United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ST. LOUIS 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

St. Louis, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0522

Issued: November 4, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 8, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 5, 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 December 5, 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 her burden of proof to establish intermittent 

disability from August 9 through October 4, 2019, causally related to her accepted March 23, 2019

employment conditions.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 23, 2016 appellant, then a 52-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 19, 2016 she was sweeping mail when her boot 

caught on a belt attached to a pole, causing her to fall on the floor and land on her left elbow and 

knee, while in the performance of duty. 

OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar strain, unspecified dislocation of the right little 

finger, and left ankle deltoid ligament sprain. Appellant stopped work intermittently and OWCP 

paid her wage-loss compensation. On March 22, 2016 she returned to limited-duty work. 

Appellant returned to full-time modified-duty work on June 2, 2017. 

On August 21, 2019 OWCP expanded acceptance of the claim to include the additional 

condition of temporary aggravation of lumbar degenerative disc disease. 

Appellant sought treatment for her conditions with Dr. Nabil Ahmad, Board-certified in 

pain management and physical medicine and rehabilitation. In medical reports dated August 27

and September 10 and 19, 2019, Dr. Ahmad evaluated her due to complaints of recurrent low back 

pain from the March 19, 2016 employment injury. He reported that appellant was currently 

working light duty for the employing establishment and her recurrent back pain was limiting her 

work ability. 

In a September 19, 2019 note, Dr. Ahmad requested that appellant be excused from work 

due to her current medical condition on August 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 26, and 27, September 5, 6, and

13, and October 4, 2019. 

In an October 4, 2019 progress report, Dr. Ahmad evaluated appellant and administered 

bilateral sacroiliac joint injections to the lumbar spine. 

On October 25, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave 

without pay for the intermittent period of August 9 through October 4, 2019. In an attached time 

analysis form (Form CA-7a), she indicated that she was claiming a total of 84 hours of leave. 

In a development letter dated November 4, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that it had 

received her Form CA-7 claiming 84 hours of compensation for the period August 9 through 

October 4, 2019. It notified her that payment was approved for four hours on August 27, 2019 and 

four hours on October 4, 2019 for attending medical appointments. However, the evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish disability compensation for the remainder of the claimed period

because it did not appear that appellant sought medical treatment on those dates; nor did the 

evidence establish that she was disabled from work as a result of her accepted work-related 

conditions. OWCP afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence. 
3

Appellant subsequently submitted an October 28, 2019 progress report, from Dr. Ahmad 

who noted that, following the October 4, 2019 bilateral sacroiliac joint injection, she experienced 

good postprocedure pain relief. Dr. Ahmad further reported that she continued to have some 

tenderness to the left sacroiliac joint, but it was much less than before. He further noted that 

appellant should continue with her lifting restrictions, perform home exercises, continue taking 

back precautions, and avoid any activities that aggravated her symptoms. 

By decision dated December 5, 2019, OWCP authorized payment for four hours of wageloss compensation on August 27, 2019 and four hours on October 4, 2019, for attending medical 

appointments. The claim remained denied, however, as appellant has not provided medical 

evidence establishing that she was disabled from work as a result of her accepted work-related 

medical conditions for the remainder of the claimed period. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Under FECA,3the term disability is defined as incapacity, because of an employment 

injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.4 Disability is not 

synonymous with a physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn the 

wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment 

injury, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn wages he or she was receiving at the time of 

injury has no disability as that term is used in FECA.5

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he 

or she is disabled from work as a result of an accepted employment injury and submit medical 

evidence for each period of disability claimed.6 Whether a particular injury causes an employee 

to be disabled from employment and the duration of that disability are medical issues, which must 

be proven by competent medical evidence.7 To meet this burden of proof, a claimant must submit 

rationalized medical opinion evidence, based on a complete factual and medical background, 

supporting causal relationship between the alleged disabling condition and the accepted injury.8

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability without any medical 

evidence directly 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 

 

3 Supra note 1. 

4 See Prince E. Wallace, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

5 Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999); Maxine J. Sanders, 46 ECAB 835 (1995).

6 B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

7 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 

ECAB 140 (2000).

8 B.R., Docket No. 18-0339 (issued January 24, 2019).
4

compensation.9 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.10

OWCP’s procedures provide that wages lost for compensable medical examination or 

treatment may be reimbursed.11 A claimant who has returned to work following an accepted injury 

or illness may need to undergo examination, testing, or treatment and such employee may be paid 

compensation for wage loss while obtaining medical services or treatment, including a reasonable 

time spent traveling to and from the medical provider’s location.12 Wage loss is payable only if 

the examination, testing, or treatment is provided on a day which is a scheduled workday and 

during a scheduled tour of duty. Wage-loss compensation for medical treatment received during 

off-duty hours is not reimbursable.

