United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LOCKPORT 

CARRIER ANNEX, Lockport, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1510

Issued: May 2, 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 August 1, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 16, 2018 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 has met her burden of proof to establish intermittent 

disability during the period August 24 through November 28, 2017 causally related to a 

November 26, 2013 employment injury.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 26, 2013 appellant, then a 48-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that date, she injured her lower back while 

loading mail in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar sprain. It paid 

appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls beginning January 11, 2014, and on 

the periodic rolls as of March 8, 2015. 

Dr. Suneela Harsoor, Board-certified in anesthesiology and pain medicine, began treating 

appellant for back pain on June 26, 2014. She initially indicated that appellant could not perform

lifting. However, on October 14, 2014 Dr. Harsoor amended appellant’s lifting restriction to 20 

pounds. In a treatment note dated January 6, 2015, she diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and sprain, 

lumbar region. 

On February 5, 2015 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Theodore J. Suchy, an osteopath who 

practices orthopedic surgery, for a second opinion regarding appellant’s disability status. In a 

March 23, 2015 report, Dr. Suchy advised that appellant continued to have residuals of the 

accepted lumbar sprain and had also developed persistent lumbar myositis with right lower 

extremity radiculopathy. He advised that appellant could perform light duty and provided physical 

restrictions.3

Dr. Harsoor continued to submit duty status reports (Form CA-17) indicating that appellant 

could not return to her regular job duties. On June 2, 2015 she advised that appellant had a 20-

pound lifting restriction, but as of August 6, 2015, lowered appellant’s lifting restriction to 10 

pounds.

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated June 13, 2017, Dr. Harsoor noted clinical 

findings, a diagnosis of low back pain, and that appellant had not been advised that she could return 

to work. She provided daily restrictions of lifting/carrying, sitting, standing, walking, and reaching 

above the shoulder limited to 2 hours each; bending/stooping and pushing/pulling limited to 1 

hour; simple grasping and fine manipulation limited to 8 hours; driving limited to 2 to 3 hours, 

with no climbing, kneeling, or twisting; and a 10-pound lifting restriction. In an undated letter, 

received by OWCP on June 23, 2017, Dr. Harsoor advised that appellant’s employment injury 

caused a sprain in the lumbar region, a lumbar disc herniation, and lumbar radiculopathy. She 

indicated that appellant had reduced lumbar spine range of motion, trigger points in the lower back, 

and reduced strength in the right leg with residual pain. Dr. Harsoor advised that appellant could 

return to light-duty work. 

On June 16, 2017 the employing establishment offered appellant a limited-duty position 

for four hours daily. Appellant refused the position on June 19, 2017 writing “Medical Disability

SSA.” An attached April 7, 2017 letter from Social Security Administration (SSA) to appellant 

indicated that she had met the medical requirements for disability payments, but that a decision 

had not been made about whether she had met the nonmedical requirements. 

By letter dated July 3, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that the offered limited-duty position 

was suitable. It notified her that if she failed to report to work, or failed to demonstrate that the 

 

3 Dr. Suchy also reported that he reviewed a February 23, 2015 functional capacity evaluation (FCE) that is not 

found in the case record.
3

failure to report was justified, pursuant to section 8106(c)(2) of FECA, her right to compensation 

for wage loss or a schedule award would be terminated. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond. 

Appellant again refused the offer on July 10, 2017, writing “not suitable -- job offer does 

not address climbing & twisting which is associated with climbing in and out, twisting into vehicle. 

Duty status report shows 2 to 3 hrs. Job is offered at 10 - 2 pm = 4 hours.” On a duty status report 

(Form CA-17) dated July 20, 2017, Dr. Harsoor repeated appellant’s physical restrictions. 

In e-mail correspondence dated July 27, 2017, C.V., an injury compensation specialist at 

the employing establishment, indicated that loading a delivery vehicle did not require twisting. 

She noted that appellant would only be delivering Express Mail pieces and not delivering a route,

so there would be no loading of trays of mail. C.V. advised that the letters appellant would carry 

would weigh less than appellant’s maximum of 10 pounds. She further noted that appellant could 

sit or stand while working undeliverable bulk business mail (UBBM). 

