United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bedford Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0465

Issued: July 29, 2022

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 23, 2021 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 issuance of the December 23, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional 

evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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 disability from work 

for the period commencing October 9, 2021, causally related to her accepted August 9, 2020 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 14, 2020 appellant, then a 38-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 9, 2020 she injured her lower back when she bent 

down to pick up a tray and twisted her back as she stood back up. She stopped work on 

August 10, 2020. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for lower back muscle, fascia and tendon 

strain. During periods of intermittent, part-time, limited-duty work, it paid her compensation on 

the supplemental rolls from September 24, 2020 through October 8, 2021. 

Appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work for the 

period October 9 through November 19, 2021. In attached time analysis forms (Form CA-7a), she

indicated that she was either placed in an absent without leave status or totally disabled from work 

commencing October 7, 2021.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an October 25, 2021 report from Mark F. 

Bordick, a physician assistant, who noted that appellant presented for low back pain secondary to 

her accepted August 9, 2020 employment injury. Mr. Bordick further noted that she had been 

unable to work since October 7, 2021 due to low back pain. He diagnosed low back pain; lumbar 

strain; radiculopathy, lumbar region; and encounter for observation for suspected exposure to other 

biological agents ruled out. 

Appellant also submitted a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated October 25, 2021 from

Dr. Blair Rhode, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Rhode noted the date of injury as 

August 9, 2020 and diagnosed lumbar strain due to injury. He opined that appellant was totally 

disabled from work. In an October 26, 2021 letter, Dr. Rhode again advised that appellant was 

presently totally incapacitated from her job due to her accepted August 9, 2020 employmentrelated lumbar injury. 

OWCP, in a November 23, 2021 development letter, acknowledged receipt of appellant’s

Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss compensation for disability for the period commencing 

October 7, 2021 and continuing. It informed her that the evidence submitted was insufficient to 

establish her claims for wage-loss compensation. OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical 

evidence necessary to establish her disability claims and afforded her 30 days to submit the 

requested evidence. 

OWCP received a Form CA-17 report dated November 22, 2021 and a narrative report 

dated December 20, 2021 from Dr. Rhode who reiterated his prior diagnosis of lumbar strain. He 

also diagnosed radiculopathy, lumbar region. Dr. Rhode, in the November 22, 2021 Form CA-17 

report, reiterated his prior opinion that appellant’s diagnosis of lumbar strain was due to the 

August 9, 2020 employment injury. In the December 20, 2021 report, he related that appellant 

sustained a work-related lumbar strain on August 9, 2020 and that she sustained an aggravation of 
3

her condition on October 7, 2021. Appellant had related that her pain worsened secondary to 

performing a significant amount of stooping at work, which aggravated her symptomatology and 

necessitated that she be placed off work. Dr. Rhode indicated that appellant performed modified

light-duty work two hours per day and had required an off-duty status from October 7, 2020

through the present.

Appellant filed additional Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss compensation for disability 

from work for the period November 20 through December 17, 2021. 

In support of her claims, appellant submitted a November 15, 2021 reportfrom Dr. Anis O. 

Mekhail, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Mekhail related a history of appellant’s 

August 9, 2020 employment injury, discussed examination findings, and provided a diagnosis of 

intractable back pain, degenerative disc. He explained to appellant that if she had degenerative 

disc disease then she would be a surgical candidate, otherwise he would not recommend surgery.

In a November 22, 2021 report, Mr. Bordick reiterated his prior diagnoses of low back 

pain; lumbar strain; radiculopathy, lumbar region. 

OWCP, by decision dated December 23, 2021, denied appellant’s claims for wage-loss 

compensation for the period commencing October 9, 2021 and continuing because the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability during the claimed period due to a 

worsening of her accepted employment-related condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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.4 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.5 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.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.7 When, however, the medical

evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an employment injury are such that, from a

3

Supra note 1.

4

See D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); F.H., Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August23, 2019); 

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

ECAB 1143 (1989).

