United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Orlando, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0520

Issued: July 7, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Wayne Johnson, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 6, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from October 18 and 

December 26, 2019 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.4

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 Counsel did not appeal OWCP’s three December 10, 2019 decisions denying appellant’s disability claims for 

intermittent periods March16 through October 25, 2019. 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 The Board notes that,following the December 26, 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 during the period September 8, 2018 through March 15, 2019 causally related to her 

accepted March 30, 2014 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 9, 2014 appellant, then a 53-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she injured her neck, shoulders, and arms due to factors of her 

federal employment, including repetitive pushing, pulling, and lifting of containers and tubs. On 

May 13, 2015 OWCP accepted the claim for temporary aggravation of degenerative cervical 

intervertebral disc, temporary aggravation of cervical radiculopathy, and bilateral shoulder 

impingement. On June 17, 2015 appellant returned to full-time limited-duty work, with lifting 

required up to 20 pounds. 

Dr. Robert R. Reppy, a family medicine specialist, treated appellant on September 7, 2018 

for neck and bilateral shoulder pain. He diagnosed disc herniation at T1-2 and T3-4; bilateral T1 

neuropathy, cervical stenosis at multiple levels, left shoulder degenerative joint disease, and 

cervical disc herniation at C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7 with radiculopathy to the upper extremities. 

Dr. Reppy indicated that appellant’s diagnoses remained unchanged, and that in addition to her 

15-pound lifting restriction she should avoid overtime work. 

Work excuse forms from an unidentified medical provider indicated no work on 

September 14, and 15, 2018 “due to flare ups.” 

In an October 5, 2018 report, Dr. Reppy noted that appellant had related that her right knee 

gave out and she had fallen during the prior week. Appellant also reported that she had right arm 

paresthesia down to her hand. Dr. Reppy noted that she had missed eight days of work last month 

due to “flare ups of [appellant’s] condition.” He concluded that appellant’s physical examination 

was relatively unchanged, as were his diagnoses and recommended work tolerances. 

In a November 2, 2018 report, Dr. Reppy indicated that appellant missed eight days of 

work last month. He also completed a Form CA-17 on even date and reported that her diagnoses 

and work restrictions remained unchanged. 

In a December 7, 2018 report, Dr. Reppy noted appellant’s complaints of neck and bilateral 

shoulder pain, right greater than left. He also noted that she reported significant knee problems, 

used a knee brace and walked without a cane. Dr. Reppy indicated that appellant would likely 

need a knee replacement. He reported that she continued to work full time, but had missed five

days of work in the past five weeks due to “flare ups of [appellant’s] condition.” Dr. Reppy 

indicated that appellant had full shoulder abduction on both arms, but the right shoulder internal 

rotation produced some pain. Deltoids were weak, but biceps and triceps strength was full. Grip 

strength was mildly diminished. No edema was noted. Appellant was to continue work, avoiding 

overtime, and lifting over 15 pounds. 

On December 26, 2018 appellant filed a claim for intermittent wage loss (Form CA-7) for 

disability from work from September 8 through December 7, 2018. Attached time analysis forms 

(Form CA-7a), which the employing establishment certified on December 28, 2018, were 

submitted. On the CA-7a forms appellant claimed the following wage loss: 8 hours on 

September 14, 15, 18, 22, and 25, 2018; 8 hours on October 16, 20, 23, and 25, 2018; 8 hours on 
3

October 26, 30, and 31 and November 6, 2018; 8 hours on November 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 22, 

2018; 8 hours on November 28 and October 10, 2018; 8 hours on October 2, 2018; 8 hours on 

November 23, 2018; and 4 hours on December 5, 2018. 

On December 26, 2018 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for intermittent disability during the 

period December 8 through 21, 2018. On an attached Form CA-7a she claimed the following wage 

loss: 8 hours on December 8, 11, 12, 15 and 18; and 3.5 hours on December 20, 2018. 

On January 7, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for intermittent disability during the 

period December 22, 2018 through January 4, 2019. On an attached Form CA-7a, which the 

employing establishment certified on January 14, 2018 she claimed the following wage loss: 8 

hours on December 25, 26, 27, and 28, 2018.

On January 10, 2019 OWCP authorized payment for up to four hours due to physical

therapy appointments on October 23 and November 10 and 21, 2018 and 3.5 hours due to a 

physical therapy appointment on December 20, 2018. It noted that appellant submitted no medical 

evidence to support a work stoppage on for the remaining hours claimed, which included 

intermittent dates through December 5, 2018, and it informed her of the type of medical evidence 

necessary to establish her claim for compensation. OWCP afforded her 30 days to respond. 

In a January 18, 2019 report, Dr. Reppy noted that appellant missed nine days of work in 

December 2018 due to flare up of her condition. He indicated that examination of the right 

shoulder had full motion, but some numbness in the right hand first digit. Deltoid strength was 

weak, the balance of the strength tests were unchanged from December 2018. Circulation was 

intact and no edema was found. Diagnoses and work restrictions were unchanged. 

