United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.K., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Long Island, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1543 

Issued: March 13, 2017 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 27, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 12, 2016 

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 this case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has established that her claim should be expanded 

to include the additional conditions of left tarsal tunnel syndrome, posterior tibial neuropathy, 

 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.
2

left ankle derangement, deltoid ligament partial tear, anterior talofibular (ATF) ligament partial 

tear, calcaneofibular (CFL) partial tear, and nondisplaced left ankle fracture; and (2) whether 

appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she was disabled from work for the period 

April 10 to August 7, 2015 as a result of the accepted February 23, 2015 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 26, 2015 appellant, then a 41-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 23, 2015 she twisted her ankle while descending 

stairs at work. She stopped work on February 24, 2015 and returned on February 26, 2015. 

Appellant was initially treated in the emergency room on February 24, 2015 by Dr. Attia 

Hussain, an osteopathic physician specializing in emergency medicine. Dr. Hussain described 

that appellant complained of foot pain after rolling her ankle when she fell down some steps the 

previous day at work. She reviewed appellant’s history and provided findings on physical 

examination. Dr. Hussain diagnosed left ankle sprain and excused appellant from work for one 

day. 

In a February 24, 2015 diagnostic imaging report, Dr. Michael Tartell, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, noted hypertrophic changes involving the medial malleolus and calcaneal 

spur. He reported no acute fracture or dislocation. 

Appellant began to receive treatment from Dr. Joseph Gregorace, Board-certified in 

physical medicine and rehabilitation. In a March 2, 2015 report, Dr. Gregorace related her 

complaints of medial left ankle pain following a February 23, 2015 work-related accident. He 

noted that appellant twisted her ankle while walking down the stairs. Dr. Gregorace reviewed 

her history and conducted an examination. He observed tenderness along the medial aspect of 

appellant’s left ankle. Tinel’s test and anterior drawer test were negative. Dr. Gregorace 

provided range of motion findings. He diagnosed left ankle sprain and advised that appellant not 

return to work. Dr. Gregorace opined that “if history is correct then there is a causal relationship 

between the left ankle injury and the work-related accident from February 23, 2015.” 

By letter dated March 6, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted was 

insufficient to establish her claim. It requested additional factual evidence to demonstrate that 

the February 23, 2015 incident occurred as alleged and medical evidence to establish that she 

sustained a diagnosed medical condition as a result of the alleged employment incident. 

Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

Dr. Gregorace continued to treat appellant. In reports dated March 16 to April 14, 2015, 

he related that she continued to complain of persistent medial left ankle pain. Upon examination, 

Dr. Gregorace found continued tenderness along the medial aspect of appellant’s left ankle. In a 

March 31, 2015 electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) examination 

report, he reported findings consistent with left ankle medial plantar neuropathy and left lower 

peripheral nerve injury. In his April 14, 2015 report Dr. Gregorace diagnosed left ankle 

derangement with deltoid ligament partial tear, ATF ligament partial tear, and CFL partial tear, 

left posterior tibial neuropathy, and nondisplaced left ankle fracture. He advised that appellant 

was totally disabled. 
3

Appellant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left ankle by 

Dr. Lisa A. Corrente, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist. In a March 23, 2015 scan report, 

she observed a high-grade partial-thickness superficial deltoid ligament tear, several acute 

avulsion fractures fragments at medial malleolus, nondisplaced acute medial malleolar fracture 

extending into the distal tibia, partial-thickness ATF and CFL ligament tears, moderate tibiotalar 

joint effusion, plantar calcaneal spur, pes planus deformity, and enthesopathy. 

OWCP initially denied appellant’s claim in a decision dated April 15, 2015 because the 

factual evidence failed to establish that the February 23, 2015 incident occurred as alleged. It 

also determined that the medical evidence had not demonstrated a diagnosed condition as a result 

of the employment incident. 

On June 16, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left ankle sprain in a decision dated July 16, 2015. 

In a separate decision, it denied her claim for the medical conditions of left tarsal tunnel 

syndrome, posterior tibial neuropathy, left ankle derangement, deltoid ligament partial tear, ATF 

ligament partial tear, CFL partial tear, and nondisplaced left ankle fracture. OWCP found that 

the medical evidence of record failed to establish how the accepted February 23, 2015 

employment injury directly caused or contributed to these medical conditions. It determined that 

the medical reports of Dr. Gregorace only provided a generalized opinion on causal relationship 

and did not provide sound medical rationale explaining how the employment incident caused or 

aggravated these additional medical conditions. 

