United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LAND O’ LAKES 

CARRIER ANNEX POST OFFICE, 

Land O’ Lakes, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0722

Issued: April 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Capp P. Taylor, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 13, 2020 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

January 23, 2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2and 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 January 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 her burden of proof to establish total disability from 

work for the periods February 16 to March 15, 2019 and April 13 to May 10, 2019 causally related 

to the accepted July 18, 2016 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 25, 2016 appellant, then a 57-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on July 18, 2016 she sustained left shoulder pain when she lifted and 

carried a large heavy parcel to a customer’s door in the performance of duty. She stopped work 

on July 25, 2016. 

Appellant accepted an offer of modified assignment (limited duty) on July 30, 2016 that 

included lifting up to 10 pounds with the right arm and 5 pounds with the left arm with assistance, 

simple grasping, and standing, for up to four hours per day. She again stopped work on or around

September 10, 2016. Appellant underwent surgery on December 1, 2016 for arthroscopic rotator 

cuff repair and left shoulder subacromial decompression. After initial development and denial of 

the claim, on November 15, 2018 OWCP accepted the claim for a left shoulder rotator cuff tear or 

rupture. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from September 16, 

2016 to February 15, 2019, from March 16 to April 12, 2019, and from May 11, 2019 to March 28, 

2020, and on the periodic rolls from March 29, 2020 and continuing. 

In a note dated March 28, 2017, Dr. Stephen Hanff, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

related that appellant was unable to physically lift 70 pounds and that a functional capacity 

evaluation (FCE) was required. 

In an FCE dated June 1, 2017, Dr. Hanff found that appellant was capable of full-time light 

duty with restrictions of lifting 18 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently knee to waist and 

with two-handed carrying up to 30 feet. Appellant was capable of lifting 13 pounds occasionally 

and 8 pounds frequently waist to shoulder and waist to overhead. With regard to positional 

tolerances, appellant was able to frequently bend, squat, stair climb, reach forward left, and reach 

overhead bilaterally, while she was able to occasionally kneel, balance bilaterally, and crawl. She 

was able to perform all measured tasks involving handling capacity and foot controls frequently. 

On March 13, 2019 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Patrick Horan, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to assess her employment-related 

conditions and disability status. It requested that he opine as to whether she could return to her 

date-of-injury position. 

On March 22, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work during the period February 16 through March 15, 2019. 

In a letter dated March 25, 2019, OWCP advised appellant that it had received her Form 

CA-7 claiming wage-loss compensation from February 16 to March 15, 2019. It requested that 

she provide medical evidence establishing disability during the period claimed. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 
3

In a report dated April 10, 2019, Dr. Horan reviewed a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) 

and appellant’s medical records. Appellant’s significant other, who attended the evaluation, 

informed him that she had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Horan related 

her left shoulder physical examination findings. He diagnosed status post rotator cuff repair. 

Dr. Horan opined that appellant’s left rotator cuff tear had not resolved as she continued to 

experience persistent pain and restricted range of motion. He indicated that she was unable to 

return to her date-of-injury position, noting that she had a limit of 18 pounds as determined by the 

June 1, 2017 FCE. Dr. Horan further opined that it was unlikely appellant could participate in 

vocational rehabilitation because of her Alzheimer’s disease and shoulder. He noted that she had 

not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and that she required a new magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) study for her rotator cuff. 

On May 29, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claiming compensation for disability from 

work for the period April 13 to May 10, 2019. 

In a development letter dated June 3, 2019, OWCP noted that no medical evidence had 

been received since February 27, 2017. It advised that appellant should submit medical evidence 

establishing disability during the entire period claimed. OWCP afforded her 30 days to submit the 

requested information. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated June 4, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for the period February 16 to March 15, 2019. It found that the medical evidence 

of record failed to support disability during the period claimed, as it had not received a response 

to its development letter of June 3, 2019. 

In a letter dated June 14, 2019, appellant’s representative noted that Dr. Horan’s April 10, 

2019 report supported payment of wage-loss compensation benefits from September 10, 2016 

through the present and continuing. He noted that the employing establishment had not offered 

modified-duty consistent with appellant’s medical restrictions because the claim had previously 

been denied. 

By decision dated July 8, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for the period April 13 to May 10, 2019. It found that the medical evidence of

record failed to support disability during the period claimed, as it had not received a response to

its development letter of June 3, 2019. 

