United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, 

El Segundo, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0979

Issued: October 20, 2023

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 11, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 12, 2022 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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 The Board notes that, following the January 12, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

for the period September 26 through October 9, 2021, causally related to his accepted July 26, 

2021 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 26, 2021 appellant, then a 52-year-old police officer, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that he injured his right ankle walking on patrol while in the performance 

duty. He stopped work on the date of injury. OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of ligament of 

the right ankle and peroneal tendinitis of the right leg.

Appellant underwent physical therapy on September 29, 2021 and submitted progress 

reports of the treatment. 

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

from work for the period September 26 through October 9, 2021. 

In a report dated October 18, 2021, Dr. Gregory D. Bouyer, an occupational medicine 

specialist, noted that appellant reported improvement in his symptoms with physical therapy. He 

performed a physical examination and maintained the same work restrictions as outlined in his 

September 20, 2021 report.

On November 29, 2021 Dr. Bouyer released appellant to return to work full duty, without 

restrictions.

Appellant was discharged from physical therapy, effective December 1, 2021.

In a development letter dated December 2, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence submitted was insufficient to establish his claim for disability from work during the 

period September 26 through October 9, 2021. It advised him of the type of medical evidence 

necessary to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to respond.

In a report dated December 23, 2021, Dr. Bouyer noted that appellant related that he had 

very minimal pain and excellent range of motion. He indicated that appellant could return to work 

without restrictions, but also noted that he was not presently working due to a pending retirement 

adjudication.

By decision dated January 12, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

disability from work for the period September 26 through October 9, 2021 due to his accepted 

July 26, 2021 employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 
3

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

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 appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish disability from 

work during the period September 26 through October 9, 2021, causally related to his accepted 

July 26, 2021 employment injury.

In support of his claim for compensation for the period September 26 through October 9, 

2021, appellant submitted reports of Dr. Bouyer dated October 18, November 29, and 

December 23, 2021, wherein he described the July 26, 2021 employment injury, recommended 

various restrictions through November 28, 2021, and documented objectively normal physical 

examination findings. Although he indicated that appellant was under restrictions during the 

claimed period of disability, he did not provide a medical opinion addressing the causal 

3 M.H., Docket No. 22-1178 (issued April25, 2023); S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April19, 2019); J.F., 

Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989). 

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 H.J., Docket No. 21-0665 (issued March 6, 2023); D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).

8 N.O., Docket No. 22-0644 (issued March 8, 2023); Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020).

9 T.W., Docket No. 22-0790 (issued March 9, 2023); J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019); 

Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).
4

relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment injury.

10

 Therefore,

Dr. Bouyer’s reports are insufficient to establish the disability claim.

Appellant submitted physical therapy progress reports. The Board has held that, however, 

that physical therapists are not considered physicians as defined under FECA. 11 Therefore, this 

additional evidence has no probative value and is insufficient to establish the claim.

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

period September 26 through October 9, 2021 due to the accepted July 26, 2021 employment 

injury, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.12

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 September 26 through October 9, 2021, causally related to his accepted 

July 26, 2021 employment injury.

10 See C.F., Docket No. 19-1748 (issued March 27, 2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); 

D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

11 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); 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 also T.S., Docket No. 20-1229 (issued August 6, 2021) (physical therapists are not considered physicians 

as defined under FECA).

12 Upon return of the case record, OWCP should consider payment of up to four hours of compensation to appellant 

for lost time from work due to medical appointments to assess or treat symptoms related to the employment injury. 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Wages Lost for Medical Examination or Treatment, Chapter 

2.901.19 (February 2013). See also J.E., Docket No. 19-1758 (issued March 16, 2021); A.V.,Docket No. 19-1575 

(issued June 11, 2020); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 12, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 20, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board