United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHICAGO 

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CENTER,

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0445

Issued: November 15, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 31, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal froma December 28, 

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 December 28, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. 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 

for the period January 21, 2017 through February 12, 2021 causally related to her accepted 

November 11, 2016 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 14, 2016 appellant, then a 61-year-old temporary casual employee, filed a

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 11, 2016 she injured her right 

shoulder and arm when she tripped and fell over a package while in the performance of duty. She

did not immediately stop work. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for tear of the rotator cuff of 

the right shoulder and contusion of the upper right arm.

In a January 20, 2017 report, William Hayduk, a physician assistant, returned appellant to 

work with no use of the right arm. He noted that, if the employing establishment could not 

accommodate the restrictions, appellant would be off work. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated August 26, 2020, Dr. Lewis L. Shi, a Boardcertified orthopedist, reported clinical findings of right shoulder pain and diagnosed rotator cuff 

tear. He noted appellant’s physical restrictions and indicated by checkmark that appellant was 

totally disabled from work. 

On February 17, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability

from work for the period January 21, 2017 through February 12, 2021.

4

 

In a March 1, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim for wage-loss compensation. It advised her of the type of additional factual and medical 

evidence required and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP received an April 7, 2021 work status report from Dr. Shi who noted that appellant 

sustained a right shoulder injury on November 11, 2016. Dr. Shi indicated that conservative 

treatment had failed and that she required surgery on March 15, 2018. He noted persistent pain 

and weakness despite ongoing therapies and injections. Dr. Shi opined that appellant reached 

maximum medical improvement (MMI) and had permanent restrictions of no overhead activities 

and no lifting over three pounds.

By decision dated June 3, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability 

from work for the period January 21, 2017 through February 12, 2021 causally related to the 

accepted November 11, 2016 employment injury. 

On January 31, 2020 Dr. Shi treated appellant for right shoulder and right knee pain. He

administered an intra-articular injection and gave her a prescription for physical therapy. 

4 On February 22, 2021 the employing establishment contended that appellant was hired during the 2016 holiday 

season as a casual employee. Appellant was separated from service, effective January 20, 2017.
3

In a June 19, 2020 report, Dr. Shi noted that appellantwas status post right shoulder rotator 

cuff repair in March 2018 and opined that she reached MMI and provided permanent work 

restrictions. He administered an intra-articular injection into the right shoulder.

On August 21, 2020 Dr. Shi treated appellant in follow up for right knee pain and right 

shoulder pain radiating down her shoulder to her elbow. He administered an intra-articular 

injection. 

In a work status note dated June 23, 2021, Dr. Shi related a history of treatment for a 

November 11, 2016 employment injury commencing January 20, 2017 through April 7, 2021. He 

performed treatment modalities including physical therapy, injections, and arthroscopic surgery. 

Dr. Shi noted that after surgery appellant developed a frozen shoulder. He performed intraarticular injections on July 11 and September 21, 2018, January 21, 2019, January 21, June 19,

and August 21, 2020, and April 7, 2021. Dr. Shi returned appellant to work with permanent 

restrictions of no overhead activities and no lifting over three pounds.

On June 14, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on October 7, 2021. 

By decision dated December 28, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

June 3, 2021 decision.

5

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6 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. 7 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.8 Whether a particular injury causes an 

employee to be disabled from employment and the duration of that disability are medical issues, 

which must be proven by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial medical 

evidence.9 

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. 10 Disability is, thus, not 

5 OWCP noted that it “affirmed with modification”the June 3, 2021 decision; however, it does not appear that there 

was a modification of the prior decision.

6

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

7 M.C., Docket No. 18-0919 (issued October 18, 2018); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 

40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

8

Id.; WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

9 V.H., Docket No. 18-1282 (issued April2, 2019); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); S.T.,Docket No. 18-0412 (issued October 22, 2018); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 

397 (1999).
4

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

wages.11 

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of any 

medical evidence 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.12

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period January 21, 2017 through February 12, 2021 causally related to the accepted 

November 11, 2016 employment injury. 

Dr. Shi treated appellant on January 20, 2017 for right shoulder pain and weakness after a 

fall at work on November 11, 2016. He diagnosed possible right rotator cuff tear and administered 

an intra-articular injection into the subacromial space. In reports dated, January 31 through 

June 19, 2020, Dr. Shi diagnosed right shoulder pain, full-thickness rotator cuff tear by MRI scan, 

and frozen shoulder and administered intra-articular injections. The Board finds that these reports 

do not provide an opinion on appellant’s disability from work during the claimed period and thus 

these reports are of no probative value.13 Therefore, these reports are insufficient to establish her

claim.

In work status notes dated April 7 and June 23, 2021, Dr. Shi related a history of treatment 

for a November 11, 2016 employment injury commencing on January 20, 2017 through 

April 7, 2021. He noted persistent pain and weakness despite ongoing therapies and injections. 

Dr. Shi opined that appellant reached MMI and had permanent restrictions of no overhead 

activities and no lifting over three pounds. However, these reports are of no probative value 

because they do not provide an opinion that she was disabled from work or working limited duty 

during the claimed period, from January 21, 2017 through February 12, 2021, causally related to 

the accepted November 11, 2016 work injury.14 Therefore, these reports are also insufficient to 

establish her claim. 

On August 21, 2020 Dr. Shi treated appellant in follow up for right shoulder pain radiating 

down her shoulder to her elbow. He administered an intra-articularinjection. Similarly, in a Form 

CA-17 dated August 26, 2020, Dr. Shi diagnosed rotator cuff tear and noted that appellant was 

totally disabled from work. While he noted that she was totally disabled, he did not offer a 

rationalized medical explanation to support his opinion. Medical evidence that provides a 

conclusion, but does not offer a rationalized medical explanation regarding the cause of an 

11 G.T., Docket No. 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); Robert L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002).

12 See B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018); AmeliaS. Jefferson, supranote 9;see also C.S., 

Docket No. 17-1686 (issued February 5, 2019).

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

14 Id.
5

employee’s condition or disability is of limited probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship.15 Thus, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Appellant submitted reports from a physician’s assistant and a nurse practitioner. The 

Board has held that medical reports signed solely by a physician assistant16 or nurse practitioner17

are of no probative value as such health care providers are not considered physicians as defined 

under FECA and are therefore not competent to provide medical opinions. 18

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish disability from work 

commencing January 21, 2017 through February 12, 2021 causally related to the accepted 

November 11, 2016 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 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 for the period January 21, 2017 through February 12, 2021 causally related to her accepted 

November 11, 2016 employment injury.

15 C.V., Docket No. 18-1106 (issued March 20, 2019); M.E., Docket No. 18-0330 (issued September 14, 2018); 

A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006).

16 C.P., Docket No. 19-1716 (issued March11, 2020) (a physician assistant is not a physician as defined under 

FECA). 

17 S.J., Docket No. 17-0783, n. 2 (issued April9, 2018) (nurse practitioners are not considered physicians under 

FECA). 

18 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) 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. § 8102(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 S.S.,Docket No. 21-1140 (issued June 29, 2022) (physician assistants are not 

considered physicians under FECA and are not competent to provide medical opinions); George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 

162 (2004) (physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA). 
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 28, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 15, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board