United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GENERAL MAIL 

FACILITY, Baton Rouge, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0707

Issued: August 5, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 7, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 19, 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 over 

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish disability from work 

during the period October 10 through November 6, 2020 causally related to his accepted 

September 3, 2010 employment injury. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the January19, 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 3, 2010 appellant, then a 26-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 3, 2010 he injured the right side of his back 

and left elbow when he stepped and fell on a wet floor by an automation desk while in the 

performance of duty. He did not stop work. OWCP initially accepted appellant’s claim for: back

sprain, lumbar region; back contusion; and left elbow contusion. It later expanded the accepted 

conditions to include thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis. OWCP authorized lumbar 

facet injections appellant received beginning on December 2, 2011.

On November 2 and 13, 2020 appellant filed additional CA-7 forms claiming 

compensation for disability from work from October 10 through November 6, 2020. In 

accompanying time analysis forms (Form CA-7a), he requested 134 hours of wage-loss 

compensation from October 10 through November 6, 2020 due to his physician’s restrictions.

In development letters dated November 6 and 13, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that 

additional evidence was needed to establish his claims for compensation for total disability from 

work during the period October 10 through November 6, 2020. It afforded him 30 days to submit 

the necessary evidence.

OWCP subsequently received medical evidence from Dr. Kevin P. McCarthy, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. In a November 18, 2020 medical report, Dr. McCarthy discussed 

physical examination findings and reviewed diagnostic results. He provided impressions of a 

history of L4-S1 radioactive ablation, lumbar spondylosis, and low back pain.

Dr. McCarthy, in a December 23, 2020 disability form, diagnosed the accepted condition 

of lumbar spine sprain. He also diagnosed lumbar spondylosis without myelopathy or 

radiculopathy and low back pain. Dr. McCarthy placed appellant off work from October 9, 2020 

through February 10, 2021. He noted that the reason for disability was lumbar pain.

In a physical therapy order dated November 25, 2020, Dr. McCarthy diagnosed lower back 

pain with facet syndrome and ordered physical therapy.

OWCP also received a January 12, 2021 physical therapy initial evaluation report and 

January 14, 2021 physical therapy daily note.

In a January 19, 2021 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for disability for the 

period October 10 through November 6, 2020, finding that the medical evidence of record was 

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

conditions.

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

3

Supra note 1.
3

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

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 claimed disability and the accepted employment injury.10

ANALYSIS

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

work during the period October 10 through November 6, 2020 causally related to his accepted 

September 3, 2010 employment injury. 

In support of his claims, appellant submitted medical evidence from Dr. McCarthy. In a 

December 23, 2020 disability form, Dr. McCarthy diagnosed the accepted condition of lumbar 

spine sprain, as well as, lumbar spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, and low back 

pain. He placed him off work from October 9, 2020 through February 10, 2021. Dr. McCarthy

opined that appellant’s disability was due to lumbar pain. Although he related that appellant was 

temporarily totally disabled, Dr. McCarthy did not relate appellant’s disability to his accepted 

employment conditions.

11

 Rather, he attributed his disability to lumbar pain. The Board has held, 

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).

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 T.S., Docket Nos. 20-1177 and 20-1296 (issued May 28, 2021); V.A., Docket No. 19-1123 (issued 

October 29, 2019).

11 R.A., Docket No. 19-1752 (issued March 25, 2020); V.G.,Docket No. 18-0936 (issued February 6, 2019).
4

however, that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical diagnosis.12 Further, the Board 

notes that OWCP has not accepted appellant’s claim for lumbar spondylosis without myelopathy 

or radiculopathy as employment related. For conditions not accepted by OWCP as being 

employment related, it is the employee’s burden of proof to provide rationalized medical evidence 

sufficient to establish causal relation, not OWCP’s burden to disprove such relationship.13 For 

these reasons, the Board finds that Dr. McCarthy’s disability form is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s disability claim. 

Dr. McCarthy’s remaining November 18, 2020 report and November 25, 2020 physical 

therapy order addressed appellant’s diagnosed conditions and medical treatment, but failed to offer 

an opinion as to whether appellant was disabled from work due to the accepted employment injury. 

Therefore, his reports are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim 

for compensation.14

Appellant also submitted a January 12, 2021 physical therapy initial evaluation report and 

January 14, 2021 physical therapy daily note from his physical therapists. These reports, however, 

do not constitute competent medical evidence because physical therapists are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA. Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will not 

suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to compensation benefits.15

Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence to establish 

employment-related total disability during the claimed period due to his accepted employment 

conditions, the Board finds that he 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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

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

Broome, 57 ECAB 339, 342 (2004).

13 E.F., Docket No. 18-1723 (issued May 1, 2019); T.W., Docket No. 16-0176 (issued January 10, 2018); G.A.,

Docket No. 09-2153 (issued June10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Alice J. Tysinger, 51 ECAB 

638 (2000).

14 C.S.,Docket No. 19-1377 (issued February 26, 2020); F.H.,Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August 23, 2019); K.M., 

Docket No. 17-1730 (issued February 9, 2018); R.R., Docket No. 17-1368 (issued October 19, 2017) (the Board found 

reports that contained no opinion or explanation on causal relationship to be of limited probative value and insufficient 

to meet appellant’s burden of proof).

15 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) 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.”

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See alsoFederal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 

2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); C.L.,Docket No. 20-0510(issued June 9, 2021)(physical therapists are not physicians as 

defined by 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).
5

CONCLUSION

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

work during the period October 10 through November 6, 2020, causally related to his accepted 

September 3, 2010 employment injury. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 19, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 5, 2022

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