Appellant continued to receive medical treatment from Dr. Gregorace. In a July 9, 2015 

report, Dr. Gregorace related her continued complaints of left ankle pain. Upon examination, he 

observed tenderness along the medial and lateral aspect of the left ankle and painful active range 

of motion. Tinel’s test was positive. Dr. Gregorace diagnosed left tarsal tunnel syndrome, 

posterior tibial neuropathy, left ankle derangement, deltoid ligament partial tear, ATF ligament 

partial tear, CFL partial tear, and nondisplaced left ankle fracture. He advised that appellant was 

totally disabled. Dr. Gregorace recommended that she continue to wear the ankle air cast and 

boot and continue with her home exercise program. 

On August 17, 2015 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) 

alleging that she was unable to work for the period April 10 to August 7, 2015 as a result of her 

accepted injury. On the back of the claim form, the employing establishment indicated that she 

stopped work on February 24, 2015 and received continuation of pay (COP) until April 9, 2015. 

In an August 18, 2015 report, Dr. Steven M. Yager, a podiatrist, related appellant’s 

complaints of pain into her left foot and ankle after being involved in a work injury on 

February 23, 2015. He noted that Dr. Gregorace was currently treating her, but she continued to 

experience pain in her left ankle and felt it “lock” when she walked. Dr. Yager reviewed 

appellant’s history and conducted an examination of her left foot and ankle. He observed 

significant positive Tinel’s sign with percussion to the tibial and posterior tibial nerve and 

explained that this was usually indicative of a lower lumbar radicular pain. Dr. Yager reported 

that range of motion of the left ankle was severely guarded and limited. He also noted that 

appellant experienced tremendous pain with attempted anterior drawer sign. Dr. Yager related 
4

that an MRI scan showed a high-grade tear of the deltoid ligament, partial tear of the ATF 

ligament and CFL ligament, and nondisplaced fractures of the medial malleolus. He diagnosed 

left internal ankle derangement and recommended lower lumbar evaluation of appellant. 

Dr. Gregorace provided a duty status report (Form CA-17) and attending physician’s 

report (Form CA-20) dated August 25, 2015. He indicated that appellant worked as a city carrier 

assistant and had sustained a left ankle injury. The provider diagnosed ligament tears, left post 

tibial neuropathy, and left tarsal tunnel syndrome. He authorized appellant to return to work 

with restrictions. Appellant also resubmitted Dr. Gregorace’s July 9, 2015 report. 

By letter dated August 28, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence was 

insufficient to establish her wage-loss compensation claim. It requested that she submit medical 

evidence to support continuing disability due to the accepted left ankle sprain condition. 

Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested information. 

In a decision dated October 6, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation finding that the medical evidence failed to establish that she was unable to work 

during the period April 10 to August 7, 2015 as a result of her accepted left ankle sprain. It 

noted that the medical reports by Dr. Yager and Dr. Gregorace provided diagnoses of left ankle 

internal derangement, ATF ligament partial tear, CFL ligament partial tear, left tarsal tunnel 

syndrome, left ankle fracture, and left ankle derangement, which were not accepted conditions 

under appellant’s claim. OWCP found that the medical evidence did not demonstrate that 

appellant’s inability to work from April 10 through August 7, 2015 was a result of her workrelated medical condition. 

In a report dated October 8, 2015, Dr. Gregorace explained that the etiology of 

appellant’s left ankle derangement including ligament tears, as well as traction nerve injury to 

the left posterior tibial nerve (tarsal tunnel syndrome), was the twisting mechanism of her injury. 

He related that she twisted her left ankle when going down the stairs. Dr. Gregorace opined: 

“this mechanism of injury is the etiology of this patient’s left ankle derangement inclusive of 

ligament tears, peripheral neuropathy (posterior tibial neuropathy) and fracture of the ankle.” He 

reported that appellant was totally disabled “due to the ambulation dysfunction secondary to the 

left ankle derangement sustained as a result of the accident from February 23, 2015” beginning 

February 23, 2015 until the present. 

