United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1621

Issued: June 28, 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 September 10, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 25, 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 total disability from 

work, commencing May 11, 2019, causally related to his accepted October 30, 2012 employment 

injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 30, 2012 appellant, then a 53-year-old city tractor trailer operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date, when unloading a heavy mail 

container, he injured his left knee while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

for sprain of unspecified sites of left knee and leg, and tear of the lateral meniscus of the left knee. 

It later expanded his claim to include left hip strain. Appellant did not immediately stop work.2 

On September 11, 2014 the employing establishment offered appellant rehabilitation lightduty assignment as a customer care agent -- tier 1, effective October 18, 2014, with a salary of 

$58,004.00. The physical requirements included sitting in a chair with a supportive back or 

standing at a workstation, occasional simple grasping, occasional pushing/pulling using a 

computer mouse, and occasional fine manipulation when using a keyboard. The job was in an 

office setting and the workstation was ergonomically adjustable. The employing establishment 

indicated that the assignment was in strict compliance with his medically-defined work limitations 

of limited walking (as tolerated), no pushing/pulling or lifting over 20 pounds, no driving at work, 

and avoid climbing ladders. Appellant accepted the job offer.

On January 6, 2017 the employing establishment initiated a “Blue Ribbon Intervention”

due to appellant’s poor attendance record. The stipulations noted that the employee was having 

problems with his left knee after undergoing surgery. 

Appellant submitted several notes dated January 9 through September 27, 2017 as well as 

an investigative interview dated June 13, 2017, addressing his absences from work.

On April 3, 2017 the employing establishment issued a letter of warning due to 

unsatisfactory attendance and unscheduled leave usage. It noted unscheduled absences from 

December 13, 2016 through March 20, 2017.

On August 1, 2017 the employing establishment issued a seven calendar-day suspension 

due to unsatisfactory attendance. It noted unscheduled absences beginning May 2 through 

August 1, 2017.3

On July 29, 2019 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for 

leave without pay (LWOP) for the period May 11 through July 19, 2019 as a result of his accepted 

employment injury. On the reverse side of the Form CA-7 the employing establishment indicated

that “appellant took off on his own[.] Manager has stated that claimant was NOT sent home.”

In a July 29, 2019 statement, appellant related that he sustained a work-related left knee 

injury and underwent a “botched operation” on December 8, 2014, which left him permanently 

disabled. He noted that he was sent to work in a call center and then sent home for not being able 

to work and placed in LWOP status for five pay periods. Appellant referenced an attached Form 

CA-7.

 

2 On November 14, 2013 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) alleging that on September 14, 2013 

he sustained a recurrence of disability causally related to his October 30, 2012 work injury. On December 4, 2013 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability.

3 Appellant submitted work status reports from Dr. Christine M. Calderon, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

dated February 1 through March 21, 2018. She diagnosed chronic low back pain and left knee joint pain. Dr. Calderon 

noted that appellant was off work February 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23, 2018, February 28 through March 2, 

2018, March 5 through 9, and March 21 through 23, 2018. In a work status report dated March 21, 2018, she evaluated 

appellant and deemed him able to return to work full capacity on March 24, 2018.
3

In an August 22, 2019 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that additional 

evidence was needed to establish disability from work during the period claimed. It noted that the 

evidence of record indicated that, following his original injury, he continued to work until May 11, 

2019 when he stopped completely. OWCP indicated that appellant did not submit any supporting 

documentation with his claim and the most recent medical evidence addressing his left knee injury 

was from March 21, 2018. It provided a definition of a recurrence of disability and requested 

appellant substantiate the factual elements of his claim by responding to a questionnaire. OWCP 

provided 30 days to submit the requested information.

On September 4, 2019 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) 

for leave without pay (LWOP) for the period July 20 through August 16, 2019 and August 17 

through 30, 2019. On the reverse side of the Form CA-7 the employing establishment again 

indicated that there was no medical evidence on file indicating disability, rather the last medical

report dated March 21, 2018 returned appellant to full duty. 

By decision dated October 1, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for disability from work commencing May 11, 2019. It indicated that he did not 

submit any evidence in support of his claim. OWCP found that the medical evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish that he was disabled from work due to his accepted work-related 

medical condition. 