On January 21, 2019Dr. Silvana Gonzalez-Reiley, a Board-certified neurologist, evaluated 

appellant for thoracic outlet syndrome and performed a nerve conduction study. She indicated that 

the results were normal. 

Also on January 21, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for intermittent disability from work 

during the period January 5 through 18, 2019. In an attached Form CA-7a, which the employing 

establishment certified on January 24, 2019, she listed 8 hours LWOP on January 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 

11, and 17, 2019. 

On February 5, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for intermittent disability during the 

period January 19 through February 1, 2019. On an attached Form CA-7a, which the employing 

establishment certified on February 11, 2019, she claimed the following wage loss: 8 hours on 

January 23 and 26, 2019. 

In a February 15, 2019 report, Dr. Reppy indicated that appellant’s neck and shoulder pain 

was her most bothersome complaint. He reviewed an electromyogram study and indicated that it 

was suggestive of carpal tunnel syndrome and a radiculopathy could not be ruled out. Dr. Reppy 

noted that appellant missed four days of work in February 2019 so far. He indicated that the 

examination showed reduced cervical motion on rotation and side bending bilaterally. Some righthand numbness remained, but both arms had full motion with no edema. Work restrictions 

remained unchanged.

On March 4, 2019 appellant filed two additional CA-7 forms for intermittent disability 

from work during the periods February 2 through 15, 2019 and February 16 through 

March 1, 2019. On attached CA-7a forms, which the employing establishment certified on 
4

March 6, 2019, she claimed the following wage loss: 8 hours on February 1, 2, and 9, 2019; and 

8 hours on February 15, 20, and 21, 2019.

In a March 15, 2019 report, Dr. Reppy reported that appellant had elevated work stress, 

with bilateral shoulder and neck pain. He indicated that there had been no changes in her work 

hours and that she did not miss any work in the past month. Examination found full shoulder 

motion on both sides, with no crepitus and no edema. Cervical motion was reduced inside bending 

and rotation. Work restrictions remained unchanged. 

In compensation claim development letters dated January 18, February 5 and 22, and 

March 12, 2019, OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical evidence needed to establish her 

disability claims and requested that she submit sufficiently-reasoned evidence supported by 

objective evidence of a material change in the accepted impingement diagnoses within 30 days. 

By decision dated March 19, 2019, OWCP paid four hours of compensation for medical 

appointments on June 8 and November 28, 2018; however, it denied the remaining claimed 

intermittent disability during the period June 8 through December 5, 2018. 

OWCP issued three separate decisions dated March 20, 2019 which denied appellant’s 

remaining claimed intermittent disability for the periods December 8 through 21, 2018;

December 21, 2018 through January 3, 2019; and January 4 through 18, 2019. 

In a March 22, 2019 report, Dr. Reppy contended that it was unreasonable to demand a 

medical report to document each period of disability with objective evidence of disability and he 

refused to comply with this “ridiculous request.” He felt that it was sufficient to state that flare 

ups of her condition would affect her ability to work and the incidents could not be predicted. 

Dr. Reppy suggested that OWCP was asking him to predict future flare ups. He requested that 

OWCP show him a policy stating that he must support each date of disability with evidence. 

Dr. Reppy indicated that multiple disc herniation at C4-5, C5-6, C6-7, T1-2, and T3-4, all caused 

radiculopathy. He also stated that repetitive motions at work would cause flare ups, but not change 

the underlying diagnoses. The only way to document the flare ups was by a new magnetic 

resonance imaging scan study each time appellant missed work. Dr. Reppy also noted that pain 

levels were subjective and could not be quantified, but a patient’s perception of their own condition 

was “rather reliable.” He explained that often a patient working at the limit of their abilities could 

be pushed over the edge by small increases in work, and they would need to “take a break from 

the workplace.” Dr. Reppy indicated that appellant had reported to him that her supervisor at times 

did not respect her restrictions, which he opined was illegal. He indicated that she had reported 

being asked to push carts weighing 240 pounds, exceeding her limits and increasing inflammation 

and chronic pain. Dr. Reppy suggested that the supervisors were to blame for appellant’s work 

stoppages. 

On March 22, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for intermittent disability from March 2 

through 15, 2019. On an attached Form CA-7a she claimed the following wage loss: 8 hours on 

March 1, 2, 9, and 12, 2018. 

In a development letter dated April 4, 2019, OWCP advised appellant of the evidence 

needed to support her compensation claim. It requested that appellantsubmit such evidence within 

30 days.

By decision dated April 4, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability for the 

period January 19 through February 1, 2019. 
5

On April 17, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the March 19, 2019 decision. 

On April 19, 2019 appellant, through counsel, also requested an oral hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the three March 20, 2019

decisions. 

