United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0680

Issued: October 18, 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 March 30, 2022 appellant filed timely appeals from a December 13, 2021 merit 

decision and a March 1, 2022 nonmerit 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. 

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish intermittent 

disability from work for the period December 19, 2020 through February 26, 2021 causally related 

to her accepted August 25, 2020 employment injury; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied 

appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 8, 2020 appellant, then a 60-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 25, 2020 she injured her neck due to a motor vehicle 

accident (MVA) while in the performance duty. She stopped work on August 26, 2020 and 

returned to work on August 31, 2020.

In a letter dated December 17, 2020, Cathy Shine, a nurse practitioner, diagnosed vestibular 

migraine, cervicalgia, disorder of labyrinth, bilateral tinnitus, and dizziness. She indicated that 

appellant was totally disabled from work.

In a letter dated January 25, 2021, Ms. Shine diagnosed vestibular migraine, cervicalgia, 

and dizziness, and released appellant to return to work four hours per day, effective February 10, 

2021, with no lifting greater than 10 pounds. In a supplemental letter of even date, she opined that 

appellant’s neck pain, vestibular migraines, and dizziness stemmed from her job duties including 

constant turning of her head and heavy lifting. Ms. Shine released appellant to return to full-duty 

work without restrictions, effective February 24, 2021.2

In a report dated April 28, 2021, Dr. F. Michael Saigh, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, noted that appellant related complaints of neck and lower back pain, which she 

attributed to an MVA while working on August 25, 2020. He reviewed her medical records and 

performed a physical examination, which revealed spasm in the cervical and thoracolumbar 

musculature. Dr. Saigh diagnosed sprains of the ligaments of the cervical and lumbar spines and 

pelvis, myospasm, and subluxation of the C3-C4 and C6-C7 vertebrae. He opined that the 

August 25, 2020 MVA caused sprains of the pelvis and cervical and lumbar spines. In a separate

undated letter, Dr. Saigh opined that appellant’s cervical subluxations were preexisting conditions.

On August 6, 2021 OWCP accepted the claim for neck and lumbar sprains.

On October 5, 2021 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for intermittent 

disability for the period December 19, 2020 through February 26, 2021.

In a development letter dated October 8, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation for the period December 19, 

2020 through February 26, 2021. It requested that she submit medical evidence from her physician 

explaining how her employment-related conditions caused or contributed to her inability to work 

during the claimed period.

In a narrative report dated October 26, 2021 by Dr. Kelley Parnell, a neurologist with a 

Board-certification in sleep medicine, noted appellant’s history of migraines, a July 2020 right 

shoulder injury, and difficulty turning her head and looking down due to a MVA in August 2020. 

She reviewed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the cervical spine, which revealed 

degenerative changes at C5-C6. Dr. Parnell recommended that appellant remain off work from

December 14, 2020 through February 24, 2021 due to dizziness and headaches. She opined that 

2 Appellant retired from federal service, effective March 27, 2021.
3

the MVA “probably” exacerbated appellant’s preexisting vestibular migraines and was concerned 

that appellant would exacerbate her neck pain if she returned to full-duty work.

By decision dated December 13, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish intermittent disability 

from work during the claimed period due to the accepted conditions.

On February 24, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s December 13, 2021 

decision. In support of her request, she submitted duplicate copies of Ms. Shine’s January 25 and 

February 23, 2021 letters, as well as Dr. Parnell’s October 26, 2021 report.

By decision dated March 1, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that any disability or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury. 3 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.4 Disability is, thus, not synonymous with 

physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wages. 5 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.6 When, however, the medical evidence establishes that 

the residuals or sequelae of an employment injury are such that, from a medical standpoint, they 

prevent the employee from continuing in his or her employment, he or she is entitled to 

compensation for loss of wages.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 accepted employment injury. 8

3

See S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April19, 2019); J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); 

see also Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989); Nathaniel Milton, 37 

ECAB 712 (1986). 

