United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Memphis, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0740

Issued: December 5, 2019

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 February 11, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 29, 2019 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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the January 29, 2019 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 disability from work 

for the period August 4 to 16, 2018 causally related to his accepted January 17, 2018 employment 

injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.

3

 The facts and circumstances as presented 

in the prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows. 

On January 17, 2018 appellant, then a 52-year-old postal police officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he slipped and fell on icy pavement and 

sustained a contusion of his left hip while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the 

claim form the employing establishment indicated that he stopped work on January 17, 2018 and 

returned to work on January 18, 2018. The record indicates that the claim has been accepted for 

lower back strain of muscle, fascia, and tendon, as well as left hip contusion.4

In a report dated July 30, 2018, Dr. Gregory D. Dabov, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, diagnosed unrelenting low back strain. He indicated that appellant had a history of low 

back pain, but it had worsened since his previous visit. Dr. Dabov instructed that appellant was 

not to return to work. He completed a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date noting the 

aforementioned diagnosis and return to work status.

In a lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report dated August 14, 2018,

Dr. Andy Ellzey, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, noted the presence of mild facet 

arthropathy and mildly narrowed foramina at L3-4, a disc bulge, facet arthropathy, and mildly 

narrowed foramina at L4-5, and a small right intraforaminal disc protrusion with mild right 

foraminal stenosis at L5-S1.

On August 20, 2018 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave 

without pay for the period August 4 to 16, 2018. 

In a report dated September 11, 2018, Dr. Dabov noted an impression of resolving psoas 

strain. He indicated that appellant still had some residual discomfort from his previously

diagnosed psoas strain and preexisting arthritis in his knees. Dr. Dabov related that he had been 

tolerating his regular duties at work. 

In a report dated October 9, 2018, Dr. Dabov indicated that appellant had a bad flare-up of 

his hip and back injury in July. He noted that on July 30, 2018 he took appellant off work due to 

this flare-up, and allowed him to return to work on August 17, 2018. Dr. Dabov noted an 

 

3 Docket No. 19-0123 (issued May 13, 2019). The Board notes that appellant had also filed a claim for 

compensation (Form CA-7) for leave pay back for the period July 31 through August 3, 2018, which OWCP denied 

on October 12, 2018. Appellant appealed to the Board on October 22, 2018 and the appeal was assigned Docket No. 

19-0123. By decision dated May 13, 2019, the Board affirmed OWCP’s October 12, 2018 decision. 

4 A formal acceptance letter is not of record.
3

assessment of resolved psoas and low back strain. He related that appellant’s conditions were 

likely to flare-up again going forward. Dr. Dabov also indicated that a lumbar spine MRI scan

revealed a herniated disc, which was little more than a bulging disc, and was likely due to his 

previous injury. He also related that his opinion might change based upon review of prior MRI 

scans. Dr. Dabov concluded that appellant would continue with his regular duties at work. 

In a development letter dated October 12, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that it had not 

received evidence to support his claim for disability for the period August 4 to 16, 2018. It advised 

him of the type of evidence needed to establish his disability claim and afforded him 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence.

In response to OWCP’s October 12, 2018 development letter, appellant resubmitted 

medical evidence previously of record, as well as continuing progress reports from Dr. Dabov. 

By decision dated January 29, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

the period August 4 to 16, 2018.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden proof to establish the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the preponderance of the evidence.6 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.7 Whether a particular injury caused 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.8

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.9

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.10 Rationalized medical evidence is medical evidence 

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

 

5 Supra note 1.

6 M.D., Docket No. 18-10474 (issued October 3, 2018); see Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); see also 

Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 712 (1986).

7

Id.

8 M.D., supra note 6; see also Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301 (1989).

9

J.D., Docket No. 19-0774 (issued September 25, 2019); N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).

10 See J.D., id.; J.M., Docket No. 19-0478 (issued August 9, 2019).
4

relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment injury. 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 accepted condition and the claimed period of disability.11

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.12

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period August 4 to 16, 2018 causally related to his accepted January 17, 2018 

employment injury.

In his July 30, September 11, and October 9, 2018 reports, Dr. Dabov noted that appellant 

still had some residual discomfort from his previously diagnosed psoas back strain and preexisting 

arthritis in his knees. In addressing the claimed period of disability, August 4 to 16, 2018, in his 

October 9, 2018 report, Dr. Dabov explained that appellant had a bad flare-up of his “hip and back”

in July, and noted that, on July 30, 2018, he took appellant off work due to this flare-up, and 

allowed him to return to work on August 17, 2018. However, Dr. Dabov did not provide medical 

rationale which explained how or why the worsening of appellant’s accepted employment 

conditions caused his disability. Subjective complaints of pain are insufficient, in and of 

themselves, to support payment of compensation.13 Dr. Dabov did not specifically provide 

objective findings to demonstrate how appellant’s accepted employment conditions had worsened 

to the point of disability. Rather, he merely attributed his inability to work to subjective complaints 

of pain. When a physician’s statements regarding an employee’s ability to work consist only of 

recitation of the employee’s complaints that he/she was in too much pain to work, without 

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

the issue of disability.14 A mere conclusion without the necessary rationale is insufficient to meet 

a claimant’s burden of proof.15 Thus, Dr. Dabov’s July 30, September 11, and October 9, 2018 

reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

 

11 See supra note 9; R.H., Docket No. 18-1382 (issued February 14, 2019).

12 V.B., Docket No. 18-1273 (issued March 4, 2019); see William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); see also 

Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

13 B.F., Docket No. 19-0123 (issued May 13, 2019); M.D., Docket No. 18-0474 (issued October 3, 2018); see 

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

14 J.M., Docket No. 19-0478 (issued August 9, 2019); P.D., Docket No. 14-0744 (issued August 6, 2014); G.T., 59 

ECAB 447 (2008).

15 See D.M., Docket No. 17-1052 (issued January 24, 2019); see also D.P., Docket No. 17-0148 (issued 

May 18, 2017).
5

Furthermore, while in his October 9, 2018 report, Dr. Dabov referenced an August 14, 

2018 MRI scan indicating that appellant also sustained a herniated disc, the Board notes that 

herniated disc is not an accepted condition.

16

 Dr. Dabov’s clarification that he had not reviewed 

prior MRI scans to determine whether the condition was present prior to the employment injury is 

equivocal and speculative in nature. The Board has held that medical opinions which are equivocal 

or speculative are of diminished probative value.17 Without medical rationale supporting disability

during the period August 4 to 16, 2018, Dr. Dabov’s reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.18 His reports, therefore, do not establish that appellant was disabled from work 

during the claimed period due to his accepted back and hip conditions.

The diagnostic studies do not address appellant’s claimed disability during the period in 

question.19 As such this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant was disabled 

from work for the period August 4 to16, 2018 due to his accepted back and hip conditions, the 

Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.

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 disability from 

work for the period August 4 to 16, 2018 causally related to his accepted January 17, 2018 

employment injury.

 

16 If an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to an employment injury, 

he/she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally related to the employment injury. R.J.,

Docket No. 17-1365 (issued May 8, 2019); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004).

17 R.B., Docket No. 19-0204 (issued September 6, 2019); see N.B., Docket No. 19-0221 (issued July 15, 2019).

18 S.H., Docket No. 18-1398 (issued March 12, 2019).

19 Supra note 12; see also L.A., Docket No. 18-1570 (issued May 23, 2019). The Board has held that diagnostic 

studies lack probative value as they do not address whether the employment injury caused any of the diagnosed 

conditions.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 29, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 5, 2019

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