Dr. Gregorace continued to treat appellant. In reports dated October 13, 2015 to 

January 14, 2016, he related her complaints of left ankle pain along the medial and lateral aspects 

with tingling. Upon examination of appellant’s left ankle, Dr. Gregorace observed tenderness 

along the left ankle along the medial and lateral aspects. He noted that Tinel’s test was positive 

at the left tarsal tunnel. Dr. Gregorace reported range of motion findings. He diagnosed left 

ankle derangement with a partial tear of the ATF ligament and partial tear of the deltoid CFL 

ligament with left tarsal tunnel syndrome. In a work capacity evaluation form, Dr. Gregorace 

related that appellant was totally disabled and was not able to work. He explained that appellant 

sustained three torn ligaments and a nerve injury to her left ankle. 

In a November 3, 2015 follow-up report, Dr. Yager related appellant’s complaints of 

continued pain in the left foot and ankle. He noted a date of injury of February 23, 2015 and 
5

diagnosis of left ankle sprain and internal derangement. Dr. Yager checked a box marked “yes” 

that the employment incident was the competent medical cause of her injury. 

On February 12, 2016 OWCP received appellant’s request, through counsel, for 

reconsideration. Counsel noted that he was submitting an October 6, 2015 medical note from 

Dr. Gregorace, which had not previously been submitted. No report of that date appears in the 

record. 

On April 19, 2016 appellant, through counsel, requested that appellant’s claim be 

expanded to include left ankle derangement with partial tear of ATF ligament, partial tear of the 

deltoid ligament, and partial tear of the CF ligament with left tarsal tunnel syndrome. 

In a decision dated May 12, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the July 16 and 

October 5, 2015 decisions. It found that the new medical evidence failed to contain a complete 

explanation of how the accepted February 23, 2015 employment injury caused or contributed to 

the diagnosed conditions of left tarsal tunnel syndrome, posterior tibial neuropathy, left ankle 

derangement, deltoid ligament partial tear, ATF ligament partial tear, CFL partial tear, or left 

ankle fracture. OWCP further determined that, because the medical evidence attributed 

appellant’s inability to work to these additional conditions, and not her accepted left ankle sprain, 

she had failed to establish her claim for wage-loss compensation for the period April 10 to 

August 7, 2015. It explained that she had not provided well-rationalized medical evidence to 

establish that these additional conditions or disability were causally related to the February 23, 

2015 employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Where an employee claims that, a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due 

to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is 

causally related to the employment injury.3 To establish a causal relationship between the 

condition as well as any attendant disability claimed and the employment injury, an employee 

must submit rationalized medical evidence based on a complete medical and factual background 

supporting such a causal relationship.4 Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical 

evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.5

 The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the 

employee, 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.6

 Neither the mere fact that a disease or 

condition manifests itself during a period of employment, nor the belief that the disease or 

 3 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 

4 M.W., 57 ECAB 710 (2006); John D. Jackson, 55 ECAB 465 (2004). 

5 D.E., 58 ECAB 448 (2007); Mary J. Summers, 55 ECAB 730 (2004). 

6

 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 
6

condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish 

causal relationship.7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

On February 26, 2015 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that on 

February 23, 2015 she sustained a left ankle injury in the performance of duty. By decision 

dated July 16, 2015, OWCP accepted her claim for left ankle sprain. In a separate decision, it 

also denied appellant’s claim for the conditions of left tarsal tunnel syndrome, posterior tibial 

neuropathy, left ankle derangement, deltoid ligament partial tear, ATF ligament partial tear, CFL 

partial tear, and nondisplaced left ankle fracture because the medical evidence of record failed to 

establish that the February 23, 2015 employment incident caused or contributed to these 

additional medical conditions. The Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof to 

establish that these claimed conditions were causally related to the February 23, 2015 

employment injury. 

Appellant was initially treated in the emergency room by Dr. Hussain. In hospital 

records dated February 24, 2015, she noted that appellant rolled her ankle when she fell down 

some steps at work yesterday. Dr. Hussain provided examination findings and diagnosed left 

ankle sprain. The Board notes that the only medical diagnosis provided was of left ankle sprain. 

Accordingly, the hospital records fail to establish that appellant sustained additional medical 

conditions as a result of the accepted February 23, 2015 employment injury. Similarly, the 

February 24, 2015 diagnostic report by Dr. Tartell also fails to establish any additional medical 

conditions as he did not provide any additional medical diagnosis other than left ankle sprain. 

Dr. Gregorace also treated appellant and provided various reports dated March 2, 2015 to 

January 14, 2016. He described that on February 23, 2015 she was involved in a work-related 

accident when she twisted her left ankle while walking down the stairs. Upon examination, 

Dr. Gregorace observed continued tenderness along the medial aspect of appellant’s left ankle 

and positive Tinel’s test. In the initial March 2, 2015 evaluation, he diagnosed left ankle sprain. 

