United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Baker, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0763

Issued: November 12, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 7, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 16, 2020 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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.

ISSUE

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

for the period June 13 through December 27, 2013 causally related to her accepted January 15, 

2013 employment injury.

1 The Board notes that appellant’s AB-1 form indicates that she is appealing from a purported November 1, 2020 

decision of OWCP; however, the case record does not contain a final adverse decision of that date. The most recent 

final adverse decision of OWCP is dated November 16, 2020.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board on a different issue.

3

 The facts and 

circumstances as set forth in the Board’s prior decisions and order are incorporated herein by 

reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On January 15, 2013 appellant, then a 49-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured the right side of her body and lower back 

when she picked up a tray of mail while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on that 

date and has not returned to work. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx229.4 On

August 24, 2018 it accepted appellant’s claim for temporary aggravation of sprain of lumbar spine 

ligaments, initial encounter. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls,

effective March 2, 2013.

On September 4, 2018 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the period June 13 through December 27, 2013.

OWCP received medical evidence from Dr. Joseph B. Boucree, Jr., a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon. In work status form reports dated June 15 and September 7, 2013,

Dr. Boucree advised that appellant was incapacitated from work from June 15 through July 27, 

2013 and September 7 through October 15, 2013. He noted that she suffered an on-the-job injury. 

In narrative reports dated June 15, July 27, and October 5, 2013,Dr. Boucree noted a date of injury 

of January 15, 2013. He also noted appellant’s continued complaints of neck and back pain with 

radicular pain in the upper and lower extremities, bilateral shoulder mechanical pain, right shoulder 

more pronounced. Dr. Boucree diagnosed lumbar sprain and strain. 

Dr. Roy Berkowitz, a family practitioner, noted in work status form reports dated July 7 

and 14, September 29, and November 3, 2014 that appellant remained incapacitated and unable to 

work from July 7 through August 11, 2014, and September 29 through December 9, 2014 due to 

a work-related injury at the employing establishment. In a November 20, 2013 narrative report,

he noted appellant’s history of injury on January 15, 2013. Dr. Berkowitz diagnosed lumbar 

sprain. He opined that appellant sustained an employment-related injury on January 15, 2013. In 

a July 7, 2014 narrative report, Dr. Berkowitz noted a date of injury of January 15, 2013 and 

reiterated his prior diagnosis of lumbar sprain. He opined that appellant was very depressed and 

unable to work as a consequence of her 2007 work injury. In a July 11, 2014 narrative report,

Dr. Berkowitz again noted a date of injury of January 15, 2013. He further noted appellant’s 

complaint of continued low back pain. Dr. Berkowitz advised that she would be able to return to 

full-duty work within six months of the date of his report. On July 14, 2014 he restated his prior 

diagnosis of lumbar sprain. Dr. Berkowitz provided an impression that appellant continued to be 

3 Docket No. 15-1781 (issued December 21, 2015); Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 17-0057 (issued 

February14, 2017); Docket No. 17-1627 (issued March 15, 2018).

4 Appellant has a prior traumatic injury claim assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx753, wherein appellant alleged that, 

on February 6, 2007, she injured her right arm, wrist, and shoulder when she fell backwards while in the performance 

of duty.4 OWCP initially accepted the claim for contusion of the right wrist and other symptoms referable to the back. 

It later expanded the accepted conditions to include right rotator cuff tear. OWCP administratively combined OWCP 

File Nos. xxxxxx753 and xxxxxx229, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx753 designated as the master file.
3

incapacitated and unable to work due to a work-related injury. In a duty status report (Form 

CA-17) of even date, he diagnosed a lumbar sprain/strain due to injury and continued to advise 

that appellant was unable to work. 

In an April 11, 2014 report, Dr. Edward Chorette, an internist, provided an impression of 

lumbar sprain. On May 15, 2014 he reported appellant’s complaint of low back pain for 

approximately the past two years, which she informed was work related. Dr. Chorette discussed 

examination findings and indicated that appellant had an appointment with a different physician 

on May 24, 2014 regarding her shoulder surgery. 

In a May 15, 2014 work status form report, Dr. Chorette advised that appellant was 

incapacitated from work through June 19, 2014. 

Dr. Jeffrey Andry, a Board-certified family practitioner, in reports dated December 12, 

2014, and January 16, February 13, and May 1, 2015, noted appellant’s medical history which 

included low back pain, right side rotator cuff surgery, and major depression. He provided 

impressions of low back pain secondary to a lumbar sprain, depression, lumbar sprain with prior 

evidence of intervertebral disc disease with a herniated disc at L4-5, continued right shoulder pain 

despite several surgeries for right rotator cuff tear, contusion of the right wrist, brachial neuritis, 

cervicalgia, and right rotator cuff sprain. In the January 16 and May 1, 2015 reports, Dr. Andry 

advised that appellant would remain off work. 

OWCP, in a development letter dated September 17, 2018, informed appellant that the 

evidence submitted was insufficient to establish her claim for wage-loss compensation. It advised 

her of the type of medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and afforded her 30 days to 

submit the requested evidence.

In an undated response, appellant noted that she was unable to submit medical documents 

from 2013 because her physician was no longer in practice. She asserted that OWCP already had 

all the medical records from her physician in her file. Appellant further asserted that, since her 

claim had been approved, she was entitled to wage-loss compensation.

By decision dated November 1, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

for disability during the period June 13 through December 27, 2013. It found that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that she was disabled from work during the claimed 

period causally related to her January 15, 2013 employment injury. 

