United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RESERVE POST 

OFFICE, Reserve, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0140

Issued: August 12, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 5, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 21, 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.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 issuance of the October 21, 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

ISSUE

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

commencing March 14, 2020 causally related to her accepted November 26, 2019, employment 

injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 9, 2019 appellant, then a 62-year-old regular rural carrier, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 26, 2019, she injured her left foot, right 

ankle, and right leg when she fell into a hole as she was placing a package on a porch while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on November 27, 2019 and returned to work on 

December 9, 2019. On February 14, 2020 OWCP accepted the claim for contusion on right great 

toe without damage to the nail, initial encounter.

On March 30, 2020 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the period March 14 through 27, 2020.

In a development letter dated March 31, 2020, OWCP advised appellant that no evidence 

had been submitted to establish her claim for intermittent disability during the period March 14 

through 27, 2020. It afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received medical reports from Dr. Abdul Latif Nurudeen, an attending podiatrist. 

In progress notes dated January 7 and 28, February 12, and March 2, 2020, Dr. Nurudeen noted a

history of appellant’s November 26, 2019, employment injury. He provided impressions that 

included the accepted condition of contusion on right great toe without damage to the nail, initial 

encounter, and other hammer toe(s) (acquired), right foot; pain in right toe(s), left ankle, and joints

of left foot; and post-traumatic osteoarthritis, left ankle and foot. 

In an undated attending physician’s report, Part B of an authorization for examination 

and/or treatment (Form CA-16), Dr. Nurudeen reiterated appellant’s history of injury. For the

diagnosis he referenced his progress notes. Dr. Nurudeen checked a box marked “Yes” to indicate 

that the diagnosed condition was caused or aggravated by the reported employment activity. 

Additionally, he advised that appellant was disabled as of November 26, 2020, and she was unable 

to return to work.

On April 20, 2020 appellant filed anotherForm CA-7, claiming compensation for disability 

from work for the period March 28 through April 10, 2020.

OWCP, by development letter dated April 22, 2020, again advised appellant that no 

evidence had been submitted to establish her claim for disability commencingMarch 28, 2020and 

continuing. It afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated May 6, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for compensation for 

disability from work for the period March 14 through 27, 2020, finding that the medical evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish disability during the claimed period due to herNovember 26, 

2019 employment injury.

On May 6, 2020 appellant filed an additional Form CA-7, claiming disability from work 

for the period April 11 through 24, 2020.
3

OWCP subsequently received progress notes dated April 28 and May 5, 2020, and a 

May 1, 2020, duty status report (Form CA-17) in which Dr. Nurudeen restated his impressions of 

left ankle post-traumatic osteoarthritis and left ankle and left foot joint pain. Dr. Nurudeen 

indicated that the diagnosed conditions were due to appellant’s November 26, 2019, employment 

injury. He continued to advise that she was unable to work.

On May 29 and June 17, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for compensation for the 

period May 2 through 29, 2020.

Dr. Nurudeen, in an undated report, advised that appellant’s left ankle post-traumatic 

osteoarthritis and left ankle and left foot joint pain commenced as of January 7, 2020, and that her 

conditions would continue for six to nine months.

In a form dated May 14, 2020, Dr. Joseph L. Finstein, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant was seen for right knee complex tear of the medial meniscus.

OWCP, by decision dated June 18, 2020, denied appellant’s claims for compensation for 

the period March 28 through May 29, 2020. It found that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish disability during the claimed period due to the accepted employment 

injury.

On June 18, 2020 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

OWCP thereafter received a May 27, 2020, therapy order wherein Dr. Finstein diagnosed 

sprain of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) of the right knee, initial encounter. Dr. Finstein

ordered physical therapy to treat appellant’s diagnosed condition.

In a June 9, 2020 progress note, Dr. Nurudeen reiterated appellant’s left ankle and left foot 

diagnoses.

