United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cumberland, RI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1374

Issued: June 14, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se,

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 16, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 16, 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.

ISSUE

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

work for the period January 18 through July 8, 2022 causally related to his accepted December 2, 

2021 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 3, 2021 appellant, then a 34-year-old sales and services distribution 

associate, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 2, 2021he injured

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

his right toe and experienced bruising, bleeding, and pain when he dropped a 70-pound box on his 

foot while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on December 2, 2021. OWCP accepted 

the claim for a crushing injury of the right second toe.

OWCP received December 16, 2021 and January 3, 2022 notes, wherein Dawn Peloquin, 

a nurse practitioner, held appellant off work until January 10, 2022.

In a January 6, 2022 report of work status (Form CA-3), the employing establishment 

indicated that appellant returned to work on December 15, 2021 and stopped work again on 

December 16, 2021. 

A January 20, 2022 work excuse note from Dr. Edmund DosRemedios, a podiatric 

surgeon, noted that appellant was unable to perform normal work activities and held him off work 

until February 11, 2022.

In a letter dated January 21, 2022, the employing establishment requested clarification 

from Dr. DosRemedios regarding his January 20, 2022 note, in which he indicated that appellant 

was “unable to perform normal work activities.” The employing establishment included duty 

status (Form CA-17) and attending physician (Form CA-20) reports for his completion and

requested his opinion on whether appellant could return to work in any capacity and, if so, whether 

any work restrictions would be required for safe job performance.

In progress notes dated January 20 and February 10, 2022, Dr. DosRemedios assessed

neuropathy and a probable nerve injury to the right second toe. He noted that appellant reported 

that a box fell on his toe several weeks ago and he was too uncomfortable to work. 

In a February 10, 2022 work excuse note, Dr. DosRemedios reiterated that appellant was 

unable to perform normal work activities and held him off work until April 14, 2022.

2

Dr. DosRemedios, in March 10 and April 27, 2022 progress notes, reiterated his above 

assessments and noted that appellant related that he was too uncomfortable to work and his 

condition was “somewhat better.”

In an April 28, 2022 work excuse note, Dr. DosRemedios again indicated that appellant 

was unable to perform normal work activities and held him off work from April 14 through

May 25, 2022. 

On May 6, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) alleging disability 

from work for the period January 18 through May 6, 2022. 

In a May 10, 2022 Form CA-20, Dr. DosRemedios diagnosed neuropathy and indicated

that the injury occurred on December 2, 2021 when a box fell on appellant’s right toe. He noted

findings of a probable nerve injury to the right second toe and checked a box marked “Yes” to 

indicate his belief that the conditions were caused or aggravated by an employment activity. 

2 Dr. DosRemedios provided three separate February 10, 2022 work excuse notes in which he held appellant off 

work through April 14, 2022.
3

Dr. DosRemedios recommended that appellant bear weight on his right foot as tolerated, held him 

off work, and noted a period of total disability from January 20 through May 26, 2022. In a Form 

CA-17 of even date, he reiterated his diagnosis and findings, held appellant off work, and noted

that the injury occurred when he dropped a package on his toe. Dr. DosRemedios noted that he 

was unable to perform normal work duties and was disabled due to a toe injury.

In a development letter dated June 1, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim for compensation and advised him of the type of medical evidence needed to establish

disability during the period claimed. It afforded him 30 days to respond.

Thereafter, appellant submitted May 25 and June 17, 2022 progress notes in which

Dr. DosRemedios reiterated his assessments and noted that appellant reported being too 

uncomfortable to work. Appellant related that his condition was “much better” and about 85 

percent improved. 

On July 13, 2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 alleging disability from work for the period 

May 7 through July 8, 2022.

In a July 18, 2022 work return note, Dr. DosRemedios indicated that appellant could return 

to normal work activities as of August 2, 2022.

By decision dated August 16, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

disability from work for the period January 18 through July 8, 2022, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability from work for the claimed period 

causally related to his accepted December 2, 2021 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.4 Under FECA, the term disability means incapacity, because 

of an employment injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury. 5 

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.

6

 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.

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 

3

Supra note 1.

4

See L.S., Docket No. 18-0264 (issued January 28, 2020); B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); J.S., Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January 24, 2020).

6 T.W., Docket No. 19-1286 (issued January 13, 2020).

7

S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April 11, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
4

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of appellant, 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 total disability 

from work for the period January 18 through July 8, 2022 causally related to the accepted 

December 2, 2021 employment injury.

In CA-17 and CA-20 forms dated May 10, 2022, Dr. DosRemedios provided a diagnosis 

of neuropathy as a result of the accepted December 2, 2021 employment injury. He held appellant 

off work and noted that he was totally disabled from January 20 to May 26, 2022. These records 

do not explain, with rationale, how or why appellantwas unable to perform his regular work during 

the claimed period of disability due to his accepted condition of a crushing injury of the right 

second toe. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal 

relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how a given period of disability has 

an employment-related cause.

10

 Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

disability claim. 

In work excuse notes dated January 10 through April 28, 2022, Dr. DosRemedios held 

appellant off work from January 20 to May 25, 2022 and noted that he was unable to perform 

normal work activities. Similarly, in progress notes dated January 20 through June 17, 2022, he 

assessed neuropathy and a probable nerve injury to the right second toe and noted that appellant 

reported being too uncomfortable to work. In a July 18, 2022 work return note, Dr. DosRemedios 

returned appellant to normal work activities on August 2, 2022. However, 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.11 As such, this evidence is of no probative 

value with regard to the claimed period of disability.12

8

See D.W., Docket No. 20-1363 (issued September 14, 2021); Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020).

9

See M.J., Docket No. 19-1287 (issued January 13, 2020); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

10 See S.S., Docket No. 21-0763 (issued November 12, 2021); A.G., Docket No. 21-0756 (issued October 18, 2021);

T.S., Docket No. 20-1229 (issued August 6, 2021).

11 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K.,Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018);see 

also Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988).

12 See supra notes 10, 11;see also Y.D.,Docket No. 20-0097 (issued August25, 2020); J.T.,Docket No. 19-1813 

(issued April 14, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 19-1169 (issued February 7, 2020); A.L., Docket No. 19-0285 (issued 

September 24, 2019).
5

The remaining medical evidence of record includes December 16, 2021 and January 3, 

2022 notes from Ms. Peloquin, a nurse practitioner. The Board has long held that certain 

healthcare providers such as nurse practitioners are not considered “physician[s]” as defined under 

FECA and thus their findings, reports and/or opinions, unless cosigned by a qualified physician, 

will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits. 13 Accordingly,

Ms. Peloquin’s notes are insufficient to satisfy appellant’s burden of proof.14

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish disability during 

the claimed period due to his accepted injury, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of 

proof.

15

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 total disability 

from work for the period January 18 through July 8, 2022 causally related to his accepted 

December 2, 2021 employment injury.

13 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that medical opinions can only be given by a qualified physician. This section 

defines a physician as 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) 

(January2013); H.K., Docket No. 19-0429 (issued September 18, 2019); K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); DavidP. 

Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individualssuch as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists 

are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); see also J.D.,Docket No. 21-0164 (issued June 15, 2021) 

(nurse practitioners are not physicians as defined under FECA).

14 R.H., Docket No. 21-1382 (issued March 7, 2022); S.E., Docket No. 21-0666 (issued December 28, 2021).

15 K.A., Docket No. 17-1718 (issued February 12, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 16, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 14, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board