United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.Y., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1304

Issued: March 24, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

AlanJ. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 May 24, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from three March 11, 

2019 merit decisions 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 to consider 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 from work 

on January 19 and May 25, 2014, and from April 19 to 23, 2018 causally related to her accepted 

employment conditions.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 1, 2012 appellant, then a 46-year-old mail processor/clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an acute cervical disc prolapse 

causally related to factors of her federal employment.

3

 She indicated that she initially became 

aware of the condition and its relationship to her federal employment on September 28, 2012. 

When appellant returned to duty on September 28, 2012 following an extended absence, the 

employing establishment sent her home as no work was available within her medical restrictions. 

Dr. Zakari M. Tata, Board-certified in family practice and palliative care, released 

appellant to modified-duty work on October 1, 2012. 

In a November 8, 2012 report, Dr. Abiola Dianne Adisa-Obadyan a Board-certified 

physiatrist, diagnosed right carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis of the right shoulder, and 

degenerative disc disease. Appellant returned to modified-duty work on November 26, 2012. 

However, she stopped work again on January 3, 2013. 

On June 18, 2013 appellant underwent authorized right shoulder arthroscopy with 

subacromial decompression and extensive subacromial debridement to address right shoulder 

impingement syndrome. OWCP accepted the claim for right rotator cuff tendinitis, cervical sprain, 

and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation for the period 

July 8 to December 27, 2013. Dr. Adisa-Obayan held appellant off from work through 

January 17, 2014.

In a January 21, 2014 report, Dr. Adisa-Obayan opined that appellant had attained 

maximum medical improvement (MMI). She returned appellant to modified-duty work, with 

limited use of the right arm, lifting restricted to three pounds, no use of the right arm above 

shoulder level, and no use of power or vibratory tools. Dr. Adisa-Obayan renewed these 

restrictions through April 28, 2014. Appellant remained off work.

In a May 19, 2014 report, Dr. Adisa-Obayan noted that appellant’s condition was 

unchanged. She renewed prior work restrictions and renewed medications.

In a January 23, 2015 report, Dr. Adisa-Obayan noted that appellant had returned to 

restricted duty as a customer care agent, answering the telephone and typing. She found that 

appellant’s condition was unchanged. Dr. Adisa-Obayan diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome, 

 

3 The record indicates that under OWCP File No. xxxxxx808, appellant claimed a November 7, 2000 traumatic 

injury to her neck and lower back. She lost no time from work.
3

lumbar degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis of the right shoulder, a rotator cuff disorder, and 

sprains and strains of the neck.

On July 17, 2018 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for January 19 and

May 25, 2014, and April 19 to 23, 2018.

In a development letter dated July 20, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the factual and 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish her claims. It advised her regarding the 

evidence necessary to establish her claim and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence.

By two separate decisions dated August 30, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for 

compensation for wage-loss on January 19 and May 25, 2014, as she submitted no evidence 

supporting disability from work on the claimed dates.

By decision dated August 31, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

wage loss from April 19 to 23, 2018 as appellant submitted no evidence supporting disability for 

the claimed dates.

On September 6, 2018 counsel requested a telephonic oral hearing from the August 30 and 

31, 2018 decisions. During the hearing, held on February 8, 2019, appellant testified that she could 

not recall why she had claimed wage-loss compensation for January 19, 2014, that May 25, 2014 

was a holiday for which she should have received compensation, and that a physician had held her 

off work for the period April 19 to 23, 2018. The hearing representative left the record open for 

30 days to allow appellant to submit additional evidence.

OWCP issued three separate decisions dated March 11, 2019 affirming its August 30 and 

31, 2018 decisions denying appellant’s claims for compensation for the periods January 19 and 

May 25, 2014 and April 19 to 23, 2018. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the December 13, 2012 employment injury.5

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

to earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of injury.6 The question of whether an 

employee is disabled from work is an issue that must be resolved by competent medical evidence.7 

 

4 Supra note 1.

5 S.H., Docket No. 19-1128 (issued December 2, 2019); C.R., Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn 

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

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

7 S.H., supra note 5; A.T., Docket No. 19-0410 (issued August 13, 2019).
4

The employee is responsible for providing sufficient medical evidence to justify payment of 

compensation sought.8

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.9 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 his or her disability and entitlement to 

compensation.10

ANALYSIS

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

January 19 and May 25, 2014, or from April 19 to 23, 2018 causally related to her accepted 

conditions.

Appellant submitted several reports from Dr. Adisa-Obayan. Dr. Adisa-Obayan returned 

appellant to modified-duty work, with limited use of the right arm, lifting restricted to three 

pounds, no use of the right arm above shoulder level, and no use of power or vibratory tools. She

renewed these restrictions through April 28, 2014 and again on January 23, 2015. In a May 19, 

2014 report, Dr. Adisa-Obayan noted that appellant’s condition was unchanged. In a January 23, 

2015 report, she noted that appellant had returned to restricted duty as a customer care agent, 

answering the telephone and typing. Dr. Adisa-Obayan again found that appellant’s condition was 

unchanged. However, in those reports she did not address whether appellant’s accepted conditions 

disabled her from work during the claimed period. The Board has held that medical evidence that 

does not provide an opinion as to whether a period of disability is due to an accepted employment 

condition is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.11 Therefore these reports are 

insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As there is no medical evidence of record to establish that the accepted conditions disabled 

appellant from work on the dates claimed, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of 

proof.12

On appeal counsel contends that OWCP’s March 11, 2019 decisions are “[c]ontrary to law 

and fact.” As explained above, appellant failed to submit medical evidence supporting disability 

for the claimed periods and therefore has not met her burden of proof.

 

8

Id.; see T.A., Docket No. 18-0431 (issued November 7, 2018); see also Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

9 S.H., supra note 5; S.M., Docket No. 17-1557 (issued September 4, 2018); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674, 679 

(2004); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

10 T.L., Docket No. 18-0934 (issued May 8, 2019); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

11 M.A., Docket No. 19-1119 (issued November 25, 2019); S.I., Docket No. 18-1582 (issued June 20, 2019).

12 S.H., supra note 5; A.T., supra note 7; Sandra Pruitt, supra note 10.
5

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 on January 19 and May 25, 2014, or from April 19 to 23, 2018 causally related to her accepted 

conditions.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the three March 11, 2019 decisions of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: March 24, 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