On March 31, 2015 Dr. Gregorace conducted an EMG/NCV evaluation and reported findings 

consistent with left ankle medial plantar neuropathy and left lower peripheral nerve injury. In an 

April 14, 2015 report, he diagnosed left ankle derangement with deltoid ligament partial tear, 

ATF ligament partial tear, and CFL partial tear; left posterior tibial neuropathy; and nondisplaced 

left ankle fracture. Dr. Gregorace later opined in an October 8, 2015 report that the etiology of 

appellant’s left ankle derangement, including ligament tears and tarsal tunnel syndrome, was the 

twisting mechanism of her injury when she twisted her left ankle when going down the stairs. 

He described that “this mechanism of injury is the etiology of this patient’s ankle derangement 

inclusive of ligament tears, peripheral neuropathy (posterior tibial neuropathy) and fracture of 

the ankle.” 

Although Dr. Gregorace reports contain an accurate description of the February 23, 2015 

employment injury and an affirmative opinion on the causal relationship, they do not contain 

sufficient explanation, based on medical rationale, of how the twisting injury caused or 

 7 V.W., 58 ECAB 428 (2007); Ernest St. Pierre, 51 ECAB 623 (2000). 
7

contributed to her additional medical conditions. He did not explain how twisting an ankle while 

going down the stairs on February 23, 2015 caused or contributed to additional medical 

conditions, other than the accepted left ankle sprain condition.8 Dr. Gregorace did not describe 

the process by which twisting an ankle would have caused or aggravated these additional left 

ankle conditions.9 The Board notes that the need for rationalized medical explanation is 

important in this case since he did not diagnose the additional left ankle conditions until 

April 14, 2015, almost two months after the February 23, 2015 injury.10 Moreover, in 

appellant’s initial examinations by Dr. Hussain and Dr. Gregorace she was diagnosed with only a 

left ankle sprain. The contemporaneous medical evidence did not provide findings of additional 

diagnoses.11 For these reasons, the Board finds that Dr. Gregorace’s reports are of diminished 

probative value to establish that appellant sustained additional diagnoses of her left ankle as a 

result of the accepted February 23, 2015 employment injury. 

Appellant was also treated by Dr. Yager. In reports dated August 18 and November 3, 

2015, Dr. Yager noted that she was involved in a work injury on February 23, 2015. He 

reviewed appellant’s history and related that an MRI scan showed various ligament tears and 

nondisplaced fractures. Dr. Yager conducted an examination and diagnosed left internal ankle 

derangement. He, however, did not provide any rationalized opinion regarding causal 

relationship nor did he opine that appellant’s left ankle derangement was causally related to the 

described February 23, 2015 employment injury. In his November 3, 2015 report, Dr. Yager 

indicated by checking a box marked “yes” that her employment injury was the competent cause 

of her medical conditions. However, the Board has held that a report containing an affirmative 

checkmark, without supporting rationale, is of limited probative value, and insufficient to 

establish the claim.12

Likewise, Dr. Corrente’s March 23, 2015 MRI scan report is insufficient to establish any 

additional medical conditions as she did not provide an opinion on the cause of appellant’s left 

ankle conditions. The Board has found 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.13 

On appeal, counsel asserts that the decision was contrary to fact and law. Appellant, 

however, has not submitted a rationalized medical report showing that she sustained workrelated conditions on February 23, 2015 other than the already accepted left ankle sprain 

condition. The mere fact that a condition manifests itself or is worsened during an employment 

period does not raise an inference of causal relationship between the two. Such a relationship 

must be shown by rationalized medical evidence of a causal relation based upon a specific and 

 8 See B.T., Docket No. 13-0138 (issued March 20, 2013). 

9 See Y.M., Docket No. 15-1196 (issued August 25, 2015). 

10 See M.E., Docket No. 14-1064 (issued September 29, 2014). 

11 See E.C., Docket No. 08-0259 (issued May 7, 2008). 

12 See T.C., Docket No. 16-0586 (issued August 9, 2016). 

13 R.E., Docket No. 10-0679 (issued November 16, 2010); K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007). 
8

accurate history of employment conditions which are alleged to have caused or exacerbated a 

disabling condition.14 The Board finds that appellant has submitted insufficient medical 

evidence to establish additional work-related left ankle conditions causally related to the 

accepted February 23, 2015 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. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