Appellant was treated by Delia Mendoza-Zesati, a physician assistant, on January 2, 2019 

for a left knee injury occurring at work on October 30, 2012. He reported working as a call center 

operator, but had been off work since June 2018. Appellant indicated that he underwent a failed 

arthroscopic surgery on December 8, 2014. Ms. Mendoza-Zesati diagnosed left knee meniscus 

disorder.

On January 11, 2019 appellant was treated by Dr. Dana Haughton McKay, a Boardcertified family practitioner, for ongoing left knee pain and a cough. Findings on examination 

revealed a left knee brace, pain when standing, and lumbar tenderness to palpation. Dr. McKay

diagnosed left knee joint pain, chronic low back pain, cough, and dermatitis.

Appellant continued to submit claims for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for leave 

without pay (LWOP) for the periods: August 31 through September 27, 2019; September 28 

through October 25, 2019; October 26 through December 20, 2019; December 23, 2019 through 

January 3, 2020; January 4 through 31, 2020; February 1 through 28, 2020; and February 29 

through March 27, 2020. 

On January 10, 2020 appellant was treated by Dr. Paul H. Woodworth, a Board-certified 

orthopedist, who assessed left knee joint pain. He reported that his left knee continued to be 

painful, that it buckled daily, and the he had to wear a brace at all times. Appellant noted no relief 

in symptoms from a knee injection. Findings on examination revealed tenderness over the anterior 

knee, medial knee, lateral knee, and limited range of motion. Dr. Woodworth referred appellant 

to pain management.

In an undated statement received by OWCP on April 8, 2020, appellant requested the status 

of his Form CA-7 claims for compensation. He reported receiving pay stubs reflecting no pay and 

attached a copy of a paystub from 2020. Appellant submitted several notes dated July 11, 2019
4

through April 27, 2020. He asserted that he would continue to submit CA-7 claims for 

compensation.

OWCP received additional evidence. A July 10, 2018 Letter of Instruction from the 

employing establishment indicated that, effective July 11, 2018, appellant was placed on paid 

administrative leave during the pendency of the disciplinary process and was required to not report 

to work until further notice. OWCP received a May 6, 2019 letter from the employing 

establishment informing appellant that the agency was placing him in a LWOP status, effective 

May 11, 2019. It indicated that appellant was placed in administrative pay status in August 2018 

with the understanding that he would cooperate with the agency’s interactive reasonable 

accommodation process. However, after eight months, appellant failed to provide the requested 

documents needed to evaluate the request and identify reasonable accommodation.

On May 5, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration.

OWCP received additional Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss compensation for disability 

from work during the periods March 28 through April 24, 2020, and April 25 through 

May 22, 2020.

In a June 12, 2020 development letter, OWCP requested additional information from the 

employing establishment. It noted that appellant was requesting reconsideration of the decision 

denying compensation beginning May 11, 2019. OWCP indicated that the Form CA-7 dated 

July 29, 2019 noted that appellant took off on his own and that the manager did not send him home. 

It requested documentation regarding the light-duty position appellant was working prior to his

claim for disability on May 11, 2019. OWCP further requested evidence to support the employing 

establishment’s claim that appellant was not sent home as a result of the employer’s inability to 

accommodate his work restrictions. 

Appellant submitted a June 25, 2020 statement and indicated that, upon receipt of the 

July 10, 2018 Letter of Instruction, he was escorted out of the building and off the property. 

OWCP received an August 14, 2018 employing establishment memorandum regarding a 

Notice of Removal dated July 6, 2018, which charged appellant with failure to maintain regular 

attendance/failure to follow instructions. It provided a 30 days’ notice of his removal, which was 

effective August 13, 2018.

In an August 7, 2020 follow-up letter, OWCP requested additional information from the 

employing establishment. It requested the date appellant returned to work after his surgery on 

December 8, 2014, whether he returned to his previous light-duty position at the customer care 

center, whether he continued the light-duty job until he was placed on administrative leave on 

July 11, 2018, and copies of written job offers. 

In response to OWCP’s development letter, L.F., appellant’s supervisor, indicated that 

appellant returned to work on April 6, 2015. It was unknown whether he returned to his previous 

light-duty job or if he stayed in that position until placed on administrative leave. L.F. did not 

remember appellant having any special accommodations. The employing establishment submitted 

a March 28, 2019 revised rehabilitation assignment offer for a customer care agent -- tier 1,

effective March 30, 2019, with a salary of $63,283.00. The physical requirements of a customer 

care agent included sitting in a chair with a supportive back or standing at a workstation, occasional 
5

simple grasping, occasional pushing/pulling using a computer mouse, occasional fine 

manipulation when using a keyboard. The job was in an office setting and the workstation was 

ergonomically adjustable. The employing establishment indicated that the assignment was in strict 

compliance with his medically-defined work limitation and was not changed from the previous 

rehabilitation offer. 

