United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ATLANTA 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1196

Issued: January 18, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 May 24, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 3, 2018

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

 

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

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.3

ISSUE

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

during the period February 25 through March 22, 2017 due to her accepted January 4, 2009 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference.5 The relevant facts pertaining 

to the claimed disability period February 25 through March 22, 2017 are as follows.

On January 4, 2009 appellant, then a 42-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that she was sweeping mail at work when she felt a pain in her right arm near her 

elbow. On February 17, 2009 OWCP accepted her claim for right lateral epicondylitis. On 

March 20, 2012 and February 17, 2014 appellant underwent authorized right lateral epicondyle 

surgical releases. Appellant returned to light-duty work following these surgeries.

In December 28, 2016 reports, Dr. Duncan Wells, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

indicated that appellant was seen for a right elbow condition and that she would be unable to return 

to work until she underwent surgery. 

In a report dated March 6, 2017, Dr. Tedman L. Vance, an orthopedic hand surgeon, related 

that appellant’s right elbow pain due to a January 4, 2009 employment injury was worsening. He 

explained that the pain was aggravated by bending, lifting, and movement. Dr. Vance noted 

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 Appellant’s AB-1 form notes that she is only appealing from the April 3, 2018 OWCP merit decision. The Board 

notes that following the April 3, 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.

4 Docket No. 18-0619 (issued October 22, 2018).

5 By decision dated April 10, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claimed periods of disability from work from 

August 13 through 25, 2016 and December 7, 2016 through January 14, 2017. On April 17, 2017 counsel requested 

a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. By decision dated December 12, 2017, OWCP’s hearing 

representative found that appellant had not established that she was disabled from work for the periods August 13 

through 25, 2016 and December 7, 2016 through January 14, 2017 due to her accepted employment injuries. 

Appellant appealed the December 21, 2017 decision to the Board on January 30, 2018. By decision dated October 22, 

2018, the Board affirmed the December 12, 2017 OWCP decision. Docket No. 18-0619 (issued October 22, 2018). 

At the time of the October 22, 2018 decision, the Board reviewed the medical evidence of record received through 

December 12, 2017.
3

appellant’s past medical history and diagnosed lateral epicondylitis, loose body, and primary 

osteoarthritis of the right elbow and discussed the need for further surgery with appellant. 

On March 23, 2017 appellant underwent right elbow loose body removal, osteochondral 

synovial mass excision, and right elbow irrigation and lavage.

Appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) claiming total disability 

from work for the period February 25 through March 31, 2017.

In a development letter dated April 27, 2017, OWCP requested medical evidence in support 

of appellant’s claimed disability for the period February 25 through March 31, 2017. It afforded 

her 30 days for a response.

In a report dated April 5, 2017, Dr. Wells related that appellant had been out of work for 

intermittent dates from August 13, 2016, and from February 25, 2017 to the present. He diagnosed

chronic right lateral epicondylitis, documented by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and 

visualized during surgery. Dr. Wells related that appellant was unable to work because she 

continued to have severe right elbow pain, which required pain medication, and which prevented 

her from driving safely or fully performing her job. He explained that even in a sedentary position, 

she had use of her dominant arm, and that was the injured extremity. Dr. Wells concluded that 

appellant’s inability to work was directly related to her right elbow injury sustained at the 

employing establishment in 2011. 

OWCP authorized wage-loss compensation beginning March 23, 2017. By decision dated 

June 8, 2017, it denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation for the period February 25, 

2017 through March 22, 2017. On June 15, 2017 counsel requested a telephonic hearing before 

an OWCP hearing representative.

6

On October 31, 2017 OWCP expanded acceptance of appellant’s claim to include the 

additional conditions of primary osteoarthritis of the right elbow and loose body in the right elbow.

On November 8, 2017 appellant testified at the oral hearing regarding the June 8, 2017 

OWCP denial of her claim for wage-loss compensation for total disability from work for the period 

February 25 through March 22, 2017. She noted that she stopped work entirely from February 25 

through March 22, 2017 based on Dr. Well’s directions.

By decision dated December 22, 2017, OWCP’s hearing representative found that neither

Dr. Wells nor Dr. Vance provided rationalized medical opinion evidence explaining how the 

 

6 Appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) and requested wage-loss compensation for total disability 

from work for the period May 13 through November 10, 2017. OWCP authorized wage-loss compensation benefits 

from March 23 through May 12, 2017 and June 10 through November 10, 2017.
4

accepted employment injuries caused temporary total disability from work for the period 

February 25 through March 22, 2017.7

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence pertaining to appellant’s medical treatment 

and status after March 23, 2017. 

