United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Lawrenceville, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1813

Issued: April 14, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 28, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 23, 2019 

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.

 

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

ISSUE

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

the period June 26 through August 31, 2018, causally related to her accepted July 7, 2016 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 7, 2016 appellant, then a 61-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she sustained a thumb injury when the contents of a package 

shifted and jammed her thumb while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim 

form, the employing establishment indicated that she did not stop work. 

On September 14, 2016 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of the interphalangeal 

joint of the right thumb. On November 1, 2016 appellant underwent authorized carpometacarpal 

arthroplasty with tendon transfer and reconstruction of the first metacarpocarpal (MCP) joint of 

the right hand, which was performed by Dr. NeilJ. Negrin, an attending Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon.

3

Appellant returned to full-time modified-duty work on January 23, 2017. 

OWCP subsequently received additional medical evidence from Dr. Negrin. In a May 15, 

2018 letter, a May 21, 2018 follow-up visit note, and a May 21, 2018 duty status report (Form 

CA-17), Dr. Negrin indicated that when appellant returned to work following a two-to-three-week 

vacation, her work activities caused recurrent discomfort. He advised that she had reached 

maximum medical improvement (MMI). Additionally, Dr. Negrin noted that appellant had 

permanent restrictions which included no lifting, pushing, or pulling more than five pounds, and 

no repetitive work. He discharged her from his care.

In July 2018 appellant filed wage-loss compensation claims (Form CA-7) seeking 

compensation for leave without pay (LWOP) from June 26 through July 6 and July 9 

through 20, 2018. No medical evidence accompanied her claims.

On July 19, 2018 the employing establishment offered appellant a full-time modified rural 

carrier position based on the work restrictions set forth by Dr. Negrin. The duties of the position 

involved bin verification, issuing scanners weighing less than five pounds, scanning labels for

inbound/outbound dispatch, and printing assigned mail transport equipment placards. The 

physical requirements of the mostly sedentary position included sitting and standing as needed, 

using handheld scanners weighing less than five pounds, and no lifting, pulling, or pushing more 

than five pounds, and no simple grasping and fine manipulation. Appellant did not perform the 

offered job.

 

3 The Board notes that, it appears Dr.Negrin inadvertently indicated in his November 1, 2016 operative report, that 

he performed arthroplasty surgery on the first MCP joint on appellant’s left hand rather than her right hand as the 

remainder of his reports only referenced her right thumb conditions.
3

OWCP, in an August 3, 2018 development letter, requested that appellant submit medical 

evidence to establish that she was unable to perform the offered light-/limited-duty assignment

during the periods June 26 through July 6, 2018 and July 9 through 20, 2018. It afforded her 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence. No additional evidence was received. 

In an August 6, 2018 letter, the employing establishment informed OWCP that appellant 

had rejected its July 19, 2018 job offer asserting that medical documentation placed her off work 

permanently and that she did not have transportation to the duty location. It countered that the 

position was well within her restrictions and less than 50 miles from her duty station. The 

employing establishment contended that appellant returned to her physician to change her 

restrictions to avoid performing the duties of the offered position. It requested that OWCP 

determine the suitability of the offered employment position. 

The employing establishment submitted an August 1, 2018 attending physician’s report 

(Form CA-20) from Dr. Negrin who diagnosed a fractured right thumb and opined that the 

diagnosed condition was directly caused by the accepted July 7, 2016 employment incident. 

Dr. Negrin noted that appellant was totally disabled from work from October 20, 2016 through 

April 10, 2017. He further noted that she was partially disabled from work commencing April 10, 

2017 and that she could return to light-duty work on that same date with permanent restrictions of 

no lifting more than five pounds, pushing or pulling, and no grasping or use of a handheld scanner. 

In August and September 2018, appellant filed several additional Form CA-7 claims for 

compensation for LWOP from July 23 through August 3, August 6 through 17, and August 20 

through 31, 2018. Again, she did not submit any medical evidence along with her claims. 

In an undated letter and note, appellant advised OWCP that she was unable to perform the 

offered position given swelling in her hands, pain shooting up her arm, and inflammation caused 

by her work injury. She noted that she had filed for retirement. 

By decision dated October 5, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for compensation for 

the periods June 26 through July 6 and July 9 through 20, 2018. It noted that she had not responded

to its August 3, 2018 development letter. 

On October 22, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

OWCP, in development letters dated November 9, 2018, requested that appellant submit 

medical evidence to establish that she was unable to perform the offered light-/limited- duty 

assignment during the periods August 6 through 17 and August 20 through 31, 2018. It afforded 

her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No additional evidence was submitted. 

OWCP thereafter received an additional follow-up visit note dated December 3, 2018 from

Dr. Negrin where he reported that appellant had apparently retired or used sick leave as she was 

unable to perform duties that exceeded her restrictions. He discussed findings on physical 

examination and noted that she should continue her restrictions of lifting, pushing, and pulling no 

more than five pounds.
4

By decision dated December 12, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for LWOP 

compensation for the periods August 6 through 17 and August 20 through 31, 2018. It noted that 

she had not responded to its November 9, 2018 development letters.

On December 21, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before 

an OWCP hearing representative, which was held on March 19, 2019.

By decision dated May 23, 2019, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the October 5 

and December 18, 2018 decisions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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.4 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.5

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

earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.6 When, however, the medical

evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an employment injury are such that, from a

medical standpoint, prevent the employee from continuing in his or her employment, he or she is

entitled to compensation for any loss of wages.7

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.

8

 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 between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified

by the employee.

9

 

4

See L.F., Docket No. 19-0324 (issued January 2, 2020); T.L., Docket No. 18-0934 (issued May 8, 2019); 

FereidoonKharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

5

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

6

Id. at § 10.5(f); see e.g., G.T., Docket No. 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 

397 (1999).

7 G.T., id.; Merle J.Marceau, 53 ECAB 197 (2001).

8

See S.J., Docket No. 17-0828 (issued December 20, 2017); KathrynE.DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

9 C.B., Docket No. 18-0633 (issued November 16, 2018); Leslie C.Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler,

45 ECAB 365 (1994).
5

ANALYSIS

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

disability during the period June 26 through August 31, 2018, causally related to her accepted 

July 7, 2016 employment injury.

In support of her claims for compensation, appellant submitted reports from Dr. Negrin

who determined that she reached MMI and provided permanent work restrictions. However, he 

did not provide an opinion on whether appellant was disabled from work during the claimed period 

due to her accepted employment condition. Accordingly, Dr. Negrin’s reports are of no probative 

value and are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim for compensation.10

For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish 

that he or she was disabled from work during the claimed period as a result of the accepted 

employment injury.11 Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence 

to establish employment-related intermittent total disability during the period June 26 through 

August 31, 2018 as a result of her accepted right thumb condition, the Board finds that she has not 

met her burden of proof to establish her claim for disability compensation.

On appeal counsel contends that OWCP’s May 23, 2019 decision is contrary to fact and 

law. He has not, however, provided any evidence to support his argument. As explained above, 

appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish causal relationship between 

her claimed disability and the accepted July 7, 2016 employment injury. As such, she has not met 

her burden of proof.

CONCLUSION

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

disability during the period June 26 through August 31, 2018, causally related to her accepted 

July 7, 2016 employment injury.

 

10 See M.J., Docket No. 19-1287 (issued January 13, 2020); M.M., Docket No. 18-0817 (issued May 17, 2019); 

M.C., Docket No. 16-1238 (issued January 26, 2017).

11 Supra note 4.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 23, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 14, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board