United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RANSON POST 

OFFICE, Ranson, WV, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1155

Issued: March 23, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 4, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 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 May21, 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 her remaining 

claims for intermittent disability from work for the period March 5 through April 9, 2021, causally 

related to her accepted April 30, 2018 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 8, 2018 appellant then a 41-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on April 30, 2018 she sustained a strained left hip/buttock when she 

was startled by a snake and fell backwards when delivering mail while in the performance of duty. 

She stopped work on the filing date of her claim. On June 8, 2018 OWCP initially accepted the 

claim for strain of the muscle, fascia, and tendon of the left hip, and unspecified strain of the left 

hip. It later expanded acceptance of the claim to include trochanteric tendinitis/bursitis of the left 

hip and strain of the gluteus medius. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the 

supplemental rolls as of June 23, 2018 and on the periodic rolls commencing January 6, 2019. It 

again paid her intermittent wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls as of September 15, 

2019, following her return to part-time limited-duty work on September 23, 2019.

Appellant filed several claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work for 

the period February 27 through April 9, 2021. On March 29, and April 2 and 13, 2021 she filed 

an accompanying time analysis form (Form CA-7a) wherein she claimed that she used leave 

without pay (LWOP) as follows: eight hours each on February 27, March 13, 16, 20, 23, and 30, 

and April 2, and 3, 2021 due to her days off work; two hours on March 1, 2021; 1.34 hours on 

March 3, 2021; 4.20 hours on March 4, 2021; eight hours each on March 5 and 6, 2021 to receive 

an injection in her physician’s office; 3.48 hours on March 8, 2021; 2.35 hours on March 9, 2021;

eight hours on March 11, 2021 due to being placed off work by her physician; eight hours each on 

March 12, 15, 19, 22, 29 and April 8 and 9, 2021 due to hip pain; 1.46 hours on March 24, 2021; 

3.08 hours on March 25, 2021; 2.02 hours on March 31, 2021; 2.85 hours on April, 1, 2021; 2.59 

hours on April 6, 2021; and 4.45 hours on April 7, 2021.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical reports dated March 4 and 24, 2021 

from Juris Eyler, a physician assistant. Mr. Eyler diagnosed pain, unilateral primary osteoarthritis, 

other articular cartilage disorders of the left hip; sacroiliitis, not elsewhere classified; difficulty in 

walking, not elsewhere classified, and trochanteric bursitis of the left hip. He advised that appellant 

could continue to perform sedentary work with restrictions and indicated that her absences from 

work for a partial day on March 4, 2021 and a full day on March 5, 2021 should be excused due 

to a hip injection she received on March 4, 2021. On March 24, 2021 Mr. Eyler restricted her to 

work four-to-six hours per day, three- to four-hour days per week, due to flare-ups of pain and 

other symptoms effective March 3, 2021.

OWCP, in a development letter dated March 29, 2021, 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 disability claim and afforded her 30 days 

to submit the requested evidence.
3

In a separate letter dated March 29, 2021, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment indicate whether work was available for appellant on February 27 and March 5, 6, 

11, and 12, 2021.

OWCP subsequently paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls for 

intermittent disability from work for the period February 13 through 26 and March 8 and 9, 2021.

OWCP received an April 3, 2020 left hip arthrogram report by Dr. Taik-Kun Kim, a Boardcertified diagnostic radiologist. Dr. Kim noted that the arthrogram was performed prior to a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. He provided an impression that the arthrogram was 

successful and uncomplicated.

On April 6, 2021 the employing establishment responded to OWCP’s March 29, 2021 

letter, noting that no work was available on February 27, 2021 and eight hours of work was 

available on March 5, 6, 11, and 12, 2021.

In an April 16, 2021 letter, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide 

whether limited-duty work was available for appellant on intermittent dates during the period

March 13 through April 9, 2021.

In an initial response dated April 22, 2021, the employing establishment indicated that up 

to six hours of limited-duty work per day was available on March 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 

30, 31 and April 2, 3, 8, and 9, 2021. It indicated that medical evidence dated March 24, 2020 

provided that appellant could work four-to-six hours per day, three-to-four days per week as 

tolerated.

On April 28, 2021 the employing establishment further responded that appellant had days 

off from work and was off work based on her physician’s order during the period March 13 through 

April 9, 2021. It noted that her days off from work were March 13, 16, 20, 23, and 30 and 

April 2, 2021. The employing establishment also noted that appellant was off from work on 

March 15, 19, 22, and 29 and April 6 and 9, 2021 based on her physician’s order. Appellant

worked 5.98 hours on March 31, 2021.

OWCP subsequently paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls for 

intermittent disability from work for the periodsMarch 13 through 26, 2021 and March 31 through 

April 7, 2021.

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. In an April 3, 2021 left hip MRI arthrogram

report, Dr. John M. Filigenzi, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, provided an impression of 

mild left hip chondromalacia. Dr. Filigenzi related that appellant had a complex tear of the 

acetabular labrum extending from the anterior-superior labrum through the posterior-superior 

labrum, more severe anteriorly as detailed in his report. He also provided impressions of mild 

degenerative changes of the sacroiliac joints and pubic symphysis, based on review of an April 1, 

2020 pelvis MRI scan.

Dr. S. Shar Hashemi, a Board-certified surgeon, noted in reports dated May 10 and 14, 

2021 that appellant’s history of a 2018 employment-related left hip injury. He discussed: 

examination findings and diagnosed injury of cutaneous sensory nerve at hip and thigh level, left 
4

leg, initial encounter; injury of other nerves at hip and thigh level, left leg, initial encounter; and 

causalgia of the left lower limb. Dr. Hashemi placed appellant off work for one month 

commencing April 29 and May 14, 2021, respectively.

