United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.P., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Nashville, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1695

Issued: March 23, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 7, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 18, 2019 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 The Board notes that following the July 18, 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 his burden of proof to establish intermittent 

disability for the period March 18 through April 10, 2019, causally related to his accepted 

conditions.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 2, 2018 appellant, then a 33-year-old claims specialist, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed an emotional condition due to stress caused 

by overwork, interacting with claimants, and processing disability applications on or before 

April 1, 2016 while in the performance of duty. He did not stop work. In an April 11, 2018 

statement, the employing establishment confirmed that appellant was required to process a high 

volume of applications under short deadlines during a staffing shortage. OWCP accepted that 

appellant sustained generalized anxiety disorder and recurrent, moderate major depressive disorder 

due to compensable factors of his federal employment.

On May 3, 2019 OWCP received appellant’s claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

intermittent disability for the period March 18 to April 10, 2019.3 A May 20, 2019 time analysis 

form (Form CA-7a) indicates that appellant claimed disability on the following dates to attend 

medical appointments: 2.5 hours on March 18, 2019; 1.25 hours on March 19, 2019; 2.25 hours 

on March 27, 2019; 2.25 hours on April 2, 2019; 1.25 hours on April 4, 2019; 8 hours on 

April 9, 2019. Appellant also claimed 30 minutes of disability on April 10, 2019 to attend a 

medical appointment.

In a development letter dated May 10, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that the factual 

and medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type 

of evidence necessary to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence.

By decision dated July 18, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for compensation (Form 

CA-7) for the period March 18 through April 10, 2019, finding that appellant had not provided 

medical evidence addressing the claimed period of disability.

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

 

3 Appellant had previously filed wage-loss compensation claims (Form CA-7) for intermittent periods of disability 

from May 14, 2017 to November 10, 2018. This period of disability is not before the Board on the present appeal.

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).
3

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 

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 his burden of proof to establish intermittent 

disability for the period March 18 through April 10, 2019, causally related to his accepted 

conditions.

Appellant claimed compensation for intermittent leave use to attend medical appointments 

from March 18 to April 10, 2019. However, he has not submitted medical evidence establishing 

that the accepted emotional conditions disabled him from work during the period claimed. As 

there is no medical evidence of record establishing that appellant was disabled intermittently 

during the period March 18 to April 10, 2019 due to his accepted emotional conditions, the Board 

finds he has not met his burden of proof.11

On appeal appellant contends that he submitted all required forms. As explained above, 

the question of whether an employee is disabled from work is an issue that must be resolved by 

competent medical evidence.12 Appellant has not submitted medical evidence establishing 

disability during the claimed period and therefore has not met his burden of proof.

 

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

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

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

12 See supra note 8.
4

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 his burden of proof to establish intermittent 

disability during the period March 18 through April 10, 2019, causally related to his accepted 

conditions.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 18, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 23, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board