United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Thousand Palms, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0826

Issued: May 10, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 3, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 7, 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 this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish disability from work 

for the period November 1 to December 10, 2019, causally related to his accepted September 16, 

2019 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 17, 2019 appellant, then a 68-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on September 16, 2019, he injured his back while loading heavy 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

parcels into his truck while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on September 16, 2019. 

OWCP accepted the claim for low back muscle, fascia, and tendon strain. 

In a form report dated October 29, 2019, Dr. William Christiansen, a Board-certified 

internist, diagnosed low back muscle, fascia and tendon strain, lumbar spondylosis without 

myelopathy or radiculopathy, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. He noted that appellant had been 

instructed to remain off work until December 10, 2019. 

Appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) dated November 14 and 22, and 

December 6 and 20, 2019, requesting wage-loss compensation for leave without pay used from

November 1 through December 10, 2019. 

In a development letter dated December 5, 2019, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional information to establish his wage-loss compensation claims, including medical evidence 

establishing that his disability during the period November 1 through December 10, 2019, was 

causally related to his accepted September 16, 2019 employment injury. It afforded him 30 days 

to submit the necessary evidence.

In reports dated December 10, 2019, Dr. Mark Bickley, a family medicine specialist and 

osteopath, diagnosed low back muscle, fascia and tendon strain; lumbar spondylosis without 

myelopathy or radiculopathy; and lumbar spondylolisthesis. He recommended that appellant 

return to modified work on December 10, 2019. 

In reports dated December 23, 2019, Dr. Christensen noted that appellant had returned to

modified work on December 10, 2019 and thereafter had worsening back symptoms. He related 

x-ray findings including degenerative spondylosis of the lumbar discs and degenerative arthritis of 

the L4-5 facets bilaterally. Dr. Christensen recommended that appellant remain off work until 

February 3, 2020 as appellant’s back pain and range of motion worsened after minimal modified 

duty. 

By decision dated January 7, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

disability for the period November 1 to December 10, 2019, finding that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the claimed disability and his 

accepted work-related conditions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.3 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 

 

2

Id.

3 D.P., Docket No. 18-1439 (issued April 30, 2020); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

4

Id.; Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).
3

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

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed period 

of disability and an employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must 

be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the claimed disability and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.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 his or her disability and 

entitlement to compensation.9

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period November 1 to December 10, 2019, causally related to his accepted 

September 16, 2019 employment injury.

In support of the claimed period of disability, OWCP received an October 29, 2019 report

from Dr. Christensen. Dr. Christensen diagnosed low back muscle, fascia, and tendon strain,

lumbar spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. He 

opined that appellant should remain off work until December 10, 2019. However, the Board notes 

that OWCP only accepted low back muscle, fascia, and tendon strain. Dr. Christensen’s 

October 29, 2019 report did not provide objective findings on physical examination or offer any 

opinion that appellant was disabled due to the effects of appellant’s accepted employment 

conditions.10 This report is therefore insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

 

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

6

Id. at § 10.5(f); see J.T., Docket No. 19-1813 (issued April 14, 2020); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).

7

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

8 T.T., Docket No. 18-1054 (issued April 8, 2020).

9 D.P., supra note 3; Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

10 S.K., Docket No. 19-0272 (issued July 21, 2020).
4

Dr. Christensen also provided reports dated December 23, 2019. He noted findings

including lumbar degenerative spondylosis and degenerative arthritis of the L4-5 facets bilaterally,

and recommended that appellant remain off work until February 2, 2020. Dr. Christensen related 

that appellant’s back pain and range of motion had worsened after he had retained to minimal 

modified duty on December 10, 2019. However, he again did not offer a rationalized medical 

opinion explaining why appellant could not perform work activities due to the effects of his 

accepted employment conditions, during the time period in question.

11

 Accordingly, these reports 

are also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In reports dated December 10, 2019, Dr. Bickley recommended that appellant return to 

modified work on December 10, 2019. However, he offered no opinion regarding appellant’s 

disability status during the period November 1 to December 10, 2019. 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.12 Therefore,

these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that he was 

disabled from work during the period November 1 to December 10, 2019 due to the accepted 

September 16, 2019 employment injury, the Board finds that he has not met his 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 appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for the period November 1 to December 10, 2019, causally related to his accepted 

September 16, 2019 employment injury.

 

11 Id.

12 See Y.D., Docket No. 20-0097 (issued August 25, 2020); M.A., Docket No. 19-1119 (issued November 25, 2019);

S.I., Docket No. 18-1582 (issued June 20, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 7, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 10, 2021

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