United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MID-ISLAND 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Melville, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1255

Issued: February 3, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 1, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 29, 2020 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 the case.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the April 29, 2020 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 disability from work 

for the period November 12 through 22, 2019.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 27, 2019 appellant, then a 46-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 20, 2019, when loading a postal container onto a 

trailer, she was struck on the right side of her head by a falling shelf while in the performance of 

duty. She stopped work on September 24, 2019. OWCP ultimately accepted appellant’s claim on 

March 20, 2020 for traumatic brain injury without loss of consciousness, sprain of the ligaments 

of the cervical spine, and strain of the muscle, fascia, and tendon at the neck level. Appellant 

continued to work until September 28, 2019. She received continuation of pay (COP) from

September 28 through November 11, 2019.

On October 4 2019 Dr. Ranga Krishna, a Board-certified neurologist, diagnosed 

concussion and cervical radiculopathy. He noted that appellant was totally disabled until

reevaluation on November 15, 2019.

An October 15, 2019 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the brain, interpreted by

Dr. Karl l. Llussman, a Board-certified neuroradiologist, revealed evidence of traumatic brain 

injury.

In a November 15, 2019 follow-up visit, Dr. Krishna diagnosed traumatic brain injury and 

noted that appellant was totally disabled until reevaluation on December 18, 2019.

On November 22, 2019 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) 

for work-related disability for the period November 12 through 22, 2019. On page two of the 

Form CA-7 the employing establishment indicated that appellant received COP from 

September 28 through November 11, 2019.

Dr. Krishna treated appellant on October 4 and November 15, 2019 for head and neck pain,

which began on September 20, 2019, when she was struck on the head by a piece of equipment

while at work. Findings on examination revealed mild-to-moderate tenderness along the cervical 

and lumbosacral spine and muscle spasm. Dr. Krishna diagnosed headaches, traumatic brain

injury, and cervical sprain/strain. He opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that 

appellant’s physical injuries were the competent cause of impairment and total disability and 

causally related to the employment injuries. 

Appellant attended hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) treatments on November 4, 11, 

and 25, 2019.

On December 20, 2019 Dr. Krishna noted that appellant had persistent head and neck pain 

with numbness and tingling in the right upper extremity, which began after she was struck in the 

head by a piece of equipment at work. He diagnosed headaches, traumatic brain injury, and 

cervical sprain/strain. Dr. Krishna opined that, based on appellant’s history and physical 

examination, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty her physical injuries were the competent 
3

provocative cause of the impairment and total disability and causally related to the accident noted 

above. Similarly, on January 6, 2020 appellant presented with complaints of severe headaches, 

difficulty concentrating, blurry vision, and vision loss. Dr. Krishna reviewed the October 15, 2019 

MRI scan of the brain, which demonstrated evidence compatible with traumatic brain injury. He

diagnosed traumatic brain injury and cervical sprain/strain. In summary, Dr. Krishna opined that 

appellant’s physical injuries were directly caused by the September 20, 2019 employment

accident. He advised that appellant had no prior history of the above diagnoses and remained 

totally disabled from work.

Dr. Krishna continued to treat appellant through January 17, 2020. He indicated that she

was still experiencing head and neck pain, numbness and tingling in the right upper extremity, and 

memory impairment. Dr. Krishna diagnosed headaches, traumatic brain injury, and cervical 

sprain/strain and opined that appellant was totally disabled. He again opined that her physical 

injuries were the competent cause of the impairment and disability, and were causally related to 

the employment accident. In a prescription note of even date, Dr. Krishna diagnosed 

polyneuropathy.

In a development letter dated March 20, 2020, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

medical evidence to support disability during the period claimed causally related to the accepted 

September 20, 2019 employment injuries. It afforded her 30 days to submit the requested 

evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated April 29, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had 

not established disability from work for the period November 12 through 22, 2019 causally related 

to the accepted September 20, 2019 employment injuries.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim.

4

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.5 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.6

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 M.C., Docket No. 18-0919 (issued October 18, 2018); B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018); 

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

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April 29, 2020); B.K., id..

6 See B.C., Docket No. 18-0692 (issued June 5, 2020).
4

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 reliable, probative, and 

substantial medical opinion evidence.8

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 their disability and 

entitlement to compensation.9

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period November 12 through 22, 2019.

