United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.I., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA

MEDICAL CENTER, Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1069

Issued: January 28, 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 July 8, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from March 22 and June 4, 2021 merit 

decisions 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that he was disabled 

from work for the period February 9 through 10, 2021 causally related to his accepted August 6, 

2010 employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board on different issues.2 The facts and 

circumstances as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The 

relevant facts are as follows.

On August 25, 2010 appellant, then a 56-year-old administrative support assistant, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 6, 2010 he sustained a psychological 

injury as a result of being robbed at gunpoint walking to a satellite parking facility while in the 

performance of duty. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx829. Appellant stopped 

work on August 10, 2010 and returned to modified employment on August 13, 2010.3 He began 

working part-time modified employment on July 13, 2011.

By decisions dated October 18, 2010, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had 

removed himself from coverage under FECA when he left work two hours early. By decision 

dated January 3, 2012, it denied modification of the October 18, 2010 decision. 

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated January 11, 2013, the Board affirmed 

OWCP’s January 3, 2012 decision.

4

 The Board determined that appellant was on the premises of 

the employing establishment at the time of the robbery on August 6, 2010, but had not shown that 

he was engaged in a duty reasonably incidental to his employment. 

On March 7, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted evidence 

demonstrating that he was on approved sick leave at the time of the August 6, 2010 robbery. By 

decision dated March 18, 2013, OWCP vacated its prior decision and accepted the claim for an 

aggravation of moderate, recurrent major depression and an aggravation of an unspecified anxiety 

disorder. It subsequently expanded acceptance of the claim to include post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD).

OWCP further accepted that appellant sustained lumbar sprain and an aggravation of 

degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L5-S1 due to a July 16, 2012 employment injury, assigned 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx517, and that he sustained lumbar sprain on October 31, 2018, assigned 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx954. 

On April 25, 2017 appellant filed a notice of recurrence of a medical condition (Form CA2a), alleging that on an unspecified date he sustained a recurrence of the need for medical treatment 

2 Docket No. 18-0253 (issued August2, 2018); Docket No. 12-1069 (issued January 11, 2013).

3

In a decision dated January 29, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for wage-loss compensation from 

December 10 to 19, 2014 as the medical evidence failed to establish disability during this period. By decision dated 

April 17, 2015, it denied his claim for wage-loss compensation on February 23, 2015. In a decision dated June20, 

2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation from April 25 to June 10, 2016. It noted that he 

had an accepted back condition that required him to work reduced work hours.

4

Supra note 2.
3

causally related to his August 10, 2010 employment injury. He advised that he experienced 

anxiety and depression “having to drive every day past the area where the robbery occurred....”

By decision dated May 31, 2017, OWCP found that appellant had not established a 

recurrence of disability causally related to his accepted employment injury. On July 17, 2017 

appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated September 21, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its May 31, 2017 

decision. It advised that a claim for a recurrence of disability due to an emotional condition had 

to be filed as a new claim.

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated August 2, 2018, the Board set aside 

the September 21, 2017 decision.5 The Board found that appellant had not described additional

occupational exposure as the cause of his current condition and thus did not have to file a new 

claim.6

In a report dated December 2, 2018, Dr. Richard Lightbody, a Board-certified psychiatrist

and OWCP referral physician, diagnosed recurrent, moderate-major depressive disorder and 

chronic PTSD. He found that appellant was disabled from his usual duties, but could work four 

hours per day with restrictions.

On December 19, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for 32 hours 

of disability from work for the period November 15 through 21, 2019. The employing 

establishment indicated that he had been working part time with restrictions since July 13, 2011.

By decision dated January 24, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from 

November 15 through 21, 2019. 

On January 29, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

A telephonic hearing was held on May 28, 2020. Appellant advised that he worked six 

hours per day in modified employment due to his back injuries and received wage-loss 

compensation for two hours per day under a separate file number.

By decision dated August 12, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative vacated the 

January 24, 2020 decision. He found that appellant had met his burden of proof to establish 

entitlement to wage-loss compensation from November 15 through 21, 2019. The hearing 

representative indicated that appellant had accepted claims for two back injuries, and instructed 

OWCP to administratively combine those claims with the current claim pursuant to its procedures. 

He further noted that appellant’s current limited-duty employment exceeded appellant’s

restrictions of four hours per day found by Dr. Lightbody due to appellant’s emotional condition 

under the current file number. The hearing representative found that reports from appellant’s 

5

Supra note 2.

6 By decision dated November 30, 2018, OWCP found that appellant had not established a recurrence of disability 

causally related to his accepted employment injury as he had not factually established the alleged exposure. 
4

attending physician, Dr. David Hahn, a Board-certified psychiatrist, were sufficient to establish 

that appellant was disabled from November 15 to 21, 2019 due to his accepted depression and 

PTSD.7

On February 12, 2021 Dr. Hahn opined that appellant was unable to work on February 9 

and 10, 2021 “due to an exacerbation of [his] PTSD and depression.”

On February 12, 2021 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for disability from work on February 9 

and 10, 2021. On the form, the employing establishment indicated that he was requesting 

compensation for 16 hours of leave without pay.