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

5

See H.B., Docket No. 20-0587 (issued June 28, 2021);L.W., Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).

6

See H.B., id.; K.H., Docket No. 19-1635 (issued March 5, 2020).

7

See D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).

8 Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020).
4

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

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

disability from work, during the period December 19, 2020 through February 26, 2021, causally 

related to her accepted August 25, 2020 employment injury.

In support of her claim for disability, appellant submitted an October 26, 2021 narrative 

report from Dr. Parnell, recommending appellant remain off work from December 14, 2020 

through February 24, 2021 due to dizziness and headaches. However, he did not 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 on causal relationship is 

of no probative value.10 Therefore, the October 26, 2021 report is insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.

The April 28, 2021 report by Dr. Saigh did not offer an opinion as to whether appellant 

was disabled from work due to the accepted employment injuries. Therefore, this report is of no 

probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim for compensation.11

The remaining medical evidence record submitted prior to the December 13, 2021 merit 

decision consisted of work excuse letters by Ms. Shine, which were not signed or cosigned by a 

physician. This Board has long held that certain healthcare providers such as physician assistants 

and nurses are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.12 Their medical findings, reports 

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

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.13 Consequently, these reports are insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.

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 

9

J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019).

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

11 Id.

12 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); C.G., Docket No. 20-0957 (issued January 27, 2021); DavidP. 

Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such a s physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists 

are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA). See alsoB.V., Docket No. 21-0742 (issued December 14, 

2021) (nurse practitioners are not considered physicians as defined by FECA); K.A., Docket No. 18-0999 (issued 

October 4, 2019).

13 K.A., id.; K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); David P. Sawchuk, id.
5

employment injury.14 Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence 

to establish employment-related intermittent disability during the claimed period due to her 

accepted August 25, 2020 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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant the review of an OWCP decision as a 

matter of right.15 OWCP has discretionary authority in this regard and has imposed certain 

limitations in exercising its authority.16 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration 

must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought.17

A timely request for reconsideration, including all supporting documents, must set forth 

arguments, and contain evidence that either: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or 

interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously 

considered by OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously 

considered by OWCP.18 When a timely request for reconsideration does not meet at least one of 

the above-noted requirements, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening 

the case for a review on the merits.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

Appellant has not alleged or demonstrated that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law. Moreover, she has not advanced a relevant legal argument not previously 

14 See D.W., Docket No. 21-0778 (issued February 4, 2022); M.J., Docket No. 19-1287 (issued January 13, 2020); 

WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

15 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.607. 

17 Id. at § 10.607(a). For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be 

received by OWCP within one year of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2020). Timeliness is determined by the 

document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received date in the Integrated Federal 

Employees’Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

18 Id. at § 10.606(b)(3); see L.F., Docket No. 20-1371 (issued March 12, 2021); B.R., Docket No. 19-0372 (issued 

February20, 2020).

19 Id. at § 10.608.
6

considered. Consequently, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on 

the first and second above-noted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).20

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence 

in support of herreconsideration request under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). In support of herrequest, 

appellant resubmitted the October 26, 2021 narrative report by Dr. Parnell, and the work excuse 

letters by Ms. Shine. The Board has held that evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already 

in the case record has no evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.21 

As appellant did not provide relevant and pertinent evidence, she is not entitled to a merit review 

based on the third requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).

The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.

CONCLUSION

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

disability from work during the period December 19, 2020 through February 26, 2021, causally 

related to her accepted August 25, 2020 employment injury. The Board further finds that OWCP 

properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

20 C.B., Docket No. 18-1108 (issued January 22, 2019).

21 R.G., Docket No. 21-0098 (issued May 19, 2021); J.V., Docket No. 19-0990 (issued August26, 2020); D.M., 

Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); L.C., Docket No. 19-0503 (issued February 7, 2020); A.A., Docket No. 

18-0031 (issued April5, 2018); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393 (1984).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 13, 2021 and March 1, 2022 decisions

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: October 18, 2022

Washington, D.C.

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