United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Duluth, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0469

Issued: October 28, 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 February 9, 2022 appellantfiled a timely appeal from a February 7, 2022 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

ISSUE

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

for the period July 31, 2020 through January 22, 2022 causally related to the accepted April 29, 

2020 employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 25, 2021 appellant, than a 38-year-old rural carrier associate, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained back, shoulders, arms, and 

neck conditions as a result of factors of her federal employment, including repetitive duties of 

bending, lifting, reaching, twisting, and carrying heavy loads. She noted that she first became 

aware of her condition and realized its relation to her federal employment on April 29, 2020. 

Appellant did not stop work. OWCP accepted the claim for rotator cuff tear of the right shoulder. 

On July 30, 2020 appellant was involved in a nonwork-related motor vehicle accident

(MVA).

In a June 24, 2021 report, Dr. Ralph D’Auria, a Board-certified internist, noted that 

appellant was seen for an initial evaluation regarding complaints of right shoulder pain. He 

explained that appellant attributed the onset of pain to activities performed while working as a mail 

carrier with the employing establishment, including repetitive pulling, pushing, lifting, carrying 

heavy packages, lifting overhead, and reaching overhead. Dr. D’Auria noted that on April 29, 

2020 appellant had been delivering packages for approximately four hours when she pulled a 

package from her truck and felt a sharp pain in the right shoulder, followed by the right arm going 

numb. He also noted that on July 30, 2020 appellant was involved in an MVA where she was hit 

on the driver’s side, resulting in an aggravation of her right shoulder pain. Dr. D’Auria related 

that she was seen by an emergency room physician. X-rays were taken of the right shoulder and 

compared to x-rays from June 15, 2020, and revealed calcific tendinitis, but no evidence of 

fracture, dislocation, or degenerative joint disease. Dr. D’Auria also noted that an August 15, 2020 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right shoulder read by Dr. James R. Goss, an 

osteopath specializing in orthopedic surgery, revealed a tear of the supraspinatus tendon, joint 

effusion, and bursitis. He explained that Dr. Goss indicated that appellant’s shoulder condition 

was more likely due to work-related wear and tear, than from the MVA. Dr. D’Auria examined 

appellant and found subjective complaints to include constant centralized pain at the anterior and 

posterior aspects of the right shoulder. He opined that “the prolonged and repetitive activities with 

her right arm required to perform her job as a mail carrier caused inflammation and weakening of 

the muscles and tendons of the right shoulder over time, which ultimately resulted in a tear of the

supraspinatus tendon as she handled a heavy package on April 29, 2020.” Dr. D’Auria concluded 

that appellant had work restrictions of no lifting or carrying over 10 pounds, no lifting or reaching 

overhead, no pulling or pushing above shoulder level, and no pushing or pulling over 20 pounds.

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

from work from July 31 through December 6, 2021. She noted on the form that she had worked 

from September 1, 2020 until October 31, 2021 performing food delivery services. 

In a development letter dated December 14, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim for compensation. It advised her of the type of medical evidence needed 

and afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence.

On January 23, 2022 appellant filed Form CA-7 claims for compensation for disability 

from work for the periods June 24 through December 7, 2021 and December 8, 2021 through 

January 22, 2022. 
3

In an August 21, 2020 patient care summary, Dr. Goss noted that appellant was seen for 

neck pain and right shoulder pain following an MVA. He diagnosed spondylosis without 

myelopathy, shoulder pain, shoulder strain, strain of neck muscle, and partial thickness rotator cuff 

tear. Dr. Goss provided a series of work excuse notes, including those dated August 10, 

September 17, and October 10, 2020, and January 18 and March 8, 2021. In a January 18, 2021

patient care summary, he diagnosed spondylosis without myelopathy, shoulder pain, shoulder 

strain, strain of neck muscle, and partial thickness rotator cuff tear. 

