medical opinion addressing whether the diagnosed condition 

and any resultant total disability during the claimed period were causally related to the accepted 

employment injuries.16 Therefore, for these reasons, Dr. Hadnott’s reports are insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

Appellant also submitted Dr. Banker’s September 12, 2017 report in which he noted 

appellant’s clinical history of lumbar radiculopathy and back pain and treated her with a lumbar 

epidural therapeutic injection. Dr. Banker did not explain how the diagnosed conditions and any 

resultant total disability during the claimed period were causally related to the accepted 

conditions.17 Thus, his report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

On appeal appellant contends that she developed spinal stenosis as a consequence of her 

accepted employment injuries. She notes that she received two injections, which provided no pain 

relief. Appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish a causal relationship 

between the claimed total disability from July 18 to August 13, 2017 and the accepted employment 

injuries. Thus, she has not met her burden of proof to establish that she is entitled to compensation 

for the claimed disability.

Appellant further contends on appeal that a medical report she submitted on appeal 

establishes the need to undergo surgery to treat her back condition. As previously noted, the Board 

lacks the jurisdiction to review new evidence for the first time on appeal.18

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 failed to meet her burden of proof to establish total 

disability from July 18 to August 13, 2017 causally related to her accepted January 27, 2017 

employment injuries.

 

15 See M.S., Docket No. 17-0105 (issued December 7, 2017); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 See supra note 2.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 18, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 8, 2018

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