13

 The evidence should establish that a claimant attended an 

examination or treatment for the accepted work injury on the dates claimed in order for 

compensation to be payable.14 For a routine medical appointment, a maximum of four hours may 

be allowed. However, longer periods of time may be allowed when required by the nature of the 

medical procedure and/or the need to travel a substantial distance to obtain medical care.15

ANALYSIS

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

disability for the period August 9 through October 4, 2019, causally related to her accepted 

employment conditions.

In a September 19, 2019 note, Dr. Ahmad requested that appellant be excused from work 

on August 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 26, and 27, September 5, 6, and 13, and October 4, 2019, due to her 

current medical condition. While he identified the dates in question, he failed to address the 

specific medical condition that rendered her incapable of performing modified-duty work, such 

that it could be related to the March 19, 2016 employment injury.16 Without medical rationale 

explaining why appellant was disabled from work on each specific date alleged, Dr. Ahmad’s 

report is insufficient to meet her burden of proof.17 

 

9

Id.

10 See D.T., Docket No. 19-1064 (issued February 20, 2020).

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Wages Lost for Medical Examination or Treatment, Chapter 

2.901.19 (February 2013).

12 Id. at Chapter 2.901.19(a); E.W., Docket No. 17-1988 (issued January 28, 2019).

13 Id. at Chapter 2.901.19(a)(2).

14 Id. at Chapter 2.901.19(a)(3).

15 Id. at Chapter 2.901.19(c); T.S., Docket No. 19-0347 (issued July 9, 2019).

16 D.W., Docket No. 17-1954 (issued April 18, 2018). 

17 K.D., Docket No. 19-0628 (issued November 5, 2019); A.T., Docket No. 19-0410 (issued August 13, 2019).
5

Dr. Ahmad’s progress reports also fail to establish appellant’s claim for intermittent 

disability during the period in question. He noted that her complaints of recurrent low back pain 

was limiting her ability to work. However, Dr. Ahmad failed to provide an opinion that appellant

was disabled from work during the claimed period as a result of her accepted employment 

conditions.

18

 Rather, he recommended that she continue with her current, previously implemented, 

work restrictions. Given that appellant’s work restrictions remained unchanged, the Board finds 

that Dr. Ahmad’s reports do not substantiate that she was disabled from modified-duty work on 

the intermittent dates claimed.

19

 As such, Dr. Ahmad’s progress reports fail to establish that she

was disabled during the claimed period due to her accepted employment conditions.

20

The Board also notes that OWCP’s procedures provide that wages lost for compensable 

medical examination or treatment may be reimbursed.21 The evidence should establish that a 

claimant attended an examination or treatment for the accepted work injury on the dates claimed 

in order for compensation to be payable. For a routine medical appointment, a maximum of four 

hours may be allowed.22 While appellant alleged eight hours of wage loss for attending medical 

appointments on August 27 and October 4, 2019, the medical evidence of record does not establish 

that she attended any other medical appointment or was disabled from work during this time frame 

as a result of the accepted employment injuries.23 The record reflects that OWCP paid her four 

hours of wage loss on August 27, 2019 and four hours on October 4, 2019 for attending medical 

appointments. As the evidence of record did not substantiate a need for more than four hours of 

compensation for appellant’s routine medical appointments, she has not established entitlement to 

additional wage-loss compensation due to medical treatment on August 27 and October 4, 2019.24 

The Board finds that appellant failed to submit probative evidence contemporaneous to the 

claimed dates of disability sufficient to establish that she was totally disabled from work due to 

her accepted injury.25 As such, she 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.

 

18 G.J., Docket No. 18-1335 (issued March 22, 2019); K.A., Docket No. 16-0592 (issued October 26, 2016); C.S., 

Docket No. 08-2218 (issued August 7, 2009); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

19 See J.P., Docket No. 18-1396 (issued January 23, 2020).

20 See S.K., Docket No. 18-1537 (issued June 20, 2019).

21 Supra note 11.

22 Id.

23 V.H., Docket No. 19-0807 (issued December 3, 2019).

24 Id.

25 A.L., Docket No. 17-1975 (issued August 21, 2018).
6

CONCLUSION

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

disability for the period August 9 through October 4, 2019 causally related to the accepted 

March 19, 2016 employment conditions. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 5, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 4, 2020

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees' Compensation Appeals Board