In a report dated May 8, 2019, Dr. Robert R. Reppy, a family medicine specialist, 

examined appellant for complaints of left shoulder pain. He noted that her original injury occurred 

when she twisted in the driver’s seat of her mail truck to lift a heavy package from the back and 

felt immediate pain. Dr. Reppy related physical examination findings regarding appellant’s left 

shoulder and noted that she was unable to carry groceries or lift a laundry basket. He diagnosed 

left shoulder rotator cuff tear/rupture and Alzheimer’s disease. 

In a letter dated August 15, 2019, appellant’s representative noted that Dr. Horan’s 

April 10, 2019 report related that appellant was unable to perform her date-of-injury position and 

supported payment of wage-loss compensation from September 10, 2016 through the present and 

continuing. He further noted that Dr. Reppy’s report of May 8, 2019 indicated that she was unable 

to carry groceries or lift a laundry basket. Appellant’s representative stated that no modified duty 

had been offered because appellant’s claim had previously been denied. 
4

In reports dated November 27, 2018 and February 6 and July 17, 2019, Dr. Katherine 

Standley, a Board-certified neurologist, diagnosed appellant with Alzheimer’s disease and 

discussed her treatment and prognosis. In the July 17, 2019 report, Dr. Standley advised that 

appellant was unable to drive. 

In a letter dated August 31, 2019, appellant’s representative requested that OWCP pay 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation claims. He again noted that Dr. Horan concurred with

Dr. Hanff’s FCE findings and that she was disabled due to her accepted conditions from 

performing her date-of-injury position. Counsel further noted that Dr. Standley had indicated that 

appellant could not drive and that appellant’s date-of-injury position involved driving. 

In a report dated September 24, 2019, Dr. Reppy examined appellant for complaints of left 

shoulder pain. He stated that she had reached MMI as of that date. Dr. Reppy diagnosed left 

shoulder rotator cuff tear/rupture and Alzheimer’s disease. 

On October 15, 2019 OWCP requested that Dr. Reppy provide further information 

regarding appellant’s work status and work restrictions. 

On November 2, 2019 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration of 

OWCP’s June 4 and July 8, 2019 decisions. With the request, appellant’s representative attached 

a letter explaining that Dr. Reppy’s October 23, 2019 and Dr. Horan’s April 10, 2019 reports 

supported that she was unable to perform her date-of-injury position and that there was no 

modified-duty offered because the claim had previously been denied. He requested payment of 

wage-loss compensation benefits from September 10, 2016 through the present. 

In his October 23, 2019, Dr. Reppy indicated that, since September 10, 2016, appellant 

would not have been capable of performing the physical functions of her date-of-injury position 

as rural route carrier because she would have had very limited ability to utilize the left upper 

extremity for repetitive use of sorting and delivering mail and she did not have the strength required 

to lift and carry packages. Furthermore, she would not have been capable of safely operating a 

motor vehicle. Dr. Reppy stated that these remained the current restrictions as appellant’s MRI 

scan revealed that her left shoulder condition had not resolved. The May 20, 2019 MRI scan was 

attached, which demonstrated a persistent mild articular surface tear of the supraspinatus tendon 

laterally and a partial thickness tear of the subscapularis tendon superiorly and laterally and 

associated medial displacement of the long head of the biceps tendon superiorly.

In a report dated November 5, 2019, Dr. Reppy responded to OWCP’s October 15, 2019 

letter. He diagnosed left rotator cuff tear/rupture and Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Reppy reiterated 

his physical findings of May 8, 2019. He noted that appellant’s FCE indicated that she was able 

to lift 8 to 12 pounds, but that the position of letter carrier required a lifting capacity of 70 pounds. 

Dr. Reppy observed that appellant’s rotator cuff tear was seen on MRI scan. He opined that the 

original injury occurred when she twisted to lift a heavy package from the back of her postal 

vehicle. Dr. Reppy explained that lifting from behind the seat put her in a disadvantaged position 

in terms of leverage and that the weight of the package exceeded the strength of her deltoid and 

supraspinatus muscles, resulting in a rotator cuff tear. He noted that because the tear was not 

attended to in a timely fashion, scar tissue formed along the edges of the tear, preventing 

spontaneous healing. Dr. Reppy opined that appellant’s work-related condition had not resolved 

and that it required surgery. He stated that she was unable to return to work without restrictions 

because her job description called for the ability to lift up to 70 pounds and she could no longer 
5

lift above 12 pounds. Dr. Reppy further noted that appellant’s Alzheimer’s disease made her 

ability to follow directions or remember how to do assignments problematic. He stated that she

could not perform modified duties as it would be dangerous to both herself and her coworkers, and 

that her present level of disability was a direct result of her work-related conditions. 