OWCP subsequently received a March 5, 2018 postoperative report from Dr. Kevin 

McCarthy, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, regarding a cervical fusion procedure and 

March 5 and 6, 2018 progress notes containing an illegible signature.

On December 17, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the November 1, 2018 

decision. 

By decision dated February 4, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its November 1, 2018 

decision. It found that the medical evidence submitted did not contain a rationalized medical 
4

opinion explaining the causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and disability 

from work during the period June 13 through December 27, 2013.5

In a November 16, 2020 de novodecision, OWCPagain denied appellant’s claim for wageloss compensation for disability during the claimed period. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6 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.7 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.8 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.9

Under FECA, the term disability means an incapacity because of an employment injury, to

earn the wages the employee wasreceivingatthe time of the injury.10 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.11

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.12 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 factors identified

by the employee.13

5 On October 23, 2019 OWCP paid appellant $78.19 for a medical appointment on July 27, 2013. 

6

Supra note 2.

7

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).

8

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).

9

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

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

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

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

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

45 ECAB 365 (1994).
5

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period June 13 through December 27, 2013 causally related to her accepted 

January 15, 2013 employment injury.

In support of her claim for compensation, appellant submitted reports from Dr. Berkowitz. 

In a July 7, 2014 repot, Dr. Berkowitz diagnosed lumbar sprain. He opined that appellant was very 

depressed and unable to work as a consequence of her 2007 work injury. Although Dr. Berkowitz 

opined that appellant developed employment-related disability, his opinion is of limited probative 

value because he did not explain, with rationale, how or why appellant was unable to perform her 

regular work during the claimed period of disability due to the effects of her accepted conditions. 

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.14 Therefore, Dr. Berkowitz’ report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s disability claim.

Similarly, while Dr. Berkowitz, in his work status form reports dated June 15, 2013 

through November 3, 2014, narrative reports dated July 11 and 14, 2014, and Form CA-17 report 

dated July 14, 2014 placed appellant off work on intermittent dates during the period June 15, 2013 

through December 9, 2014 due to a work-related injury, he did not explain, with rationale, how or 

why appellant was unable to perform her regular work during the claimed period of disability due 

to the effects of her accepted conditions. Therefore, these reports are insufficient to establish 

appellant’s disability claim.15

Dr. Berkowitz’ November 20, 2013 report is also insufficient to establish appellant’s 

disability claim. In his November 20, 2013 report, he opined that appellant sustained an 

employment-related lumbar sprain on January 15, 2013. However, Dr. Berkowitz did not offer an 

opinion as to whether she had disability during the claimed period causally related to an accepted 

condition. 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.16 Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

While Dr. Berkowitz’ remaining report dated July 11, 2014 indicated that appellant could 

return to full-duty work within six months of the date of his report, this evidence does not provide 

an opinion concerning appellant’s disability for the period June 13 through December 2013. 

14 See T.S., Docket No. 20-1229 (issued August 6, 2021); S.K., Docket No. 19-0272 (issued July21, 2020); T.T.,

Docket No. 18-1054 (issued April8, 2020); Y.D.,Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

15 Id.

16 See T.S., supra note 14; 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).
6

Therefore, Dr. Berkowitz’report is of no probative value and insufficient to establish the disability 

claim.17

Appellant also submitted reports from Dr. Boucree. In work status form reports dated 

June 15 and September 7, 2013, Dr. Boucree advised that appellant was incapacitated from work 

from June 15 through July 27, 2013 and September 7 through October 15, 2013. He indicated that 

she suffered an on-the-job injury. However, Dr. Boucree did not explain, with rationale, how or 

why appellant was unable to perform her regular work during the claimed period of disability due 

to the effects of her accepted conditions. Thus, his reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s 

disability claim.18

In narrative reports dated June 15, July 27, and October 5, 2013, Dr. Boucree diagnosed 

lumbar sprain and strain and opined that appellant sustained an employment-related injury on 

January 15, 2013. However, he did not offer an opinion that appellant was disabled during the 

claimed period causally related to an accepted employment condition. Therefore, these reports are 

of no probative value and, thus, insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.19

Further, the reports of Dr. Andry, Dr. Chorette, and Dr. McCarthy do not provide an 

opinion concerning appellant’s disability for the period June 13 through December 2013. They 

are, therefore, of no probative value and insufficient to establish the disability claim.20

Appellant submitted progress notes containing an illegible signature. The Board has held 

that reports that are unsigned or bear an illegible signature lack proper identification and cannot 

be considered probative medical evidence as the author cannot be identified as a physician. 21 

Accordingly, this report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

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.22 Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence 

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

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

17 M.V., Docket No. 20-0872 (issued January27, 2020); P.R.,Docket No. 20-0596 (issued October 6, 2020); M.L., 

Docket No. 18-1058 (issued November 21, 2019);D.J., Docket No. 18-0200(issued August 12, 2019).

18 See supra note 13.

19 See supra note 14.

20 See supra note 16.

21 See T.S., supra note 14; Y.D., Docket No. 20-0097(issued August 25, 2020); M.A.,Docket No. 19-1551 (issued 

April 30, 2020); T.O.,Docket No. 19-1291 (issued December 11, 2019).

22 Supra note 7.
7

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish disability for 

the period June 13 through December 27, 2013 causally related to her accepted January 15, 2013 

employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 16, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 12, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board