United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, San

Diego, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1555

Issued: December 22, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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 August 27, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 23, 2020 

merit decision 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 over the merits of this case.3

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.

3 The Board notes that,following the July 23, 2020 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 disability from work,

commencing September 3, 2019, causally related to his accepted employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 16, 2019 appellant, then a 66-year-old mail clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed plantar fasciitis in his right foot due to factors of 

his federal employment. He noted that he first became aware of his condition on February 20, 

2019 and realized its relation to his federal employment on February 27, 2019. Appellant asserted 

that he saw his doctor due to pain in the bottom of his right foot and the doctor informed him that 

the type of work he performed for long periods of time caused him to tear his plantar fascia. He 

stopped work on April 16, 2019. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right foot pes planus, right foot plantar fascial 

fibromatosis, right foot strain of unspecified muscle and tendon at the ankle and foot level, and 

contusion of the right foot. 

Appellant submitted a July 17, 2019 diagnostic report wherein Dr. Michael Wong, a 

Board-certified radiologist, performed a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s 

right foot and diagnosed plantar fasciitis including a moderate to high-grade tear involved in the 

central, medial and lateral cords of the plantar fascia from there calcaneal attachments, a grade one 

strain of the muscle belly of the central cord/flexor digitorum brevis, osseous edema of the middle 

cuneiform and mild subcutaneous edema of the foot. 

In a July 24, 2019 medical report, Dr. Paul Jain, Board-certified in internal medicine,

provided a report relating to appellant’s right foot conditions and advised that he remain on 

temporary partial disability with light-level duty restrictions. 

In a September 3, 2019 medical report, Dr. Paul Kim, Board-certified in pain management, 

reviewed appellant’s treatment for his right foot injury and held him off work with no prolonged 

standing or walking, and only sitting duties if available. Dr. Kim indicated that if sitting duties 

were not available, appellant would be held off work for recovery and healing. In a duty status 

report (Form CA-17) of even date, Dr. Kim diagnosed right foot plantar fasciitis and checked 

boxes marked “No,” advising that appellant should not resume work and that he was unable to 

perform his regular work duties. He held appellant off work until October 1, 2019, and provided

restrictions of no standing, walking, or climbing. 

Appellant subsequently filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for 

disability from work commencing September 3, 2019. 

In an October 1, 2019 medical report, Dr. Kim evaluated appellant’s right foot injury and 

opined that he could return to work with restrictions. 

In a development letter dated October 3, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim for compensation. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed

to establish his claims and afforded him 30 days to respond. 
3

In Form CA-17 duty status reports dated October 1 and 28, 2019, Dr. Kim diagnosed right 

foot plantar fasciitis and checked a box marked, “No” indicating that appellant was disabled from

work. He held appellant off work through November 25, 2019. 

In an October 28, 2019 medical report, Dr. Kim reviewed appellant’s history of treatment 

for his accepted right foot conditions. He reviewed an October 2, 2019 medical evaluation in 

which Dr. Noushin Shoaee, a Board-certified podiatrist, suggested that appellant needed to have 

his foot and ankle immobilized with absolutely no weight bearing. Dr. Kim recommended that he 

perform no weight bearing, which could progressively aggravate the grade one tear of the plantar 

fascia region. He noted that appellant attempted to continue working through September 3, 2019,

but was unable to tolerate his work, bear any weight on his foot or perform duties involving 

walking. Dr. Kim agreed with Dr. Shoaee’s recommendation that he perform no weight bearing 

as it could severely impact his recovery and placed him on temporary total disability. 

On December 3 and 24, 2019 appellant filed additional Form CA-7 claims for 

compensation. 

Appellant also submitted a December 23, 2019 Form CA-17 in which Dr. Kim diagnosed 

right foot plantar fasciitis and checked a box marked “No” to indicate that appellant was disabled 

from work. He held appellant off work through January 20, 2020.

By decision dated January 14, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s Form CA-7 claims for 

compensation, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability 

from work, commencing September 3, 2019, causally related to the accepted employment injury. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In an October 2, 2019 form report, Dr. Shoaee noted 

diagnoses of right foot medium-high grade tear of the central/medium/lateral plantar fascia, strain 

of the right foot and right foot edema of the middle cuneiform due to appellant’s employment 

duties as a mail handler. 

In a November 25, 2019 medical report, Dr. Kim observed appellant’s history of treatment 

for his right foot conditions related to his employment duties. He advised that appellant continue 

with immobilization and cast placement of his right foot and ankle, per Dr. Shoaee’s suggestions 

and that he continue with no weight bearing. Dr. Kim held appellant off work through 

December 23, 2019. 