In a January 10, 2022 report, Dr. D’Auria noted that he was providing an opinion on 

appellant’s disability status related to her April 29, 2020 on-the-job injury, which resulted in a 

rotator cuff tear of the right shoulder due to repetitive trauma. He noted appellant’s work 

restrictions of no lifting or carrying over 10 pounds, no pushing or pulling over 20 pounds, and no 

lifting, reaching, pulling or pushing above shoulder level. Dr. D’Auria opined that appellant was

considered to have been medically disabled since her work restrictions were no longer accepted 

after her MVA on July 30, 2020. He further opined that appellant’s right shoulder condition was

causally related to repetitive use of the right upper extremity while working as a mail carrier and 

that “[g]iven the findings on the MRI scan, findings on physical examination, and the history given 

by the patient, the right shoulder rotator cuff tear cannot be attributed to the MVA on 

July 31, 2020.”

By decision dated February 7, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from 

work for the period July 31, 2020 through January 22, 2022 causally related to the accepted 

April 29, 2020 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

 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.5 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.6

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. 7 Disability is, thus, not 

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

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 B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019); D.W., Docket No. 18-0644 (issued November 15, 2018).

6

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

7

Id. at § 10.5(f); see B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018).
4

wages. 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.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 their disability and 

entitlement to compensation.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 claimed disability and the accepted employment injury.11

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period July 31, 2020 through January 22, 2022 causally related to the accepted 

April 29, 2020 employment injury.

In August 21, 2020 and January 18, 2021 patient care summaries, Dr. Goss noted appellant 

was seen for neck pain and right shoulder pain following an MVA. He also provided a series of 

work excuse notes, including those dated August 10, September 17, and October 10, 2020 and 

January 18, March 8, 2021. None of these reports, however, provide an opinion on causal 

relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment injury. 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 Therefore,

these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

In his June 24, 2021 report, Dr. D’Auria noted that on April 29, 2020 appellant had been 

delivering packages for approximately four hours when she pulled a package from her truck and 

felt a sharp pain in the right shoulder, followed by the right arm going numb. He also noted that 

on July 30, 2020 appellant was involved in a MVA where she was hit on the driver’s side, resulting 

in an aggravation of her right shoulder pain. Dr. D’Auria opined that the repetitive activities of 

the right upper extremity required to perform her job as a mail carrier were the cause of appellant’s 

right rotator cuff tear. He noted appellant’s work restrictions, but he did not provide an opinion 

on causal relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment injury. As 

8

Id.

9 A.W., Docket No. 18-0589 (issued May 14, 2019).

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

11 Id.

12 See L.K., Docket No. 21-1155 (issued March 23, 2022); T.S., Docket No. 20-1229 (issued August6, 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).
5

noted above, 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.

13

 Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

In his January 10, 2022 report, Dr. D’Auria noted that he was providing an opinion 

regardingappellant’s disability status related to her April 29, 2020 on-the-job injury. He explained 

that appellant was kept off work for one week after her April 29, 2020 on-the-job injury, and that 

she then worked with restrictions from May 2020 until July 30, 2020, when she was involved in 

an MVA. Dr. D’Auria noted that, after the July 30, 2020 MVA, her work restrictions were no 

longer accepted. The Board finds that the January 10, 2022 report from Dr. D’Auria is conclusory 

and fails to establish that the accepted work injury on April 29, 2020 caused appellant’s disability 

from work from July 31, 2020, the day after the July 30, 2020 MVA, until January 22, 2022. To 

establish a period of disability, the medical evidence must provide a discussion of how objective 

medical findings attributable to the accepted conditions support a finding that appellant could not 

perform her job duties.14 A medical opinion is of limited probative value if it is conclusory in 

nature.15 Therefore, this report is also insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

As the medical evidence submitted is insufficient to establish disability from work for the 

period July 31, 2020 through January 22, 2022, causally related to the accepted April 29, 2020 

employment injury, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof.

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconside ration 

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 July 31, 2020 through January 22, 2022 causally related to the accepted 

April 29, 2020 employment injury.

13 Id.

14 See M.M., Docket No. 19-0061 (issued November 21, 2019); W.E., Docket No. 17-0451 (issued 

November 20, 2017).

15 See R.B., Docket No. 19-1527 (issued July 20, 2020); R.S., Docket No. 19-1774 (issued April3, 2020).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 7, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 28, 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