Appellant filed additional Form CA-7 claims for compensation for the period May 30 

through June 26, 2020.

In a July 20, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that no evidence had 

been submitted to establish her claim for intermittent disability from work commencing 

May 30, 2020. It afforded her 30 days to submit the required evidence.

On July 28, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for compensation for disability for the period 

June 27 through July 10, 2020.

In a July 7, 2020 progress note, Dr. Nurudeen provided impressions of short Achilles’

tendon (acquired), right and left ankles. In a Form CA-17 report of even date, he again advised 

that appellant’s diagnoses of post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the left ankle and pain in the left ankle 

and left foot joints were due to her November 26, 2019, employment injury and opined that she 

was unable to return to work.

In a chart note dated July 7, 2020, Dr. Finstein provided an assessment of right ACL sprain 

and medial meniscal scuff. He advised that appellant could return to work but noted that she would 
4

require accommodations if she were bothered by her knee condition. Also, in a therapy order of 

even date, Dr. Finstein ordered physical therapy to treat appellant’s right knee ACL sprain. 

On July 27, 2020 OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), the 

medical record, and a list of questions, to Dr. Christopher E. Cenac, Sr., a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation to determine appellant’s work capacity and 

whether she sustained additional conditions causally related to her November 26, 2019,

employment injury.

On July 23, 2020 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the May 6, 2020, decision.

Following a preliminary review, by decision dated August 19, 2020, the OWCP hearing 

representative vacated the May 6 and June 18, 2020 decisions. The hearing representative 

remanded the case to OWCP to address the entire period of claimed disability, to develop 

appellant’s wage-loss claims by issuing a development letter to appellant’s current mailing 

address, and to further develop the medical evidence as to whether the acceptance of appellant’s 

claim should be expanded to include additional conditions prior to its issuance of a decision on her 

wage-loss claims.

In a July 21, 2020 progress note, Dr. Nurudeen reiterated his impressions of acquired right 

and left ankle short Achilles’ tendon.

In progress notes dated July 29 and August 12, 2020, Dr. Robert Kadish, an attending 

podiatrist, noted appellant’s history of injury on November 26, 2019, and provided impressions of 

peroneal tendinitis, left leg; post-traumatic osteoarthritis, left ankle and foot; and pain in left ankle 

and joints of left foot.

An August 4, 2020 left ankle magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report from

Dr. Bernard Landry, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, revealed an impression of subtle 

focal tendinosis in the retro malleolar segment of the peroneus longus tendon identified without 

full thickness tear.

Dr. Finstein, in a chart note and report dated August 14, 2020, reiterated his diagnosis of 

right ACL sprain with medial meniscal scuff and opinion that appellant may resume work with 

restrictions.

In an August 25, 2020 report, Dr. Cenac reviewed the SOAF and the medical record and 

discussed examination findings. He noted that appellant had subjective complaints not 

substantiated by objective physical findings, x-ray studies, or diagnostic studies. Dr. Cenac found 

no evidence of a traumatic structural injury identified on imaging studies of the right knee and left 

ankles. He indicated that appellant may have had a temporary left ankle sprain and right knee 

contusion, but he maintained that these temporary diagnoses had long since resolved. Dr. Cenac 

explained that she had a completely normal physical examination. He opined that appellant’s 

work-related conditions had resolved and there was no need for further treatment. Dr. Cenac 

recommended a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) to confirm that she had subjective 

complaints not supported by objective physical findings. He also recommended Waddell testing. 

Dr. Cenac related that he had identified symptom magnification and illness behavior. In an 

accompanying work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) dated October 26, 2020, he advised 

that appellant could perform her usual job without restrictions.
5

On September 8, 2020 OWCP referred appellant for diagnostic testing.

In a development letter dated September 15, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that no 

medical evidence had been submitted in support of her claims for compensation for the period 

March 14 through July 10, 2020. It advised her of the type of medical evidence needed to establish 

her disability claims.