OWCP confirmed that the offered limited-duty position was still available, and by letter 

dated August 10, 2017, it advised appellant that her reasons for refusing the offered position were 

not valid. It afforded her an additional 15 days to accept the job offer. 

On August 24, 2017 the employing establishment reported that appellant had returned to 

work on August 23, 2017.

On September 21, 2017 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

intermittent use of leave without pay for the period August 19 to September 15, 2017. The 

attached time analysis form (Form CA-7a) indicated that appellant worked three hours on 

August 24, 2017 and two hours each day on August 28 and 29, 2017. She then stopped work

completely. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence in support of her claim for compensation. In a note 

dated August 24, 2017, Dr. Harsoor indicated that appellant could not work August 24 

through 27, 2017. She enclosed a duty status report (Form CA-17) with new restrictions that 

limited sitting, standing, walking, and driving a vehicle to one hour daily. 

On a disability slip dated August 29, 2017, Dr. M. Aijaz, a Board-certified internist, 

advised that appellant was unable to work from August 29 to September 10, 2017 due to neck and 

back pain.

Appellant subsequently filed another claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave 

without pay used for the period September 16 to 29, 2017.

On September 26, 2017 the employing establishment informed OWCP that the offered 

limited-duty position remained available. By letter dated September 26, 2017, OWCP again 

advised appellant that the position offered was suitable, and again notified her that if she failed to 

report to work or failed to demonstrate that the failure to report was justified, pursuant to section 

8106(c)(2) of FECA, her right to compensation for wage loss or a schedule award would be 

terminated. OWCP afforded her 30 days to respond.

In correspondence dated October 4, 2017, appellant asserted that she was physically unable 

to meet the required hours and limitations of the offered position and that, after informing her 
4

physician that she could not perform the duties, her duty status report (Form CA-17) was changed 

to two hours daily. She submitted a September 26, 2017 report from Dr. Harsoor, which indicated 

that appellant was held off work until October 3, 2017. An attached duty status report (Form 

CA-17) indicated that, due to low back pain, appellant could only work two hours per day with a 

10-pound lifting restriction. Lifting, carrying, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, twisting, 

simple grasping, and driving a vehicle were each limited to one hour daily with no kneeling, 

bending, stooping, pulling, or pushing.

In an October 10, 2017 statement, appellant maintained that she had not abandoned her 

job, citing the change in her physical restrictions, and asserted that she had been harassed about 

her restrictions.

OWCP subsequently received an October 26, 2017 report, wherein Dr. Harsoor noted pain 

on palpation of the lumbar spine with reduced spinal range of motion. Dr. Harsoor indicated that 

appellant’s gait was normal. Left lower extremity strength was 5/5, and right 4/5. Straight leg 

raising was negative. Dr. Harsoor diagnosed sprain lumbar region, herniation of lumbar disc, and 

lumbar radiculopathy.

On November 3, 2017 the employing establishment confirmed that the offered limitedduty position remained available. On November 7, 2017 OWCP advised appellant that her reasons 

for refusing the offered position were not valid and afforded her an additional 15 days to accept

the position. On November 29, 2017 the employing establishment again confirmed that she had 

not returned to work and that the position remained available. 

By decision dated November 30, 2017, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and entitlement to schedule award benefits pursuant to section 8106(c)(2) of FECA, 

effective November 29, 2017. It noted that Dr. Harsoor had not explained how the accepted lumbar 

sprain had progressed into other conditions or how her condition worsened following her return to 

work on August 23, 2017. OWCP concluded that appellant had abandoned suitable work. 

OWCP subsequently received a November 30, 2017 report, wherein Dr. Harsoor reiterated 

her findings and conclusions. 

By decision dated December 7, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for compensation 

for intermittent disability commencing August 24, 2017. It found that the medical evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim because it did not explain how or why her return 

to work on August 23, 2017 had caused the accepted lumbar sprain to worsen. 

