United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SAM HOUSTON 

POST OFFICE, Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0753

Issued: September 23, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 13, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 18, 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the October 18, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “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 July 27, 2021, causally related to the accepted June 11, 2021 employment 

injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 16, 2021 appellant, then a 27-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 11, 2021 she sustained a neck injury while in the performance 

of duty when her employing establishment vehicle flipped multiple times after being struck by an 

automobile. She stopped work on June 11, 2021. OWCP accepted the claim for left shoulder 

contusion; cervical, lumbar and pelvis sprains; and other early complications of trauma. 

In a report dated July 29, 2021, Dr. Marcos V. Masson, Board-certified in orthopedic 

surgery and hand surgery, noted that appellant was approximately seven weeks’ status post motor 

vehicle accident. On examination he reported that appellant had normal hand examination 

findings, and normal peripheral nervous system findings. Dr. Masson related that a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s left shoulder found no fracture and an intact cuff. 

He related that she had lumbosacral tenderness, left shoulder tenderness and tightness on 

examination, and an otherwise normal examination. Diagnoses included lower and upper back 

sprain, and left shoulder impingement syndrome, improving slowly. Dr. Masson noted that 

appellant was off work, but recommended that appellant perform medium work for seven to eight

hours a day. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated July 29, 2021, Dr. Masson noted a June 11, 

2021 injury and advised that appellant was currently disabled from work. He diagnosed low and 

upper back and cervical sprain and left shoulder contusion.

On August 13, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work during the period July 27 to August 13, 2021. 

In a compensation claim development letter dated August 30, 2021, OWCP informed 

appellant of the deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of evidence required and 

afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Thereafter, OWCP received Form CA-7 claims for compensation for disability from work 

during the period August 14 through October 8, 2021.

Dr. Masson, in a September 13, 2021 report, noted appellant’s history of injury and her 

complaints. Examination findings and diagnoses were unchanged from his prior report.

Dr. Masson noted that a left shoulder injection had been recommended and approved. He related 

that appellant could perform sedentary work with no overhead lifting, and that she would 

experience pain if she carried a mailbag. In a Form CA-17 of even date, Dr. Masson indicated that 

she was capable of sedentary work and provided work restrictions.

OWCP received physical therapy reports covering the period September 22 to 

October 15, 2021. 
3

By decision dated October 18, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

disability from work, commencing July 27, 2021, causally related to the accepted June 11, 2021 

employment injury.

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

 The term disability is 

defined as the incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages the employee was 

receiving at the time of the injury.5 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.6

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.7 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 

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

disability and the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.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

3

Supra note 1.

4

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); see also Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 

712 (1986).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); S.T., Docket No. 18-0412 (issued October 22, 2018); CherylL. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 

397 (1999).

6

See A.S., Docket No. 20-0406 (issued August 18, 2021); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018);

Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

7 A.S., id.; AmeliaS. Jefferson, id.; WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

8 T.L., Docket No. 20-0978 (issued August 2, 2021); V.A.,Docket No. 19-1123 (issued October 29, 2019).

9C.T., Docket No. 20-0786 (issued August 20, 2021); S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); WilliamA. 

Archer, supra note 7; Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
4

ANALYSIS

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

work, commencing July 27, 2021, causally related to the accepted June 11, 2021 employment 

injury.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted reports and CA-17 form reports from

Dr. Masson. In his July 29, 2021 narrative report, Dr. Masson related that appellant had normal

hand examination findings, and normal peripheral nervous system findings. An MRI scan of 

appellant’s left shoulder found no fracture and an intact cuff. Dr. Masson related that appellant 

had lumbosacral tenderness, left shoulder tenderness and tightness on examination, and an 

otherwise normal examination. Appellant’s current diagnoses included lower and upper back 

sprain, and left shoulder impingement syndrome, improving slowly. Dr. Masson noted that 

appellant was off work, but recommended that appellant perform medium work for seven to eight

hours a day. In the Form CA-17 dated July 29, 2021, he found appellant totally disabled. 

The Board finds that Dr. Masson’s report and Form CA-17 dated July 29, 2021 are

contradictory and conclusory in nature regarding appellant’s disability status. Further, these 

reports fail to explain how the accepted conditions caused disability and why appellant was unable 

to perform the duties of her federal employment during the period claimed. 10 The Board has 

explained that the physician must offer an explanation as to why appellant required specific work 

restrictions based on objective medical evidence.11 Dr. Masson related essentially normal physical 

findings and did not explain how any objective findings caused disability. Thus, these reports are 

of limited probative value and insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim. 

OWCP also received a narrative report and Form CA-17 dated September 13, 2021 from

Dr. Masson advising that appellant was able to work with restrictions. While he related appellant’s

work restrictions, his opinion was conclusory. Dr. Masson did not provide objective medical 

findings to explain why appellant required work restrictions due to the accepted left shoulder 

contusion, cervical, lumbar, and pelvis sprains, and other early complications of trauma. He did 

not provide any medical rationale as to why appellant could not perform her federal employment 

duties during the claimed period.12 Thus, this evidence is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden 

of proof.

10 J.W., Docket No. 19-1688 (issued March 18, 2020); KathrynE. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

11 See S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, supra note 9.

12 See E.M., Docket No. 20-0738 (issued June22, 2022); E.M., Docket No. 18-0454 (issued February 20, 2020).
5

The remaining evidence of record consists of physical therapy notes. The Board has long 

held that certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and physical 

therapists are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.

13

 Their medical findings, reports 

and/or opinions, unless cosigned by a qualified physician, will not suffice for purposes of 

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.

14

 Consequently, this additional evidence is insufficient 

to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence, based on objective medical 

findings, establishing disability from work for the claimed period causally related to the accepted 

June 11, 2021 employment injury, the Board finds that she has not met her 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 her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work commencing July 27, 2021, causally related to the accepted June 11, 2021 employment 

injury.

13 Section 8101(2) of FECA 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.” 

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013);DavidP. 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). See also H.M., Docket No. 22-0343 (issued June 28, 2022); A.M., Docket No. 20-1575 (issued May 24, 2021) 

(physical therapists are not physicians as defined by FECA).

14 Id.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 18, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 23, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board