In a February 17, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the definition of 

a recurrence of disability and requested that he submit additional factual and medical evidence, 

including a report from his physician explaining how his accepted condition worsened such that 

he was unable to work six hours per day of modified employment. It afforded him 30 days to 

submit the requested information.

Thereafter, OWCP received a February 10, 2021 telehealth report from Dr. Hahn. 

Dr. Hahn diagnosed moderate-major depressive disorder and PTSD and noted that appellant had 

restrictions of no contact with patients by person or telephone. He advised that appellant’s work 

caused stress that aggravated his PTSD and depression. Dr. Hahn noted that appellant’s stress had 

improved after his reassignment to a position with no patient contact. He indicated that appellant 

had missed the last two days of work due to depression. Dr. Hahn discussed appellant’s continued 

complaints of difficulty with appetite, concentration, and noted that appellant had anhedonia and 

crying spells. He found that appellant had restrictions of working six hours per day with no patient 

contact.

In a March 3, 2021 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Hahn found that appellant could 

work six hours per day with restrictions. 

On March 9, 2021 appellant asserted that he had missed work on February 9 and 10, 2021 

because he was unable to get up after “having a bad night.” He noted that he had difficulty sleeping 

and waking up.

A March 11, 2021 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) found 

that appellant had 70 percent disability due to major depression with generalized anxiety disorder 

claimed as PTSD effective September 10, 2015 and also disability due to a spinal condition.8 The 

DVA indicated that he had been in military service from September 1971 to July 1974. 

7 Upon return of the case record to the district office, OWCP a dministratively combined OWCP File Nos. 

xxxxxx517 and xxxxxx954 with the current claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx829. OWCP File No. xxxxxx517 serves 

as the master file.

8 On March 30, 2021 appellant requested that his claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx829 be closed as he was 

receiving disability from the DVA. 
5

By decision dated March 22, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from 

work for the period February 9 through 10, 2021. 

On April 1, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted an August 16, 2016 

report from Dr. Anthony M. Mancini, a clinical psychologist, relevant to his DVA claim.

By decision dated June 4, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its March 22, 2021 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that any disability or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.9

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. 10 Disability is, thus, not 

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

wages.11 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.12 When, however, the medical evidence 

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

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

entitled to compensation for loss of wages.13

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that he was 

disabled from work for the period February 9 through 10, 2021 causally related to his accepted 

August 6, 2010 employment injury.

In a February 10, 2021 telehealth report, Dr. Hahn indicated that appellant had missed the 

preceding two days of work as a result of his depression. He noted that appellant had difficulty 

with concentration, appetite, and emotional control. Dr. Hahn diagnosed recurrent moderatemajor depressive disorder and PTSD and determined that appellant had restrictions of working six 

hours per day with no patient contact. He did not, however, provide objective findings supporting 

disability or explain why appellant’s accepted condition worsened such that he could no longer 

9 A.R., Docket No. 20-0583 (issued May 21, 2021); S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April19, 2019);Kathryn 

Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April29, 2020); BobbieF. Cowart, 55 ECAB 

746 (2004).

11 D.W., Docket No. 20-1363 (issued September 14, 2021); L.W., Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).

12 See M.W., Docket No. 20-0722 (issued April26, 2021); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018).

13 See A.R., supra note 9; D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).
6

perform the duties of his modified position.14 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/disability was related to employment factors. 15 Consequently,

Dr. Hahn’s report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish his claim.

On February 12, 2021 Dr. Hahn opined that appellant was unable to work on February 9 

and 10, 2021 as a result of an exacerbation of depression and PTSD. He did not, however, directly 

attribute the disability to the accepted employment injury or provide any rationale for his findings. 

Dr. Hahn further did not address appellant’s history of preexisting depression and PTSD due to 

appellant’s military service. The Board has held that a medical report is of limited probative value 

on a given medical issue if it contains an opinion which is unsupported by medical rationale. 16 

Further, the Board has consistently held that complete medical rationalization is particularly 

necessary when there is a preexisting condition,17 and has required medical rationale 

differentiating between the effects of the work-related injury and the preexisting condition in such 

cases.18 Therefore, Dr. Hahn’s February 12, 2020 report is also insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim.

As appellant has not submitted any rationalized medical evidence establishing disability 

from work for the period February 9 through 10, 2021 causally related to his accepted August 6, 

2010 employment injury, 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(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 that he was 

disabled from work for the period February 9 through 10, 2021 causally related to his accepted 

August 6, 2010 employment injury.

14 See D.K., Docket No. 21-0082 (issued October 26, 2021).

15 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) (finding that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale describing the relation between work factors and 

a diagnosed condition/disability). See also J.M., Docket No. 16-0306 (issued May 5, 2016).

16 B.H., Docket No. 19-1341 (issued August 12, 2020).

17 See V.S., Docket No. 20-1034 (issued November 25, 2020); P.W., Docket No. 20-0407 (issued July 17, 2020).

18 Id.; see also A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019); M.F.,Docket No. 17-1973 (issued 

December 31, 2018); J.B., Docket No. 17-1870 (issued April11, 2018).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 4 and March 22, 2021 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: January 28, 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