5

See L.F., Docket No. 19-0324 (issued January 2, 2020); T.L., Docket No. 18-0934 (issued May 8, 2019); 

FereidoonKharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

6

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

7

Id. at § 10.5(f); see, e.g.,G.T., 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); Cheryl L.Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).
4

medical standpoint, prevent the employee from continuing in his or her employment, he or she is

entitled to compensation for any loss of wages.8

To establish causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment injury,

an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence, based on a complete factual and medical

background, supporting such causal relationship.9 The opinion of the physician must be one of

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

the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment incident identified

by the employee.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 her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for the period, commencing October 9, 2021, causally related to her accepted August 9, 2020 

employment injury.

In support of her disability claims, appellant submitted several reports from Dr. Rhode

regarding her disability status during the relevant period. In Form CA-17 reports dated October 25

and November 22, 2021, Dr. Rhode diagnosed the accepted condition of lumbar strain. He also 

diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Rhode opined that appellant was totally disabled from work

due to the accepted August 8, 2020 employment injury. In an October 26, 2021 letter, he also 

opined that she was totally disabled from work due to the accepted employment-related lumbar

injury. On December 20, 2021 Dr. Rhode reported that appellant performed modified light-duty 

work two hours per day. He advised that she required an off-duty status from October 7, 2020 

through the present. Dr. Rhode related that appellant’s symptoms increased on October 7, 2020 

due to increased stooping at work. Although Dr. Rhode opined that appellant was disabled during 

the claimed period, he failed to explain how the August 9, 2020 employment injury was due to her 

disability and why she was unable to perform the duties of her position during the period claimed. 

A mere conclusion without medical rationale supporting a period of disability due to the accepted 

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

9

See S.J., Docket No. 17-0828 (issued December 20, 2017); KathrynE.DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

10 C.B., Docket No. 18-0633 (issued November 16, 2018); LeslieC.Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); GaryL.Fowler,

45 ECAB 365 (1994).

11 See S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon 

Kharabi, supra note 5.
5

employment condition is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.12 Thus, Dr. Rhode’s

reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

Dr. Mekhail’s November 15, 2021 report provided an assessment of intractable back pain, 

degenerative disc, and recommended that appellant undergo surgery if it was determined that she 

had degenerative disc disease. However, he did not provide an opinion addressing whether her

disability for work was causally related to the August 9, 2020 employment injury. The Board has 

held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 

condition or disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.13 Further, the 

Board has held that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical diagnosis.14 For these 

reasons, the Board finds that Dr. Mekhail’s report is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability 

claim.

Appellant also submitted reports dated October 25 and November 22, 2021 from

Mr. Bordick, a physician assistant, who diagnosed low back pain; lumbar strain; radiculopathy, 

lumbar region; and encounter for observation for suspected exposure to other biological agents 

ruled out. He advised that appellant had not worked since October 7, 2021 due to low back pain. 

The Board has held that the reports of a physician assistant are of no probative value as a physician 

is not considered a physician as defined under FECA and, therefore, is not competent to provide a 

medical opinion. The reports from Mr. Bordick are, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim, except to establish that appellant received treatment on the dates he provided authorized 

medical treatment.15 The Board notes that appellant did not claim wage-loss compensation for 

evaluations performed by Mr. Bordick on October 25 and November 22, 2021.

As noted, for each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to 

establish that he or she was disabled from work during the claimed period as a result of the accepted 

employment injury.16 Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence 

sufficient to establish employment-related disability during the claimed period due to her accepted 

condition, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

12 See A.L., Docket No. 21-0151 (issued January 21, 2022); C.B., Docket No. 19-0464 (issued May 22, 2020); S.H., 

Docket No. 19-1128 (issued December 2, 2019); T.L., supra note 5; Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

13 See L.K., Docket No. 21-1155 (issued March 23, 2022); T.S., Docket No. 20-1229 (issued August6, 2021); J.M., 

Docket No. 19-1169 (issued February7, 2020); A.L., 19-0285 (issued September 24, 2019); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 

(issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

14 R.N., Docket No. 19-1004(issuedOctober 18, 2019); A.T.,Docket No. 19-0410 (issued August13, 2019); Robert 

Broome, 57 ECAB 339, 342 (2004).

15 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) (January2013); R.L., Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (a physician 

assistant is not considered a physician as defined under FECA); 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).

16 Supra note 5.
6

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 her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for the period, commencing October 9, 2021, causally related to her accepted August 9, 2020 

employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 23, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board