United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.L., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, TINKER 

AIR FORCE BASE, OK, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0337

Issued: September 9, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 5, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 14, 

2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 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.

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.
2

ISSUE

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

for the period October 1, 2018 through February 24, 2020 causally related to his accepted March 5, 

2018 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 13, 2018 appellant, then a 29-year-old aircraft mechanic, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 5, 2018 he broke a screw from a previous ankle surgery 

when he tripped and twisted his ankle while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on 

March 5, 2018 and returned to work on March 6, 2018. OWCP accepted the claim for a right ankle 

sprain and a stress fracture of the right ankle, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine 

healing. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from May 14 to 

June 23, 2018 and on the periodic rolls from June 24 to August 18, 2018.

On February 25, 2020 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the period October 1, 2018 to February 24, 2020.

In a development letter dated March 4, 2020, OWCP requested that appellant submit a 

comprehensive report from his attending physician addressing how his condition worsened such 

that he was unable to work for the period October 1, 2018 through February 24, 2020 due to his 

accepted employment injury. It afforded him 30 days to provide the requested evidence. No 

evidence was received.

By decision dated April 16, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation due to disability from work for the period October 1, 2018 through February 24, 

2020 causally related to the March 5, 2018 employment injury.

On April 24, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

A telephonic hearing was held on August 12, 2020. Counsel related that appellant had 

sustained a right ankle injury that necessitated hardware. Appellantsubsequently sustained a work 

injury that displaced a portion of his hardware. He underwent a removal of the hardware, but 

developed necrosis, which was treated with a below-the-knee amputation and subsequent revision 

amputation. 

By decision dated October 26, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

April 16, 2020 decision.

Thereafter, OWCP received an undated work status report fromDr. Ertl. Dr. Ertl discussed 

appellant’s history of a right transtibial amputation in August 2018 and revision on 

February 19, 2020. He advised that his recovery and transition back to a prosthesis required him 

to be off work. Dr. Ertl noted that appellant had also experienced a depressed right lateral tibial 

plateau fracture in June, which “required him not to wear his prosthesis and not work, causing 

increased anxiety and depression.” He opined that he could likely resume work around 
3

September 23, 2020. Dr. Ertl diagnosed a right transtibial amputation and a right depressed lateral 

tibial plateau fracture.

In a report dated March 1, 2021, Dr. David Dawson, who specializes in family medicine,

provided a history of appellant tripping at work on an uneven surface on March 5, 2018 fracturing 

an ankle that had previously been surgically repaired. He noted that, after multiple subsequent 

surgeries, appellant developed bony necrosis of the talus treated with a below-the-knee amputation 

in July 2018. Dr. Dawson advised that appellant had difficulty with his prosthetic and had also 

fractured his tibia in 2019. He related that appellant was “unable to work because of these 

complications since March 5, 2018” and was applying for disability retirement. Dr. Dawson 

diagnosed status post fracture of the ankle with a right below-the-knee amputation. He 

recommended approval of medical retirement.

On November 9, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. He asserted 

that the March 1, 2021 report from Dr. Dawson was sufficient to require further development of 

the medical evidence.

By decision dated December 14, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its October 26, 2020 

decision.

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

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. 5 Disability is, thus, not 

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

wages.6 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.7 When, however, the medical evidence 

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

3

Id.

4 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);Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989); see also Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 

712 (1986).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April 29, 2020); Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 

746 (2004).

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

7

See M.W., Docket No. 20-0722 (issued April26, 2021); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018).
4

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

entitled to compensation for loss of wages.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 

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

entitlement to compensation.9

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period October 1, 2018 through February 24, 2020 causally related to his accepted 

March 5, 2018 employment injury.

On March 1, 2021 Dr. Dawson discussed appellant’s history of an employment injury on 

March 5, 2018 when he tripped and fractured an ankle after a surgical repair. He noted that, 

following surgeries, appellant underwent a below-the-knee amputation to treat bony necrosis of 

the talus in July 2018. Appellant subsequently had difficulty with his prosthetic and fractured his 

tibia in 2019. Dr. Dawson opined that he was totally disabled from employment as of March 5, 

2018 due to complications. He diagnosed status post fracture of the ankle with a right below-theknee amputation and recommended medical retirement. However, Dr. Dawson did not provide 

sufficient rationale explaining how the work-related disability related to the claimed period. He

failed to differentiate between the effects of appellant’s accepted employment injury and the 

nonoccupational motorcycle accident.10 Consequently, Dr. Dawson’s opinion is of limited 

probative value regarding whether he had work-related disability for the period October 1, 2018 

through February 24, 2020.11

In an undated report, Dr. Ertl discussed appellant’s history of a right transtibial amputation 

in August 2018 and revision on February 19, 2020. He advised that his recovery required him to 

be off work. Dr. Ertl also noted that appellant had fractured his right lateral tibial plateau in June 

which “required him not to wear his prosthesis and not work, causing increased anxiety and 

depression.” He opined that appellant could likely resume work around September 23, 2020. 

Dr. Ertl diagnosed a right transtibial amputation and a right depressed lateral tibial plateau 

fracture. He, however, failed to explain how or why appellant was unable to perform his work 

duties during the claimed period of disability as a result of his accepted employment injury. 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 

8

See A.R., supra note 4; D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).

9

See M.J., Docket No. 19-1287 (issued January 13, 2020); C.S., Docket No. 17-1686 (issued February 5, 2019);

WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

10 See A.P., Docket No. 21-0300 (issued April6, 2022); R.J., Docket No. 18-1701 (issued May 18, 2020).

11 Id.
5

employment-related cause.12 Therefore, Dr. Ertl’s report is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

disability claim.

On February 13, 2019 Dr. Ertl noted that appellant had undergone a stability of the right 

talus after a motorcycle accident. He later experienced a rotational injury, had surgery to remove 

hardware in his ankle, and developed osteonecrosis of the talus treated with a transtibial 

amputation in July 2018. Dr. Ertl discussed appellant’s complaints of pain using his prosthesis 

and recommended surgical revision. He did not, however, address the issue of disability from 

employment. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not address whether a period of 

disability is due to an accepted employment condition is of no probative value on the issue of 

disability and insufficient to establish a claim.13

The record contains progress reports from Dr. Uhland discussing appellant’s condition 

following his below-the-knee amputation. Dr. Uhland did not address his disability status or 

causation. 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. 14

Appellant also submitted the results of diagnostic studies. However, diagnostic studies, 

standing alone, lack probative value as they do not address whether the accepted employment 

injury caused appellant to be disabled from work during the claimed periods. 15

As the medical evidence of record does not contain a rationalized opinion establishing 

causal relationship between appellant’s claimed disability and his accepted employment injury, 

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(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 disability from 

work for the period October 1, 2018 through February 24, 2020 causally related to his accepted 

March 5, 2018 employment injury.

12 A.P., supra note 10;S.S., Docket No. 21-0763 (issued November 12, 2021).

13 See C.S., Docket No. 21-1048 (issued April20, 2022); C.P., Docket No. 19-1716 (issued March 11, 2020); C.R., 

Docket No. 19-1427 (issued January 3, 2020).

14 K.F., Docket No.19-1846 (issued November 3, 2020);L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

15 C.S., Docket No. 19-1279 (issued December 30, 2019).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 14, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 9, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board