On December 4, 2019 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Krishan K. Batra, a Board-certified psychiatrist, to assess appellant’s employment-related 

conditions and disability status. It requested that he opine as to whether she could return to her 

date-of-injury position. 

In a second opinion report dated January 2, 2020, Dr. Batra reviewed a SOAF and 

appellant’s medical records. He diagnosed Alzheimer’s dementia at a moderate level of 

impairment. Dr. Batra opined that due to her cognitive impairment, appellant was unable to return 

to her date-of-injury position and that vocational rehabilitation was a remote possibility as she was 

suffering from a neuropsychiatric condition of progressive and irreversible nature. 

By decision dated January 23, 2020, OWCP denied modification of the decisions dated 

June 4 and July 8, 2019. It found that she had not submitted contemporaneous evidence 

establishing that she was unable to work for the claimed dates of disability. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

essential elements of his or her claim by the preponderance of the evidence.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 the incapacity, because of an employment injury, 

to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.7 Disability is thus not 

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

wages. 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.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 

 

4 See B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019); D.W., Docket No. 18-0644 (issued November 15, 2018).

5

Id.

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); B.O., supra note 4; N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).

7

Id. at § 10.5(f); see B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018).

8

Id.
6

claimed. To do so, would essentially allow an employee to self-certify their disability and 

entitlement to compensation.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established that she was totally disabled during the 

periods February 16 to March 15, 2019 and April 13 to May 10, 2019 causally related to the 

accepted employment injury. 

The record reflects that OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left shoulder rotator cuff tear 

or rupture. OWCP has paid appellant wage-loss benefits continuously from September 16, 2016, 

except for the brief periods in question. 

Appellant was examined by OWCP second opinion physician, Dr. Horan on 

April 10, 2019. Dr. Horan related her left shoulder physical examination findings and diagnosed 

status post rotator cuff repair. He opined that appellant’s left rotator cuff tear had not resolved as 

she continued to experience persistent pain and restricted range of motion. Dr. Horan indicated 

that she was unable to return to her date-of-injury position, noting that she had a lifting limit of 18 

pounds as determined by the June 1, 2017 FCE. 

OWCP also received reports from appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Reppy. On 

October 15, 2019 it requested that he further address her work status and work restrictions. In a 

report dated October 23, 2019, Dr. Reppy opined that, since September 10, 2016, appellant would 

not have been capable of performing the physical functions of her date-of-injury position as rural 

route carrier because she would have had very limited ability to utilize the left upper extremity for 

repetitive use of sorting and delivering mail and did not have the strength required to lift and carry 

packages. On November 5, 2019 he responded to OWCP’s October 15, 2019 request and 

diagnosed left rotator cuff tear/rupture and Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Reppy opined that the original 

injury occurred when appellant twisted to lift a heavy package from the back of her postal vehicle. 

He explained that lifting from behind the seat put her in a disadvantaged position in terms of 

leverage and that the weight of the package exceeded the strength of her deltoid and supraspinatus 

muscles, resulting in a rotator cuff tear. Dr. Reppy noted review of appellant’s May 10, 2019 MRI 

scan of the left shoulder and explained that because the tear was not attended to in a timely fashion, 

scar tissue formed along the edges of the tear, preventing spontaneous healing. He opined that her 

work-related condition had not resolved and that it required surgery. Dr. Reppy stated that 

appellant had been unable to return to work without restrictions because her job description called 

for the ability to lift 70 pounds and she could no longer lift more than 12 pounds. 

Appellant has therefore established that she was disabled during the periods in question, 

with probative and reliable medical evidence.10

The Board finds that as appellant has established that she was disabled from February 16 

to March 15, 2019 and April 13 to May 10, 2019 causally related to the accepted employment 

 

9 A.W., Docket No. 18-0589 (issued May 14, 2019).

10 Supra note 6. 
7

injury, upon return of the case record, OWCP shall authorize payment of wage-loss compensation 

for these periods and any attendant medical expenses. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has established that she was disabled from February 16 to 

March 15, 2019 and April 13 to May 10, 2019 causally related to the accepted employment injury. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 23, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: April 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board