In a December 23, 2019 medical report, Dr. Kim reviewed appellant’s treatment for his 

accepted right foot conditions and indicated that he continued to utilize a walking boot with no 

weight bearing to his right foot. He continued to hold appellant off work with no weight bearing 

on the right foot for four weeks, explaining that any weight bearing on the right foot can severely 

impact his recovery and healing. 

In a January 20, 2020 medical report, Dr. Kim recounted appellant’s treatment in relation 

to his accepted right foot conditions as well as his subsequent care from Dr. Shoaee. He diagnosed 

plantar fasciitis fibromatosis, a strain of the unspecified muscle and tendon at the ankle and foot 

level, a contusion of the right foot, right foot pes planus, right foot osseous edema of the middle 

cuneiform and right foot subcutaneous edema of the foot. In a Form CA-17 of even date, Dr. Kim 

diagnosed right foot plantar fasciitis and held appellant off work through February 17, 2020. 
4

On February 6, 2020 appellant submitted an additional Form CA-7 claim for compensation

for disability from work for the period December 24, 2019 through February 6, 2020.

In a February 10, 2020 medical report, Dr. Kim indicated that appellant was first placed on 

limited-duty restrictions on July 24, 2019 and that when he returned for a follow-up appointment 

on September 3, 2019 he was held off work as he was still experiencing pain on limited-duty 

assignment. Dr. Kim provided that removing his work duties that were aggravating and 

progressively worsening his medical conditions was necessary in order for him to reach maximum 

medical improvement (MMI). On October 1, 2019 he advised that appellant could return to work 

only performing sit-down duties, but he was informed that there were no sit-down work duties 

available for appellant. On October 28, 2019 appellant was again held off work. Dr. Kim 

concluded that because there had been no sit-down work duties available for him, appellant had 

been held off work since September 3, 2019. 

In a February 17, 2020 medical report, Dr. Kim noted his evaluation of appellant for a 

follow-up appointment concerning his diagnosed right foot conditions. He found that appellant

was still symptomatic and referred him for a possible surgical procedure. Dr. Kim advised that he 

continue with his current course of treatment and therapy and suggested that he remain off work

as he was unable to tolerate any walking, standing, driving or any of his usual physical duties. In 

a Form CA-17 of even date, he diagnosed right foot plantar fasciitis, advised that appellant was 

not able to perform his regular work duties and continued to hold him off work.

On February 24, 2020 appellant informed Dr. Shoaee that his condition was approximately 

50 percent improved and only encountered pain in his right foot after three minutes of standing. 

In a March 10, 2020 medical report, Dr. Kim observed that appellant remained 

symptomatic for his right foot conditions after a course of conservative treatments. He indicated 

that appellant had been removed from his cast and that he could not tolerate standing on his right 

foot for more than a few minutes as it caused a severe exacerbation of his symptoms. Dr. Kim 

offered that it was imperative that he remain off work until a more definitive treatment could be 

implemented. In a Form CA-17 of even date, he diagnosed right foot plantar fasciitis, advised that 

appellant was not able to perform his regular work duties and held appellant off work.

Appellant submitted a Form CA-7 claim for compensation for disability from work during 

the period February 7 through March 16, 2020.

On April 13, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s January 14, 2020 

decision.

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. In an April 7, 2020 medical report, Dr. Kim 

observed appellant’s history of treatment in relation to his right foot conditions and advised him 

to follow up with Dr. Shoaee for further recommendations for a possible surgical procedure. 

In an April 8, 2020 Form CA-17, Dr. Kim diagnosed right foot plantar fasciitis, advised 

that appellant was not able to perform his regular work duties and held him off work.

On April 16, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for compensation for disability from 

work for the period of March 17 through April 16, 2020. 
5

In a May 5, 2020 medical report, Dr. Kim observed appellant’s history of treatment for his 

right foot conditions and that he continued to have persistent pain and could not apply pressure or 

walk on his foot as the pain in his right foot severely increased when he did so. He advised that 

appellant continue with his current course of treatment until he was evaluated by Dr. Shoaee again 

for possible surgical intervention. In a Form CA-17 of even date, Dr. Kim diagnosed right foot 

plantar fasciitis, advised that appellant was not able to perform his regular work duties and held 

him off work. 

On May 8, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for compensation for disability from 

work for the period April 17 through May 8, 2020. 

In a June 2, 2020 medical report, appellant informed Dr. Kim that he experienced an 

ongoing dull and achy pain in his right foot, which was aggravated by any weight bearing, standing 

or walking. He advised that he resume his course of conservative treatments until his surgical 

intervention as his symptoms were much more stable with treatment. Dr. Kim found that appellant 

should remain off work as he was certainly unable to tolerate any of his work activities. In a Form 

CA-17 of even date, he diagnosed right foot plantar fasciitis, advised that appellant was not able 

to perform his regular work duties and held appellant off work. 

On June 8, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for compensation for disability from 

work for the period May 9 through June 8, 2020. 