On December 29, 2017 appellant requested a review of the written record from the 

December 7, 2017 decision with OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. OWCP continued to 

receive medical evidence. 

In correspondence dated April 18, 2018, C.J., appellant’s supervisor, asserted that the 

employing establishment never told appellant that she was not allowed to work. C.J. concluded 

that appellant had not reported for duty since she stopped work on August 29, 2017. 

By decision dated May 16, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

December 7, 2017 decision in part and reversed it in part. He found that appellant was entitled to 

payment of compensation for four hours per scheduled day of wage-loss compensation for the 
5

period August 24 through November 29, 2017, but the remaining balance of each scheduled partial 

day remained denied.

4

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight 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 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.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 Furthermore, 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.10

To establish causal relationship between the disability claimed and the accepted 

employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence, based on a complete 

factual and medical background, supporting such causal relationship.11 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.12

ANALYSIS

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

disability for the period August 24 through November 28, 2017 causally related to the 

November 26, 2013 employment injury. 

 

4 The Board notes that the termination of wage-loss compensation commenced on November 29, 2017 and therefore 

appellant was only entitled to compensation through November 28, 2017. 

5 Supra note 1.

6 See D.W., Docket No. 18-0644 (issued November 15, 2018).

7

Id.

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

9

Id.

10 T.O., Docket No. 17-1177 (issued November 2, 2018).

11 G.T., Docket No. 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

12 See S.J., Docket No. 17-0828 (issued December 20, 2017); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994). 
6

In a June 13, 2017 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Harsoor provided restrictions of:

lifting/carrying, sitting, standing, walking, and reaching above the shoulder each limited to two

hours daily; bending/stooping and pushing/pulling limited to one hour; simple grasping and fine 

manipulation limited to eight hours daily; and driving limited to two to three hours daily; with no 

climbing, kneeling, or twisting; and a 10-pound lifting restriction. Based on these restrictions, on 

June 16, 2017 the employing establishment offered appellant a limited-duty position for four hours 

daily in which she was to deliver Express Mail and work UBBM. Appellant initially refused the 

offered position. She briefly returned to work on August 24, 29, and 30, 2017 and then stopped 

work and has not returned.

Dr. Harsoor also provided an undated letter in which she indicated that, in addition to the 

accepted lumbar sprain, the employment injury also caused lumbar disc herniation and lumbar 

radiculopathy. On August 24, 2017 she advised that appellant could not work from August 24 

through 27, 2017 and provided new restrictions that limited sitting, standing, walking, and driving 

a vehicle to one hour daily. On September 26, 2017 Dr. Harsoor indicated that appellant should 

not work until October 3, 2017 and attached a duty status report (Form CA-17) indicating that, due 

to low back pain, appellant could only work two hours per day with a 10-pound lifting restriction. 

Lifting, carrying, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, twisting, simple grasping, and driving a 

vehicle were limited to one hour daily with no kneeling, bending, stooping, pulling, or pushing. 

The Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish intermittent 

disability during the claimed period. Appellant did not address causal relationship to the accepted 

employment injury. 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.13 Dr. Harsoor’s

opinion is therefore insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish total disability for 

the period August 24 through November 28, 2017.14

As to Dr. Aijaz’s August 29, 2017 disability slip, although he advised that appellant could 

not work from August 29 to September 10, 2017 due to neck and back pain, he did not reference 

the November 26, 2013 employment injury. His opinion is, therefore, insufficient to establish that 

appellant was disabled for that period.15

The Board thus finds that appellant has not established intermittent disability during the 

claimed period causally related to the November 26, 2013 employment injury.

Appellant asserts on appeal that the medical evidence established that she was disabled 

from work during the claimed period. However, as explained above, she has not submitted 

sufficient rationalized medical opinion evidence to establish intermittent disability for the claimed 

period and, therefore, has not met her 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.

 

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

14 K.K., Docket No. 17-1061 (issued July 25, 2018).

15 See E.G., Docket No. 17-1955 (issued September 10, 2018).
7

CONCLUSION

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

disability for the period August 24 through November 28, 2017 causally related to the 

November 26, 2013 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 16, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 2, 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