In an October 9, 2019 note, Dr. Krishna diagnosed concussion and cervical radiculopathy 

and opined that appellant was totally disabled until reevaluation on November 15, 2019. Similarly, 

in a follow-up visit dated November 15, 2019, he diagnosed traumatic brain injury and noted that 

appellant was totally disabled until reevaluation on December 18, 2019. However, Dr. Krishna 

offered no opinion as to whether appellant’s accepted conditions were the cause of her disability. 

The Board has held that medical evidence that does not provide an opinion regarding whether a 

period of disability is due to an accepted employment condition is of no probative value and, thus,

is insufficient to establish a claim.10 Dr. Krishna did not provide rationale explaining how or why 

appellant was disabled from work. Consequently, his reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.11

Dr. Krishna treated appellant on October 4 and November 15, 2019, and January 17, 2020,

and diagnosed headaches, traumatic brain injury, and cervical sprain/strain. He opined that, based 

on appellant’s history and his physical examination to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,

her physical injuries were the competent provocative cause of the impairment and total disability 

and causally related to the accident noted above. While Dr. Krishna provided affirmative opinions,

which supported causal relationship, he did not offer a rationalized medical explanation in any of 

these reports to support his opinion. Medical evidence that provides a conclusion, but does not 

 

7 See C.E., Docket No. 19-1617 (issued June 3, 2020).

8 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see W.C., Docket No. 19-1740 (issued June 4, 2020); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 

291 (2001).

9

J.K., Docket No. 19-0488 (issued June 5, 2020); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

10 See L.L., Docket No. 19-1794 (issued October 2, 2020); C.R., Docket No. 19-1427 (issued January 3, 2020); L.B., 

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

11 Id.
5

offer a rationalized medical explanation regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of 

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.12

Similarly, on January 6, 2020 Dr. Krishna diagnosed traumatic brain injury and cervical 

sprain/strain. In summary, he opined that, based on the history and physical examination,

appellant’s physical injuries were directly caused by the September 20, 2019 incident. Dr. Krishna

advised that appellant had no prior history of the above diagnoses and remained totally disabled 

from work. However, the Board has held that an opinion that a condition is causally related to an 

employment injury because the employee was asymptomatic before the injury is insufficient, 

without adequate rationale, to establish causal relationship.13 For these reasons, the Board finds 

that Dr. Krishna’s report are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.14

The record also contains a September 28, 2019 x-ray of the right hand, CT of the brain, CT 

of the cervical and thoracic spine, and an October 15, 2019 MRI scan of the brain interpreted by

Dr. Llussman. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not address whether the accepted 

employment injuries resulted in appellant’s period of disability on specific dates.15

Appellant also submitted notes from hyperbaric oxygen therapy treatment on November 4, 

11 and 25, 2019 signed by an oxygen therapist. The Board has held that medical reports signed 

solely by a physical therapist are of no probative value as such healthcare providers are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA and are, therefore, not competent to provide medical 

opinions.16

 

12 C.V., Docket No. 18-1106 (issued March 20, 2019); M.E., Docket No. 18-0330 (issued September 14, 2018); 

A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006).

13 See F.H., Docket No. 18-1238 (issued January 18, 2019); J.R., Docket No. 18-0206 (issued October 15, 2018).

14 Additionally, Dr. Krishna did not offer medical rationale explaining the basis of his conclusory opinion regarding 

the causal relationship between appellant’s traumatic brain injury and cervical sprain/strain and the factors of her 

federal employment. See P.L., Docket No. 19-1750 (issued March 26, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 

140 (2000) (where the Board has held that a mere conclusion without the necessary rationale as to whether a period 

of disability is due to an accepted employment condition is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof). See 

A.T., Docket No. 19-0410 (issued August 13, 2019); E.L., Docket No. 17-1632 (issued January 3, 2018). As such, 

this report is of limited probative value.

15 O.C., Docket No. 20-0514 (issued October 8, 2020); R.J., Docket No. 19-0179 (issued May 26, 2020).

16 Section 8101(2) provides that physician “includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law.” 

See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals 

such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under 

FECA); R.L., Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (nurse practitioners and physical therapists are not considered 

physicians under FECA).
6

Appellant did not provide medical evidence containing a rationalized opinion establishing 

that she was disabled from work from November 12 through 22, 2019 causally related to the 

September 20, 2019 employment injury. She, thus, has not met her burden of proof.17

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

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

work for the period November 12 through 22, 2019.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 29, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 3, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

17 L.L., supra note 10; E.M., Docket No. 18-0454 (issued February 20, 2020).