United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

WASHINGTON VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1171

Issued: February 24, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 27, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 23, 2021 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish total disability from 

work from March 11 through 26, 2019 causally related to the April 10, 2018 accepted employment 

injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 13, 2018 appellant, then a 49-year-old nursing assistant, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 10, 2018 he injured his right thumb, low back, and head 

when he was assaulted by a patient while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on April 11, 

2018 and returned to full duty on May 26, 2018. On September 20, 2018 OWCP accepted the 

claim for left rib contusion, contusion of the right thumb, lumbar sprain, and closed-head injury.

On March 19, 2019 OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), and 

a list of questions for a second opinion examination with Dr. Rafael A. Lopez Steuart, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. 

In a report dated April 10, 2019, Dr. Steuart noted appellant’s history of injury and 

reviewed the SOAF. He opined that appellant had no disability or medical residuals as a result of 

his April 10, 2018 employment injuries. Dr. Steuart advised that he was capable of full-duty work 

without restrictions.

On April 30, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work from March 11 through 26, 2019. 

On May 7, 2019 appellant submitted a March 11, 2019 note from Dr. Sevag Bananian, a 

Board-certified internist, asserting that he provided medical treatment on March 11, 2019 and 

opined that he was totally disabled from March 11 through 26, 2019.

In a May 8, 2019 development letter addressed to the employing establishment, OWCP 

requested additional forms and medical evidence addressing appellant’s claim for total disability 

for the period March 11 through 26, 2019 due to the accepted employment injuries.

On May 16, 2019 appellant filed a second Form CA-7, dated April 30, 2019, claiming 

disability from work for the period March 11 through 26, 2019.

On July 15, 2019 OWCP requested additional information from Dr. Steuart in the form of 

a rationalized explanation regarding his previous opinion. In a supplemental report dated July 18, 

2019, Dr. Steuart reported that appellant had a normal physical examination which established no 

need for further medical treatment and the capacity to perform full-duty work with no restrictions.

In a follow-up development letter dated July 31, 2019 addressed to the employing 

establishment, OWCP noted that it had not received the requested information. It afforded an 

additional 15 days for a response.

On July 17, 2019 appellant filed another Form CA-7 requesting wage-loss compensation 

disability from work for the period March 11 through 26, 2019. In an accompanying August 8, 

2019 narrative statement, he asserted that he initially incorrectly indicated that he was seeking 

leave buy back, instead of leave without pay compensation. Appellant further noted that he 

continued to experience pain in his thumb and lower back and continued to seek medical treatment.

By decision dated August 28, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

the period March 11 through 26, 2019.
3

On September 17, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. In a September 12, 2019 

narrative statement, he alleged that he continued to experience disability and medical residuals as 

a result of his accepted employment injury from March 11 through 26, 2019. 

By decision dated December 16, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

On January 13, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. In a January 7, 2020 letter, he 

alleged that he continued to experience residuals of his April 10, 2018 employment injuries which 

resulted in chronic pain. Appellant further noted that on October 26, 2019 he was positioning and 

pulling a patient which aggravated his accepted conditions and required treatment in the 

emergency room. He reported that he was partially disabled for five days following this additional 

employment incident. Appellant provided duty status reports dated October 28 and 31, 2019 

indicating that he had work restrictions due to lumbar strain.2

By decision dated April 10, 2020, OWCP denied modification.

Subsequently on July 9, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. No additional evidence 

was received. By decision dated April 23, 2021, OWCP denied modification.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence.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 This burden 

of proof requires that a claimant furnish medical evidence from a physician who, on the basis of a 

complete and accurate factual and medical history, concludes that, for each period of disability 

claimed, the disabling condition is causally related to the employment injury, and supports that 

conclusion with medical reasoning.6

A recurrence of disability means an inability to work after an employee has returned to 

work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition which resulted from a previous 

compensable injury or illness and without an intervening injury or new expo sure in the work 

environment.7 This term also means an inability to work because a light-duty assignment made 

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations and which is necessary because 

2 The signatures of the physicians are illegible.

3

Supra note 1.

4

See J.W., Docket No. 20-0021 (issued September 10, 2021); D.M., Docket No. 18-0527 (issued July 29, 2019); 

B.K.,Docket No, 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018); see also Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

5 W.H., Docket No. 19-0168 (issued May 10, 2019); see D.G.,Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018).

6

J.D., Docket No. 18-0616 (issued January 11, 2019); see C.C.,Docket No. 18-0719 (issued November 9, 2018).

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see V.H.,Docket No. 18-0456 (issued August 9, 2019).
4

of a work-related injury or illness is withdrawn or altered so that the assignment exceeds the 

employee’s physical limitations.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 his or her disability and 

entitlement to compensation.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

Appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for compensation for disability from work during the 

period March 11 through 26, 2019. OWCP’s regulations provide that, if a claimant submits factual 

evidence, medical evidence, or both, but OWCP determines that this evidence is insufficient to 

meet their burden of proof, OWCP will inform the claimant of the additional evidence needed. 

The claimant will be allowed at least 30 days to submit the evidence required.10 OWCP, however, 

did not provide appellant with a development letter requesting the specific evidence necessary to 

establish his claim for disability in accordance with section 10.121 of its regulations. 11 

The case must therefore be remanded for further development. On remand OWCP shall 

provide appellant a development letter informing him of the additional evidence needed, and 

affording him at least 30 days to submit the necessary evidence required. Following this and other 

such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

8

Id.

9

See S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon 

Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.121.

11 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 23, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: February 24, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board