In a July 2, 2020 Form CA-17, Dr. Kim advised that appellant was not able to perform his 

regular work duties and held him off work. 

On July 8, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for compensation for disability from 

work for the period June 9 through July 8, 2020. 

By decision dated July 23, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its January 14, 2020 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

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

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. 7

4

Supra note 2.

5 Y.D., Docket No. 20-0097 (issued August 25, 2020); D.P., Docket No. 18-1439 (issued April30, 2020); AmeliaS. 

Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

6

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

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April29, 2020).
6

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. 8 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.9

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 accepted employment injury.

10

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.11

ANALYSIS

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

work, commencing September 3, 2019, causally related to his accepted employment injury.

Appellant submitted a series of medical reports from Dr. Kim dated September 3, 2019 

through June 2, 2020 in which he evaluated appellant’s conservative treatment for his right foot 

symptoms as they related to his diagnosed right foot pes planus, right foot plantar fa sciitis, right 

foot grade one strain of the muscle belly of the central cord/flexor digitorum brevis, right foot 

osseous edema of the middle cuneiform with stress injury and right foot subcutaneous edema and 

the foot and mild diffuse muscle edema of the midfoot. Dr. Kim opined that appellant was disabled 

from work beginning September 3, 2019 as there were no limited-duty assignments available for 

him where he could perform his duties while sitting. He explained that weight bearing on the right 

foot, standing, walking and the other physical activities involved in appellant’s work duties 

aggravated and progressively worsened his conditions and reasoned that it was necessary for him 

to be placed on temporary total disability in order for him to reach MMI. Although Dr. Kim 

provided an opinion that appellant was disabled from work during the claimed period, he did not 

sufficiently explain how objective findings on physical examination and diagnostic testing showed 

that appellant could not perform his regular work due to the effects of his accepted employment 

conditions. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal 

relationship if it does not contain sufficient medical rationale explaining how a given medical 

8

Id. at § 10.5(f); see J.T., Docket No. 19-1813 (issued April14, 2020); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).

9

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

10 T.T., Docket No. 18-1054 (issued April8, 2020).

11 D.P., supra note 5; Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126(2005).
7

condition/period of disability has an employment-related cause.12 Therefore, Dr. Kim’s medical 

reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

Dr. Kim’s remaining medical evidence consisted of a series of Form CA-17s dated 

September 3, 2019 to July 2, 2020 in which he opined that appellant was disabled from performing

his regular work duties and held him off work. The Board has held that a report is of limited 

probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining 

how a given medical condition/period of disability has an employment-related cause.13 Therefore, 

this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

Appellant also submitted a July 24, 2019 medical report in which Dr. Jain reviewed 

appellant’s employment duties and on evaluation diagnosed right foot pes planus, right foot plantar 

fasciitis, a right foot grade one strain of the muscle belly of the central cord/flexor digitorum brevis, 

right foot osseous edema of the middle cuneiform with stress injury and right foot subcutaneous 

edema and the foot and mild diffuse muscle edema of the midfoot. He opined that appellant was 

disabled from work and opined that his conditions were caused by the cumulative trauma of his 

employment duties. However, this report is of no probative value on the underlying issue of this 

case as it predates the claimed period of disability.14 As such, Dr. Jain’s medical report is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

Additionally, appellant submitted reports dated October 2, 2019 and February 24, 2020 

where Dr. Shoaee observed a diagnosis of a right foot medium-high grade tear of the 

central/medium/lateral plantar fascia, a strain of the right foot and right foot edema of the middle 

cuneiform due to appellant’s employment duties as a mail handler and provided treatment notes. 

However, Dr. Shoaee did not address disability. The Board has held that medical evidence that 

fails to provide an opinion that an employee was disabled from work during the claimed period of 

disability due to the accepted employment injury is of no probative value.15 For this reason,

Dr. Shoaee’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

The remaining medical evidence consisted of an MRI scan of appellant’s right foot. 

However, the Board has held that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value as they 

do not address whether the employment injury caused any of the diagnosed conditions or 

associated disability.16 For this reason, Dr. Wong’s medical evidence is of no probative value.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

the claimed disability and the accepted employment injury, the Board finds that appellant has not 

met his burden of proof. 

12 See S.K., Docket No. 19-0272 (issued July 21, 2020); T.T., Docket No. 18-1054 (issued April8, 2020);

Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

13 Id

14 See R.G.,Docket No. 18-0027 (issued May 13, 2019); V.G.,Docket No. 17-1425 (issued February 16, 2018);

M.C.,Docket No. 15-1762 (issued August 26, 2016).

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

16 See J.S.,Docket No. 17-1039 (issued October 6, 2017).
8

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, commencing September 3, 2019, causally related to his accepted employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 23, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 22, 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