United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Fort Knox, KY, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0184

Issued: June 7, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 16, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

November 3, 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 December 6, 2019 through January 24, 2020, causally related to his accepted 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 7, 2010 appellant, then a 45-year-old construction control representative, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he suffered from post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD) due to factors of his federal employment, including his deployment to 

Afghanistan. He noted that he first became aware of his condition and its relationship to his federal 

employment on May 20, 2010. On December 23, 2010 OWCP accepted the claim for PTSD. 

Appellant subsequently returned to full-time, full-duty work, but stopped work again on

October 23, 2019.

On December 2, 2019 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA2a) claiming 

disability from work commencing October 23, 2019 due to his accepted employment injury. 

By decision dated June 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim, finding that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that he was disabled from work due to 

a material change or worsening of his accepted work-related condition. By decision dated 

February 9, 2021, it vacated the June 23, 2020 decision. OWCP found that appellant sustained a 

recurrence of disability commencing October 28, 2019 and expanded its acceptance of his claim 

to include other recurrent depressive disorders, pain disorder with related psychological factors,

and chronic PTSD.

On March 9, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for intermittent 

disability.

3

 In an accompanying time analysis form (Form CA-7a) of even date, he claimed wageloss compensation for eight hours of leave without pay (LWOP) on December 6, 13, 20, and 27, 

2019 and January 3, 17, and 24, 2020, and four hours of LWOP on January 10, 2020 due to a 

PTSD crisis. 

OWCP, by development letter dated March 16, 2021, advised appellant that no evidence 

had been submitted to establish his claim for intermittent disability during the period December 6, 

2019 through January 24, 2020.

4

 It afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP received a progress note dated February 2, 2021 from Dr. Robert L. Sasser, a 

Board-certified internist. Dr. Sasser related appellant’s history of injury and provided examination 

findings. He noted the accepted condition of PTSD and additional conditions of current mild 

episode of major depressive disorder without prior episode, essential hypertension, arthritis, and

3 The Form CA-7 included December 20, 2019 through January 24, 2020 as the period of disability.

4 The Board notes that it appears that OWCP misidentified appellant’s claimed period of disability as December 6, 

2020 through January 24, 2021rather than December 6, 2019 through January 24, 2020. As noted, appellant filed a 

Form CA-7 claim alongwith a Form CA-7a dated March9, 2021 requesting compensation for the period December 6, 

2019 through January 24, 2020. 
3

polycythemia vera. Dr. Sasser opined that appellant was totally disabled and unable to perform 

his date-of-injury position. He concluded that appellant should not be deployed again. 

OWCP, by decision dated April 27, 2021, denied appellant’s claim for intermittent

disability from work during the period December 6, 2019 through January 24, 2020,5finding that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability during the claimed period 

due to the accepted employment injury. 

On May 3, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

OWCP received a request for reasonable accommodation dated June 30, 2020 in which

appellant requested that he be allowed to work off base, telework at least two days of week, and 

be provided with a flexible work schedule as a reasonable accommodation for PTSD with 

symptoms such as flashbacks, irritability, nightmares, difficulty falling asleep, and staying asleep. 

OWCP also received a July 30, 2020 report from Dr. Charles R. Noplis, an attending

Board-certified psychiatrist, who diagnosed PTSD and opined that appellant could perform all 

necessary duties with minor accommodations.

A telephonic hearing was held on August 19, 2021. By decision dated November 3, 2021, 

OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the April 27, 2021 decision.6

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA7 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.

8

 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.9 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.10

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 

5

Id.

6

In her November 3, 2021 decision, OWCP’s hearing representative properly identified appellant’s claimed period 

of disability as December 6, 2019 through January 24, 2020. 

7

Supra note 2.

8

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). 

9

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

10 T.W., Docket No. 19-1286 (issued January 13, 2020).
4

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.11 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.12

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.13

ANALYSIS

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

disability from work for the period December 6, 2019 through January 24, 2020, causally related 

to his accepted employment injury.

In support of his claim for compensation, appellant submitted a February 2, 2021 progress 

note from Dr. Sasser. Dr. Sasser noted a history of the accepted employment injury and diagnosed 

the accepted condition of PTSD and additional conditions of current mild episode of major 

depressive disorder without prior episode, essential hypertension, arthritis, and polycythemia vera. 

He opined that appellant was totally disabled and unable to perform his date-of-injury positionand 

advised against future deployment. While Dr. Sasser opined that appellant was totally disabled

from work, he did not specifically address the claimed period of disability. The Board has held 

that medical evidence that does not address the specific dates of disability claimed is of no 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.14 Therefore, Dr. Sasser’s progress note is

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Noplis’ July 30, 2020 medical information sheet diagnosed the accepted condition of 

PTSD and found that appellant could perform his required work duties with restrictions. 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. 15 

This report is, therefore, of no probative value and insufficient to establish appellant’s disability 

claim. 

11 A.S., Docket No. 20-0406 (issued August 18, 2021);Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

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

13 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).

14 See T.S., Docket No 20-1229 (issued August 6, 2021); 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 August 27, 2018); D.K.,Docket No. 

17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

15 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
5

Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence to establish 

employment-related total disability during the claimed period due to his accepted conditions, 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 December 6, 2019 through January 24, 2020, causally related to his accepted 

employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 3, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 7, 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