On January 16, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

December 22, 2017 decision.8

On February 8, 2018 appellant returned to work at the employing establishment in a 

limited-duty position.

By decision dated April 3, 2018, OWCP denied modification of the December 22, 2017 

decision finding that appellant had not established that her accepted employment injury caused 

total disability from work for the period February 25 through March 22, 2017.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA9 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.10 Whether a particular 

injury causes an employee to 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.11

Under FECA 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.12 Disability is thus 

not synonymous with 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 wages he or she was receiving at the time of injury, has 

 

7 On November 29, 2017 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) and requested wage-loss 

compensation for total disability from work for the period November 11 through 24, 2017. By decision dated 

January 9, 2018, OWCP denied her claim for wage-loss compensation for total disability from work for the period 

November 11 to 24, 2017. On January 22, 2018 appellant, through counsel requested an oral hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative. 

8 By decision dated March 16, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand acceptance of her claim to include 

an additional emotional condition. On March 21, 2018 counsel requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative.

9 Supra note 2.

10 S.J., Docket No. 17-0828 (issued December 20, 2017); G.T., Docket No. 07-1345 (issued April 11, 2008); 

Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

11 B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018).

12 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).
5

no disability as that term is used in FECA.13 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 the preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial medical 

evidence.14

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.15 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.16

To establish causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment injury, 

an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence, based on a complete factual and medical 

background, supporting such causal relationship.17 Causal relationship is a medical issue and the 

medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.18 The 

opinion of the physician must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship.19

ANALYSIS

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

totally disabled from work for the period February 25 through March 22, 2017 due to her accepted 

January 4, 2009 employment injury.

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right lateral epicondylitis, primary osteoarthritis 

right elbow, and loose body in the right elbow.

In support of her claim for disability for the periods February 25 through March 22, 2017

due to her accepted January 4, 2009 employment injury, appellant provided several reports from

her treating physician, Dr. Wells. In reports dated December 28, 2016, Dr. Wells found that 

appellant would be totally disabled until after she underwent surgery. However, he provided no 

medical reasoning supporting his opinion. A medical report must include rationale explaining how 

 

13 O.C., Docket No. 18-0192 (issued September 7, 2018).

14 Id.

15 See S.J., supra note 10; Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

16 See S.J., supra note 10; Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

17 See S.J., supra note 10; Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

18 See S.J., supra note 10; Elizabeth Stanislaw, 49 ECAB 540 (1998).

19 Id.
6

the physician reached his conclusion regarding disability.20 As these reports lack the requisite 

medical rationale, they are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

In his April 5, 2017 report, Dr. Wells found that appellant was unable to work beginning 

August 13, 2016 due to severe right elbow pain that required taking significant pain medication. 

He related that appellant had sustained a right elbow injury in 2011. Dr. Wells opined that 

appellant’s prescribed medications prevented her from driving safely or fully performing her lightduty job duties. He noted that even a sedentary job required appellant to use her injured dominant

right hand, which she could not do. Although Dr. Wells opined that appellant was totally disabled 

from work, his opinion is conclusory in nature and fails to explain in detail how the accepted 

medical conditions were responsible for appellant’s total disability for work and why she could 

not perform her light-duty federal employment during the period claimed.21

OWCP also received a March 6, 2017 report from Dr. Vance. Dr. Vance continued to note 

appellant’s right elbow symptoms and diagnoses, but he offered no opinion regarding appellant’s 

disability status. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding 

the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.22 

This report, therefore, is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

The Board finds that appellant has not provided sufficient rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to establish that she was totally disabled for the period February 25 through March 22, 

2017 causally related to her accepted January 4, 2009 employment injury. Thus, appellant has not 

met her burden of proof to establish that she is entitled to compensation for total disability.

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 that she was 

disabled for the period February 25 through March 22, 2017 due to her accepted January 4, 2009 

employment injury.

 

20 R.C., Docket No. 17-0748 (issued July 20, 2018); J.I., Docket No. 17-0485 (issued June 22, 2017).

21 D.H., Docket No. 17-0565 (issued July 2, 2018).

22 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 3, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 18, 2019

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