OWCP thereafter received chart notes dated September 29 and October 30, 2020, from

Dr. Finstein who reiterated his diagnosis of right ACL sprain with medial meniscal scuff. In a 

September 29, 2020 report, Dr. Finstein advised that appellant could return to light-duty work with 

restrictions.

On November 13, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for disability from work during 

the period July 11 through 29, 2020.

Dr. Kadish, in progress notes dated September 23 and October 21, 2020, and an October 1, 

2020 Form CA-17, restated his impressions of left leg peroneal tendinitis, left ankle and foot posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and left ankle and left foot joint pain. In his October 1, 2020 Form CA17 report, he advised that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were due to her November 26, 2019

employment injury and that she was unable to perform her regular work duties.

An October 6, 2020 FCE determined that appellant could perform full-time sedentary 

work, which was below her prior heavy physical demand letter carrier position. 

On October 26, 2020 Dr. Cenac reviewed the October 6, 2020 FCE. He related that, as 

suspected, the FCE confirmed symptom magnification and illness behavior. Dr. Cenac further 

related that the consistency of effort results indicated significant observational and evidence-based 

inconsistencies resulting in self-limiting behavior and submaximal effort. Reliability of pain 

results indicated that appellant’s functional pain reports were unreliable. Dr. Cenac advised that 

his prior opinion in his August 25, 2020, report remained unchanged. He concluded that the final

diagnosis was temporary left ankle sprain and right knee contusion that had long since resolved.

On December 30, 2020 OWCP requested that Dr. Cenac clarify whether appellant’s claim 

should be accepted for the additional conditions of temporary sprain of the left ankle and contusion 

of the right knee, and if so, provide when these conditions resolved.

Appellant filed additional CA-7 forms for compensation for the period September 5 

through December 18, 2020, and December 26, 2020 through March 13, 2021.

In January 13 and February 10, 2021 progress notes and a January 14, 2021 Form CA-17 

report, Dr. Kadish continued to provide his left leg, left ankle and foot impressions. In his 

January 14, 2021 Form CA-17 report, Dr. Kadish reiterated his opinion on causal relationship.

Dr. Nurudeen, in a February 11, 2021 report, diagnosed left peroneal tendon repair.

In an April 6, 2021 decision, OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to 

include contusion of right knee, initial encounter, and sprain of another ligament of left ankle, 

initial encounter.
6

By de novo decision also dated April 6, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

compensation for disability from work commencing March 14, 2020, and continuing based on

Dr. Cenac’s second opinion reports.

On April 14, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

Appellant continued to file CA-7 forms for compensation for the period March 14 through 

August 13, 2021.

Dr. Kadish, in a February 22, 2021 progress note, reiterated appellant’s left leg, ankle and 

foot diagnoses. In an operative report dated March 1, 2021, Dr. Kadish diagnosed peroneus brevis 

longitudinal tendon tear. He performed repair of peroneus brevis tendon, left foot. Dr. Kadish, in 

a July 6, 2021 prescription, noted that appellant was incapacitated until further notice due to 

recovery from her left foot tendon repair.

A telephonic hearing was held on July 19, 2021. By decision dated October 21, 2021, a 

second OWCP hearing representative affirmed the April 6, 2021, decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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.

5

 Under FECA, the term 

disability means incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages that the employee 

was receiving at the time of injury.6 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.7

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 the 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.8 The medical evidence required to establish 

causal relationship between a claimed period of disability and an employment injury is rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be 

4

Supra note 2.

5

See C.B., Docket No. 20-0629 (issued May 26, 2021); D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); 

F.H., Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August 23, 2019); C.R., Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn 

Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); J.S.,Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January 24, 2020).

7 T.W., Docket No. 19-1286 (issued January 13, 2020).

 

8 A.S., Docket No. 20-0406 (issued August18, 2021); AmeliaS. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).
7

supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the claimed 

disability and the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.9

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.10

ANALYSIS

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

work commencing March 14, 2020, causally related to her accepted November 26, 2019,

employment injury.