By decision dated April 25, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

compensation for the period February 1 through March 1, 2019. 

On May 4, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding OWCP’s April 4, 2019 

decision. On May 25, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding OWCP’s April 25, 2019 

decision. 

By decision dated June 13, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for intermittent 

disability for the period March 1 through 15, 2019. It found that the evidence of record failed to 

support disability during the dates claimed. 

On July 12, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding OWCP’s June 13, 2019

decision. 

On August 14, 2019 a telephonic hearing was held with regard to OWCP’s March 19, 2020 

decision, the three March 20, 2019 decisions, the April 4, 2019 decision and the April 25, 2019

decision. The record was held open for 30 days to allow for the submission of evidence to support 

the claimed periods of disability. No additional evidence was received post hearing. 

By decision dated October 18, 2019, the hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

March 19, 2019 decision, the three March 20, 2019 decisions, the April 4, 2019 decision, and the 

April 25, 2019 decisions. 

On November 8, 2019 a telephonic hearing was held regarding OWCP’s June 13, 2019 

decision. No additional evidence was received. 

By decision dated December 26, 2019, the hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

June 13, 2019 decision denying appellant’s claim for intermittent disability during the period 

March 1 through 15, 2019. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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 employment injury.

6

 The term disability is 

5

Supra note 3.

6 D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); F.H., Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August 23, 2019); 

C.R., Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989).
6

defined as the incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages the employee was 

receiving at the time of the injury.7 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.8 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 the reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.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 intermittent 

disability from work for the periods of September 8, 2018 through March 15, 2019, causally 

related to her accepted March 30, 2014 employment injury.

In his reports of record, Dr. Reppy diagnosed disc herniation at T1-2 and T3-4; bilateral 

T1 neuropathy, cervical stenosis at multiple levels, left shoulder degenerative joint disease, and 

cervical disc herniation at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7 with radiculopathy to the upper extremities. His 

examinations, however, failed to document a material change in appellant’s accepted bilateral 

shoulder impingement or a change in the temporary aggravation of the cervical pathology. Rather,

Dr. Reppy simply indicated that a “condition” was flaring up, which resulted in disability. While 

he opined that appellant’s worsening neck and bilateral shoulder pain complaints were due to her 

accepted employment injury, he failed to provide rationale explaining how objective medical 

findings of her accepted conditions.11 Therefore these reports are insufficient to establish 

appellants claims for compensation.

In his March 22, 2019 report, Dr. Reppy explained that often times a patient working at the 

limit of their abilities could be pushed over the edge by small increases in work, and they would 

need to “take a break from the workplace.” However, he did not provide objective findings related 

to her accepted employment conditions that explained why she required those work restrictions or 

which showed a worsening of her accepted employment conditions, on any specific date.

12

 As 

noted above, evidence that does not address the accepted conditions and specific dates of disability 

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); S.T., Docket No. 18-412 (issued October 22, 2018); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 

397 (1999).

8 K.C., Docket No. 17-1612 (issued October 16, 2018); WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

9

S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291-92 (2001).

10 J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019).

11 S.M.,Docket No. 19-0658 (issued March 17, 2020); B.R.,Docket No. 18-0339 (issued January 24, 2019).

12 E.B., Docket No. 19-1390 (issued May 7, 2020); K.D.,Docket No. 19-0628 (issued November 5, 2019);

A.T., Docket No. 19-0410 (issued August13, 2019); see Terry R.Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 
7

are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish the claim. 13 Dr. Reppy’s March 22, 2019 

is therefore insufficient to establish appellant’s claims for compensation.

14

The record also contains several work excuse notes from an unidentified provider 

indicating no work on several of the claimed dates due to “flare-ups.” However, as the author’s 

identity cannot be determined, these notes do not constitute competent medical evidence.

15

 Thus, 

these notes are insufficient to establish appellant’s wage-loss compensation claim. 

The record also contains several diagnostic tests. However, these diagnostic studies

standing alone lack probative value, as they do not address whether the accepted employment 

injury resulted in appellant’s period of disability on specific dates.16 Consequently, these medical 

findings will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to compensation benefits.

As appellant has not provided rationalized medical opinion evidence sufficient to establish 

intermittent disability during the period September 8, 2018 through March 15, 2019 causally 

related to the accepted employment injury, the Board finds that appellant 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.

CONCLUSION

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

during the period September 8, 2018 through March 15, 2019 causally related to her accepted 

March 30, 2014 employment injury.

13 Id. 

14 S.M., supra note 11; see also S.K.,Docket No. 18-1537 (issued June 20, 2019).

15 K.S., Docket No. 19-1433 (issued April26, 2021); Deborah J. Szumski, Docket No. 04-608 (issued August 18, 

2005); Charles E. Evans, 48 ECAB 692 (1997).

16 F.S., Docket No. 19-0205 (issued June 19, 2019).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 18 and December 26, 2019 decisions of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: July 7, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board