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

disability for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.15 

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.16 Findings on examination are generally needed to 

support a physician’s opinion that an employee is disabled for work.17 The Board will not 

require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of any medical evidence 

addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so would 

essentially allow employees to self-certify their disability and entitlement to compensation.18

To establish a 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 a causal relationship.19 Causal relationship is a medical 

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

evidence.20 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.21

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a left ankle sprain as a result of a February 23, 

2015 employment incident. Appellant stopped work and received COP until April 9, 2015. On 

August 17, 2015 she filed a claim for wage-loss compensation for the period April 10 to 

August 7, 2015. OWCP denied appellant’s claim because of insufficient medical evidence to 

 14 Patricia J. Bolleter, 40 ECAB 373 (1988). 

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

16 Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004). 

17 Dean E. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989). 

18 Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 16. 

19 Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

20 Elizabeth Stanislaw, 49 ECAB 540 (1998). 

21 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 
9

establish that she was unable to work during the claimed period as a result of the February 23, 

2015 employment injury. The Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof. 

The medical evidence of record which addressed the claimed period of disability included 

various medical reports by Dr. Gregorace. In reports dated April 14 to August 25, 2015, he 

noted appellant’s continued complaints of persistent medial left ankle pain due to a February 23, 

2015 work-related accident. Dr. Gregorace reviewed her history and provided findings on 

examination. He diagnosed left ankle derangement with deltoid ligament partial tear, ATF 

ligament partial tear, and CFL partial tear, left posterior tibial neuropathy, and nondisplaced left 

ankle fracture. In various reports, Dr. Gregorace noted that appellant was totally disabled. The 

Board notes that he provided a general opinion that she was unable to work. Dr. Gregorace did 

not, however, discuss any objective findings to support appellant’s inability to work, nor did he 

explain why she was unable to work as a result of her accepted left ankle sprain injury.22 

Because he did not provide any medical rationale for his conclusion that she was unable to work 

due to her February 23, 2015 employment injury, his reports are of diminished probative value 

and are insufficient to establish her disability claim.23 

In an October 8, 2015 narrative report, Dr. Gregorace further opined that appellant was 

totally disabled beginning February 23, 2015 until the present due to the “ambulation 

dysfunction secondary to the left ankle derangement sustained as a result of the accident from 

February 23, 2015.” He, however, attributed her inability to work to left ankle derangement, 

which is not an accepted condition by OWCP. As appellant has not established that she 

sustained this additional condition as a result of the accepted February 23, 2015 employment 

injury she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim for wage-loss compensation.24

Appellant was also treated by Dr. Yager. In reports dated August 18 and November 3, 

2015, he noted her complaints of left foot and ankle pain and reviewed her treatment with 

Dr. Gregorace. Dr. Yager conducted an examination and diagnosed left ankle sprain and internal 

ankle derangement. He did not, however, offer an opinion on appellant’s inability to work. The 

Board has found that medical evidence which does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of 

disability is of limited probative value on that issue.25 Because Dr. Yager failed to address the 

issue of disability for the period April 10 to August 7, 2015, his reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s disability claim. 

Other medical reports submitted by appellant, including diagnostic reports, are of limited 

probative value as they do not address whether her left ankle sprain injury caused disability for 

the period April 10 to August 7, 2015. 

 22 See M.M., Docket No. 16-0541 (issued April 27, 2016). 

23 S.B., Docket No. 13-1162 (issued December 12, 2013). 

24 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (the Board found that where an employee claims that a condition 

not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to 

establish that the condition is causally related to the employment injury. 

25 J.H., Docket No. 15-1877 (issued May 3, 2016); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 
10

On appeal, counsel alleges that OWCP’s decision was contrary to fact and law and that 

the medical evidence was not properly considered. The Board has reviewed the medical 

evidence and has found, as previously discussed above, that appellant has submitted insufficient 

medical evidence to establish disability for the period April 10 to August 7, 2015 as a result of 

her accepted February 23, 2015 employment injury. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of 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. § 10.606 through §10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that her claim should be expanded to 

include left tarsal tunnel syndrome, posterior tibial neuropathy, left ankle derangement, deltoid 

ligament partial tear, ATF ligament partial tear, CFL partial tear, and nondisplaced left ankle 

fracture. The Board further finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish that she 

was disabled from work for the period April 10 to August 7, 2015 as a result of the February 23, 

2015 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 12, 2016 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 13, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board