Second opinion physician Dr. Cenac, in his August 25, 2020, report, opined that 

appellant’s accepted conditions hadresolved and there was no need for further treatment. He noted 

that she may have had a temporary left ankle sprain and right knee contusion, which were 

subsequently accepted as work related by OWCP, but he advised that these temporary diagnoses 

had long since resolved. Dr. Cenac explained that appellant’s examination was completely normal 

and there were no objective findings to substantiate her subjective complaints. He concluded that 

she could perform her usual job without restrictions. In a supplemental report dated October 26, 

2020, Dr. Cenac reviewed the October 6, 2020, FCEand advised that his August 25, 2020, opinion

remained unchanged. He explained that the FCE confirmed his suspension of symptom 

magnification and illness behavior. Dr. Cenac noted that the FCE revealed significant 

observational and evidence-based inconsistencies resulting in self-limited behavior and 

submaximal effort, and unreliable functional pain reports. He concluded that appellant’s final 

diagnosis was temporary sprain of the left ankle and contusion of the right knee that had long since 

resolved. Dr. Cenac based his opinion on a proper factual and medical history. He provided 

physical examination findings and a well-rationalized opinion based on the medical evidence 

regarding the accepted conditions causally related to appellant’s November 26, 2019, employment 

injury. Accordingly, the Board finds that Dr. Cenac’s reports represent the weight of the medical 

evidence and establish that appellant was not disabled commencing March 14, 2020, and 

continuing, causally related to the accepted employment injury. 

In support of her claims for compensation, appellant submitted reports from her attending 

physician, Dr. Nurudeen. In CA-17 reports dated May 1 and July 7, 2020, Dr. Nurudeen 

diagnosed left ankle and foot post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and left ankle and left foot joint pain 

due to the November 26, 2019, employment injury. He advised that appellant was unable to work. 

In an undated attending physician’s report, Dr. Nurudeen checked a box marked “Yes” to indicate 

that the diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by the accepted employment injury. He 

also advised that appellant was disabled as of November 26, 2020, and she was unable to return to 

work. Although Dr. Nurudeen opined that she was disabled during the claimed period, he failed 

to explain how the November 26, 2019, employment injury was responsible for her disability and 

why she was unable to perform the duties of her position during the period claimed. The Board 

 

9 T.L., Docket No. 20-0978 (issued August2, 2021); V.A., Docket No. 19-1123 (issued October 29, 2019).

10 See C.T., Docket No. 20-0786 (issued August 20, 2021); M.J., Docket No. 19-1287 (issued January 13, 2020); 

WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
8

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.11 Thus, Dr. Nurudeen’sreports are insufficient to establish appellant’s 

disability claim.

Dr. Nurudeen’s progress notes dated January 7 through July 21, 2020, provided 

impressions of the accepted condition of contusion on right great toe without damage to the nail, 

initial encounter; and provided impressions of right foot acquired other hammer toe(s); right toe(s)

pain; and right and left ankle acquired short Achilles’ tendon. He reiterated his prior impressions

of left ankle and left foot joint pain and left ankle and foot post-traumatic osteoarthritis. However,

Dr. Nurudeen did not offer an opinion regarding whether appellant was totally disabled from work 

during the claimed period due to the accepted employment conditions. 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.12 Thus, the Board finds that 

his progress notes are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability 

claim.

Likewise, Dr. Nurudeen’s remaining undated report and February 11, 2021,reportwas also 

insufficient to establish that appellant’s disability commencing March 14, 2020, and continuing

was causally related to her accepted November 26, 2019, employment injury. He restated his 

impressions of left ankle and foot post-traumatic osteoarthritis and left ankle and left foot joint 

pain and diagnosed left peroneal tendon repair, but he did not provide an opinion regarding whether 

appellant was totally disabled from work during the claimed period due to the accepted 

employment injury. Thus, the Board finds that his reports are of no probative value and are 

insufficient to establish her disability claim.