A May 6, 2021 report by Dr. Raj Parekh, an anesthesiologist, noted appellant’s history of 

injury, discussed examination findings, and provided impressions of high risk medication 

monitoring narcotics, left hip chronic pain syndrome, unspecified and uncomplicated opioid use, 

generalized anxiety disorder, and left hip labral tear. Dr. Parekh related that there was no doubt 

that appellant’s left hip pain was causing significant disability and pain. He noted that she reported 

that prior to her accepted employment injury, she was quite active, but now she was limited by her 

pain and could not adequately perform her work duties.

In a May 21, 2021 decision, OWCP authorized payment of wage-loss compensation for 

eight hours on February 27, 2021 and two hours each on March 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 

and 31 and April 2, 3, 8, and 9, 2021. It also noted that appellant had previously received 

intermittent wage-loss compensation for March 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 17, 24, 25, 31, and April 1, 6, and 

9, 2021. The claim remained denied, however, as appellant had not provided medical evidence 

establishing that she was disabled from work as a result of her accepted work -related medical 

conditions for the remainder of the claimed period.

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 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 probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.7

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

earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.8 When, however, the medical

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

4

Supra note 2.

5

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).

6

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).

7

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

8

Id. at § 10.5(f); see, e.g.,G.T., 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); Cheryl L.Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).
5

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

entitled to compensation for any loss of wages.9

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.10 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.11

For a routine medical appointment, a maximum of four hours of compensation for time lost 

to obtain medical treatment is usually allowed.12

ANALYSIS

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

claims for intermittent disability from work for the period March 5 through April 9, 2021, causally 

related to her accepted April 30, 2018 employment injury. Appellant filed a series of CA-7 forms 

for intermittent disability from work commencing February 27, 2021. The record reflects that 

OWCP has paid intermittent wage-loss compensation commencing February 27, 2021 for the dates 

on which eight hours of work was not made available by the employing establishment and for the 

dates on which appellant received authorized medical treatment. 

OWCP received reports from medical providers regarding appellant’s disability status 

during the relevant period. Several reports were submitted by Mr. Eyler, a physician assistant. In 

a report dated March 4, 2021, Mr. Eyler advised that appellant’s absences from work for a partial 

day on March 4, 2021 and a full day on March 5, 2021 should be excused due to a hip injection 

she received on March 4, 2021. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation for the time she 

lost from work to receive the hip injection on March 4, 2021; however, it denied her claim for 

wage-loss compensation commencing March 5, 2021 as Mr. Eyler’s opinion regarding appellant’s 

disability status was of no probative value.13 On March 24, 2021 Mr. Eyler restricted her to work 

four to six hours per day, three to four hour days per week, due to flare -ups of pain and other 

symptoms effective March 3, 2021. The Board has held that the reports of a physician assistant

are of no probative value as a physician assistant is not considered a physician as defined under 

FECA and, therefore, is not competent to provide a medical opinion. The reports from Mr. Eyler

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

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

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

45 ECAB 365 (1994).

12 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Compensation Claims, Chapter 2.901.19(c) 

(February2013);see also K.A., Docket No. 19-0679 (issued April6, 2020).

13 D.B., Docket No. 20-0192 (issued November 2, 2020); S.K., Docket No. 19-0272 (issued July 21, 2020).
6

are, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s claim, except to establish that appellant received 

treatment on the dates he provided authorized medical treatment.

14

OWCP also received reports from Dr. Hashemi. In a report dated May 10, 2021,

Dr. Hashemi placed appellant off work for one month commencing April 29, 2021. He noted her 

history of injury and diagnosed injury of cutaneous sensory nerve at the hip and thigh level of left 

leg and causalgia of the left lower limb. However, Dr. Hashemi did not explain, with rationale, 

how or why appellant was unable to perform her regular work on the claimed dates of disability 

due to the effects of her accepted conditions. His other May 14, 2021 report also did not address 

the relevant period of claimed disability. 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.15 For these reasons, the 

Board finds that Dr. Hashemi’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

Appellant also submitted a May 6, 2021 report from Dr. Parekh. Dr. Parekh noted a history 

of the April 30, 2018 employment injury. He diagnosed, inter alia, left hip chronic pain syndrome 

and left hip labral tear. Dr. Parekh opined that appellant’s hip pain caused her disability from 

work. However, he did not offer an opinion as to whether her disability on the claimed dates were 

causally related to the 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.

Likewise, Dr. Kim’s April 3, 2020 procedure note is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

disability claim. In his April 3, 2020 note, he advised that a left hip arthrogram was successful 

and uncomplicated. However, Dr. Kim did not provide an opinion addressing whether appellant 

had disability on the claimed dates causally related to an accepted condition and, as such, his note 

is of no probative value.

17

Appellant submitted left hip MRI arthrogram reports from Dr. Kim and Dr. Filigenzi. The 

Board has held, however, that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue 

14 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that medical opinions can only be given by a qualified physician. This section 

defines a physician as 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) 

(January2013); M.M., Docket No. 20-0019 (issued May 6, 2020); K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); DavidP. 

Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006); see also D.B., id.; E.T., Docket No. 17-0265 (issued May 25, 2018) 

(physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA).

15 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).

16 See T.S., id.; J.M., Docket No. 19-1169 (issued February 7, 2020); A.L., 19-0285 (issued September 24, 2019);

L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K.,Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

17 Id.
7

of causal relationship as they do not address whether the accepted employment injuries resulted in 

appellant’s period of disability on specific dates.18

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.19 Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence 

sufficient to establish employment-related 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.

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 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 her remaining 

claims for intermittent disability from work for the period March 5 through April 9, 2021, causally 

related to her accepted April 30, 2018 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 21, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 23, 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

18 See T.S., id.; 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).

19 Supra note 6.