By decision dated August 25, 2020, OWCP denied modification. 

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 employment injury.5 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.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 a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial medical 

evidence.7 Findings on examination are generally needed to support a physician’s opinion that an 

employee is disabled from work.8

The term “disability” is defined as the incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn 

the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.9 Disability is, thus, not 

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

wages.10 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.11 

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of any 

medical evidence addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. 

 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

5 M.C., Docket No. 18-0919 (issued October 18, 2018); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine 

Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

6

Id.; William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

7 V.H., Docket No. 18-1282 (issued April 2, 2019); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); William A. Archer,

id.

8 Dean E. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989).

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); S.T., Docket No. 18-0412 (issued October 22, 2018); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB

397 (1999).

10 G.T., Docket No. 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); Robert L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002).

11 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).
6

To do so would essentially allow an employee to self-certify his or her disability and entitlement 

to compensation.12

Where employment is terminated, disability benefits would be payable if the evidence of 

record established that the claimant was terminated due to injury-related physical inability to 

perform assigned duties, or the medical evidence of record established that the claimant was unable 

to work due to an injury-related disabling condition.13

ANALYSIS

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

from work, commencing May 11, 2019, causally related to his accepted October 30, 2012

employment injury.

OWCP accepted that on October 30, 2012 appellant sustained sprain of unspecified sites 

of left knee and leg, tear of the lateral meniscus of the left knee, and left hip strain. Appellant 

underwent OWCP-authorized left knee surgery on December 8, 2014 and he returned to limitedduty work on April 6, 2015. He was removed from federal employment, effective August 13, 

2018, due to irregular attendance/failure to follow instructions. Appellant has alleged that his

irregular attendance was due to his work-related injury. The Board has held that, when a claimant 

stops work for reasons unrelated to his or her accepted employment injury, he or she has no 

disability within the meaning of FECA.14 Therefore, it is appellant’s burden to submit sufficient 

medical evidence to establish that he was unable to work due to an injury-related disabling 

condition.15

During his claimed period of disability, appellant received medical treatment from

Dr. Woodworth who assessed left knee joint pain. Appellant reported no relief in symptoms after 

a knee injection and indicated that his left knee continues to be painful, it buckles daily, and he 

must wear a brace at all times. Findings on examination revealed tenderness over the anterior 

knee, medial knee, lateral knee, and limited range of motion. Dr. Woodworth, however, did not 

specifically address the relevant issue of disability from employment and, thus, his report is of no 

probative value.16

Dr. McKay’s January 11, 2019 report predates the claimed period of disability and does 

not otherwise provide medical rationale explaining whether and why appellant was disabled from 

work for the period beginning May 11, 2019 causally related to his October 30, 2012 employment 

 

12 See B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018); Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 7; see also 

C.S., Docket No. 17-1686 (issued February 5, 2019).

13 S.S., Docket No. 18-1680 (issued March 4, 2019); S.J., Docket No. 17-0783 (issued April 9, 2018).

14 V.M., Docket No. 16-0062 (issued May 18, 2016); E.S., Docket No. 11-0657 (issued February 9, 2012); see 

John W. Normand, 39 ECAB 1378 (1988).

15 S.S., supra note 13.

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

also William A. Archer, supra note 6 (the Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the 

absence of medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of claimed disability).
7

injury.17 Without a medical explanation, supported by objective findings, explaining why 

appellant was disabled on specific dates due to the accepted employment injury, appellant would 

be self-certifying disability.18

Appellant also received medical treatment from Ms. Mendoza-Zesati, a physician assistant.

Her medical notes, dated January 2, 2019, predate the claimed period of disability and are of no 

probative value to establish appellant’s disability claim because physician assistants are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA.19

As the medical evidence of record does not contain sufficient rationale to establish 

disability during the claimed period, the Board finds that appellant 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 total disability 

from work for the period commencing May 11, 2019 due to his accepted October 30, 2012 

employment injury.

 

17 Id. 

18 See B.K., supra note 12; Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 7; see also C.S., supra note 12.

19 Section 8101(2) of FECA 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.” 

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).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 25, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 28, 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