13

Appellant also submitted reports from her attending physician, Dr. Kadish. In CA-17 

reports dated October 1, 2020, and January 14, 2021, Form CA-17, Dr. Kadish diagnosed left leg 

peroneal tendinitis, left ankle and foot post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and left ankle and left foot 

joint pain due to the November 26, 2019,employment injury. He opined that appellant was unable 

to perform her regular work duties. While Dr. Kadish opined that appellant developed 

employment-related disability, his opinion is of limited probative value because he did not explain, 

with rationale, how or why she was unable to perform her regular work during the claimed period 

of disability because of her accepted conditions. Thus, Dr. Kadish’s reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s disability claim.14

Likewise, Dr. Kadish’s remaining March 1, 2021 operative report and July 6, 2021

prescription are also insufficient to establish that appellant’s disability commencing March 14, 

2020, and continuing was due to her accepted November 26, 2019, employment injury. In his 

11 See T.S., Docket No. 20-1229 (issued August 6, 2021); S.K., Docket No. 19-0272 (issued July 21, 2020); 

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

12 See T.S., Docket No. 20-1229 (issued August6, 2021); 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).

13 Id.

14 See supra note 11.
9

March 1, 2021 operative report, he diagnosed left foot peroneus brevis longitudinal tendon tear 

and performed left foot repair surgery. In his July 6, 2021 prescription, Dr. Kadish advised that 

appellant was incapacitated until further notice due to recovery from her left foot tendon repair. 

Although he opined that appellant’s disability from work was an employment-related disability, 

his opinion is of limited probative value because he did not provide medical rationale explaining 

how or why the accepted employment injury caused her disability during the period claimed. 

Therefore, Dr. Kadish’s March 1, 2021 operative report and July 6, 2021 prescription are 

insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.15

Dr. Kadish’s remaining progress notes dated July 29, 2020 through February 22, 2021,

restated his impressions of left leg peroneal tendinitis, left ankle and foot post-traumatic 

osteoarthritis, and left ankle and left foot joint pain. However, he did not offer an opinion as to 

whether appellant had disability during the claimed period causally related to an accepted 

condition. Therefore, Dr. Kadish’s progress notes are of no probative value and insufficient to 

establish the disability claim.16

Likewise, Dr. Finstein’s prescription, therapy orders, chart notes, and reports dated May 14

through October 30, 2020, are also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim for employmentrelated disability during the claimed period. In his therapy orders, chart notes, and reports dated 

May 27 through October 30, 2020, Dr. Finstein diagnosed right knee ACL sprain with medial 

meniscal scuff. He released appellant to return to light-duty work with restrictions as of 

July 7, 2020. This evidence is of no probative value regarding appellant’s disability claim because 

it does not contain an opinion that she had disability during the claimed period causally related to 

an accepted employment condition. Therefore, the medical evidence from Dr. Finstein is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.17

Appellant also submitted Dr. Landry’s August 4, 2020, left ankle MRI scan report. The 

Board has held, however, that diagnostic studies standing alone are of limited probative value as 

they do not address whether the employment injury caused appellant to be disabled during the 

claimed period.18 This report is, therefore, insufficient to establish the disability 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 due to the accepted employment 

injury.19 Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence 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.

15 Id.

16 See supra note 12.

17 Id.

 

18 See A.D., Docket No. 21-0143 (issued November 15, 2021); T.S., supra note 13; D.M., Docket No. 20-0548 

(issued November 25, 2020); O.C., Docket No. 20-0514 (issued October 8, 2020); R.J., Docket No. 19-0179 (issued 

May 26, 2020); J.S., Docket No. 17-1039 (issued October 6, 2017).

19 Supra note 8.
10

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 her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for the period commencing March 14, 2020, and continuing, causally related to her accepted 

November 26, 2019 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 21, 2021, decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 12, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board