United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PHOENIX POST 

OFFICE, Phoenix, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1024

Issued: January 20, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 27, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 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.2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the March 16, 2022 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 itsfinal 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 his burden of proof to establish disability from work

for the period October 25 through December 3, 2021 causally related to his accepted August 6, 

2021 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 9, 2021 appellant, then a 40-year-old mail handler assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 6, 2021 he strained his cervical and thoracic

muscle and tendons and his left wrist when the vehicle he was driving was rear-ended in a motor 

vehicle accident (MVA) while in the performance of duty. He stopped work and returned to fulltime, limited-duty work on August 13, 2021. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for cervical strain, 

left wrist sprain, and thorax strain. By decision dated October 27, 2021, it expanded the acceptance 

of appellant’s claim to include postconcussion syndrome.

In a report dated October 13, 2021, Dr. George Wang, a neurology and psychiatry 

specialist, described the August 6, 2021 motor vehicle accident and indicated that appellant 

complained of headache, phonophobia, and dizziness. On physical examination of appellant’s 

neck, he observed no lymphadenopathy. Neurological examination demonstrated fluent speech, 

orientation to people, and good concentration and attention. Dr. Wang diagnosed concussion 

without loss of consciousness and unspecified headache. 

In a handwritten prescription slip dated November 2, 2021, Dr. Wang noted a diagnosis of 

postconcussive syndrome. He requested that appellant be excused from work from October 25 

through November 1, 2021.

In a letter dated November 4, 2021, Jeremy Valenzuela reported that appellant was under 

his care. He recommended that appellant be excused from work for three days. 

In a work status note dated November 18, 2021, Dr. Wang reported that appellant was seen 

in his office on November 16, 2021. He requested that appellant be excused from work from 

November 2 through 21, 2021. 

On November 19, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

disability from work for the period October 25 through November 19, 2021. On the reverse side 

of the claim form, an occupational health specialist for the employing establishment indicated that 

appellant was on leave without pay (LWOP) status from October 25 through November 19, 2021. 

In a November 30, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish disability from work for the period October 25 through 

November 19, 2021. It advised him of the type of additional evidence needed and afforded him

30 days to provide the necessary evidence. 

On December 6, 2021 appellant filed an additional Form CA-7 for disability from work for 

the period November 20 through December 3, 2021. 
3

Appellant submitted a September 23, 2021 patient visit summary report by a provider with 

an illegible signature who noted the August 6, 2021 motor vehicle accident and diagnoses of strain 

of muscle, fascia and tendon of neck, strain of muscle and tendon of the back wall of thorax, 

unspecified sprain of left wrist, and postconcussional syndrome. 

Appellant submitted reports dated November 24, 2021 and January 5 and February 4, 2022

by Samantha J. Reynolds, a certified nurse practitioner, who noted the August 6, 2021 employment 

injury and recounted appellant’s complaints of persistent headaches. Ms. Reynolds conducted a 

neurological examination and indicated that a November 16, 2021 electroencephalography (EEG) 

report3 showed abnormal results. She diagnosed concussion without loss of consciousness, 

unspecified headache, cervicalgia, and dorsalgia. Ms. Reynolds also reported that the description 

of headaches was typical of postconcussive headaches. 

In a letter dated December 1, 2021, Ms. Reynolds noted that appellant was seen in the 

office on November 24, 2021. She requested that appellant be excused from work from 

November 24 through December 1, 2021. 

In letters dated January 10 and February 4, 2022, Ms. Reynolds indicated that appellant 

was evaluated in their office and requested that appellant be excused from work for the period 

December 4, 2021 until his next appointment on March 18, 2022. 

In a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) dated January 29, 22, Dr. Wang indicated 

that appellant could work part time for four hours per day with restrictions. 

By decision dated March 16, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

commencing October 25, 2021. It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that he was disabled from work during the claimed period due to his accepted August 6, 

2021 employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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. 5 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.6 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 

3 A November 16, 2021 EEG reportrevealed abnormal wake and sleep and mild diffuse encephalopathy.

4

Supra note 1.

5 C.B., Docket No. 20-0629 (issued May 26, 2021); D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); S.W., 

Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April19, 2019); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989); see also Nathaniel Milton, 37 

ECAB 712 (1986).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); S.T., Docket No. 18-412 (issued October 22, 2018); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 

397 (1999).
4

the accepted employment injury.7 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 the reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence.8 

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 specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.9

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.10

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period October 25 through December 3, 2021 causally related to his accepted 

August 6, 2021 employment injury.

In support of his claim for compensation, appellant submitted reports and work status notes 

dated October 13 and November 18, 2021 by Dr. Wang. Dr. Wang provided examination findings 

and diagnosed concussion without loss of consciousness and unspecified headache. In notes dated 

November 2 and 18, 2021, he requested that appellant be excused from work from October 25 

through November 21, 2021. Although Dr. Wang opined that appellant was disabled from work 

during the claimed period, he failed to explain how the period of disability was due to appellant’s

August 6, 2021 employment injury or why appellant was unable to perform the duties of his 

position during the period claimed. A mere conclusion without medical rationale supporting a 

period of disability due to the accepted employment condition is insufficient to meet a claimant’s 

burden of proof.11 Thus, Dr. Wang’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability 

claim.12

7 K.C., Docket No. 17-1612 (issued October 16, 2018); WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

8

S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 292 (2001).

9 K.H., Docket No. 19-1635 (issued March 5, 2020); V.A., Docket No. 19-1123 (issued October 29, 2019).

10 K.A., Docket No. 19-1564 (issued June 3, 2020); J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019); 

WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

11 A.L., Docket No. 21-0151 (issued January 21, 2022); C.B., Docket No. 19-0464 (issued May 22, 2020); S.H., 

Docket No. 19-1128 (issued December 2, 2019); SandraD. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

12 See T.P., Docket No. 22-0465 (issued July 29, 2022).
5

Appellant also submitted reports dated November 24, 2021 through February 4, 2022 by

Ms. Reynolds, a nurse practitioner. These reports, however, are of no probative value to establish 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation claim because nurse practitioners are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA.13 Likewise, the November 4, 2021 letter by Jeremy 

Valenzuela is of no probative value because there is no indication contained in the letter that

Mr. Valenzuela qualifies as a physician as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2).14 For this reason, the 

Board finds that these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

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

period October 25 through December 3, 2021 causally related to the accepted August 6, 2021 

employment injury, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his 

claim.

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 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 October 25 through December 3, 2021 causally related to his accepted 

August 6, 2021 employment injury.

13 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); David P. 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 alsoB.D.,Docket No. 22-0503 (issued September 27, 2022 (nurse practitioners are not considered 

physicians as defined under FECA and their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of 

establishing entitlement to FECA benefits); L.S., Docket No. 19-1231 (issued March 30, 2021) (a nurse practitioner 

is not considered a physician as defined under FECA).

14 A medical report may not be considered probative medical evidence if it lacks proper identification and there is 

no indication that the person completing the report qualifies as a physician as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). T.C., 

Docket No. 19-1043 (issued November 8, 2019); C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); R.M., 59 ECAB 

690 (2008); Thomas L. Agee, 56 ECAB 465 (2005).
6

ORDER

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 20, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board