United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, McDONOUGH POST 

OFFICE, McDonough, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0824

Issued: September 19, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 19, 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.3

1 Appellant indicated on her application for review (Form AB-1)that she was appealing from a February8, 2022 

Board decision. However, decisions and orders of the Board are final after 30 days from the date of issuance and not 

subject to further review. 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d). The Board has jurisdiction to consider and decide appeals from final 

decisions of OWCP in any case arising under the FECA. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). The only OWCP decision within the 

Board’s jurisdiction is the April 19, 2022 merit decision. To the extent that appellant’s appeal constitutes a petition 

for reconsideration of the Board’s February 8, 2022 decision under issued under Docket No. 21-1256, the petition will 

be addressed by separate order. 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that,following the April19. 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

ISSUE

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

for the period February 26 through March 11, 2022 causally related to her March 6, 2015 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On March 17, 2015 appellant, then a 48-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 6, 2015 she sprained her lumbar spine carrying 

a large and heavy parcel to a customer’s doorstep while in the performance of duty. The employing 

establishment advised that, at the time of her injury, she worked 24 hours per week in a temporary 

position. OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar sprain and thoracic sprain. It subsequently 

expanded its acceptance of the claim to include an aggravation of lumbar facet arthropathy at 

L2-L5.

Appellant stopped work on June 8, 2015 and returned to modified part-time employment 

on January 25, 2016. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation for intermittent time lost from 

work. On January 25, 2017 appellant underwent a lateral decompression at L4-5, greater on the 

right than the left. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls beginning 

January 21, 2017 and on the periodic rolls from February 21, 2017 to February 3, 2018 and from 

June 24, 2018 until February 29, 2020. Appellant accepted a modified position working five hours 

per day on March 9, 2020.

On May 21, 2021 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for 

disability from work for the period April 23 to May 10, 2021. 

By decision dated July 2, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation due to disability from work for the period April 23 through May 10, 2021 causally 

related to her accepted March 6, 2015 employment injury.5

On July 16, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration.

By decision dated August 16, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its July 2, 2021 

decision. 

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated February 8, 2022, the Board affirmed 

July 2 and August 16, 2021 OWCP decisions, finding that appellant had not met her burden of 

4 Docket No. 21-1256 (issued February 8, 2022).

5 By decision dated July 21, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand the acceptance of her claim to 

include a left leg or foot condition as a consequence of her accepted March 6, 2015 employment injury. By decision 

dated January 4, 2021, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the July 21, 2020 decision. 
3

proof to establish disability from work for the period April 23 through May 10, 2021 causally 

related to her March 6, 2015 employment injury.6

In a form report dated February 18, 2022, Dr. Charles Proctor, a Board-certified general 

surgeon, advised that appellant required surgery and could not work during the postoperative 

period from February 16 to March 17, 2022. 

On March 13, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting 

wage-loss compensation from February 26 to March 11, 2022 due to disability from employment. 

In a development letter dated March 17, 2022, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

received was currently insufficient to support her claim and requested that she provide a reasoned 

medical report explaining why she was unable to work during the claimed period due to her 

accepted March 6, 2015 employment injury. It afforded her 30 days to submit the requested 

evidence.

Thereafter, OWCP received January 31 and February 7, 2022 reports from a nurse 

practitioner.

On March 15, 2022 a licensed professional counselor discussed appellant’s depression and 

anxiety and provided work restrictions, including intermittent time off work. In a March 20, 2021 

FMLA form, the counselor found that she was unable to work during flareups of her anxiety and 

depression.7

By decision dated April 19, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

disability from work for the period February 26 through March 11, 2022 causally related to her 

accepted March 6, 2015 employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA8 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.9

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. 10 Disability is, thus, not 

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

6

Supra note 4.

7 Appellant also submitted an unsigned and incomplete report dated March 20, 2022 from a health care provider

who diagnosed anxiety and depression.

8

Supra note 2.

9 A.R., Docket No. 20-0583 (issued May 21, 2021); S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April19, 2019);Kathryn 

Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April29, 2020); BobbieF. Cowart, 55 ECAB 

746 (2004).
4

wages.11 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.12 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.13

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period February 26 through March 11, 2022 causally related to her March 6, 2015 

employment injury.

In a February 18, 2022 form report, Dr. Proctor indicated that appellant required surgery. 

He opined that she would be unable to work following surgery from February 16 to 

March 17, 2022. However, Dr. Proctor did not offer an opinion on the cause of her disability. The 

Board has held that 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.14 

Thus, this form report is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish the disability claim. 

Appellant further submitted January 31 and February 7, 2022 reports from a nurse 

practitioner. Certain healthcare providers, such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and 

physical therapists are not considered physicians as defined under FECA. 15 Their medical 

findings, reports and/or opinions, unless cosigned by a qualified physician, will not suffice for 

purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.16 Consequently, this additional evidence 

is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Appellant further submitted reports from a licensed professional counselor. A licensed 

professional counselor is not a clinical psychologist and, therefore, does not satisfy the definition 

11 D.W., Docket No. 20-1363 (issued September 14, 2021); L.W., Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).

12 See M.W., Docket No. 20-0722 (issued April26, 2021); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018).

13 See A.R., supra note 9; D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).

14 See C.S., Docket No. 21-1048 (issued April20, 2022); R.O., Docket No. 20-1243 (issued May 28, 2021); D.C., 

Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket 

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

15 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); A.Z., Docket No. 21-1355 (issued May 19, 2022) (nurse 

practitioners are not physicians under FECA); 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).

16 Id.
5

of “physician” as defined by FECA.17 Thus, this evidence is also insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing disability during 

the claimed period causally related to the accepted March 6, 2015 employment injury, the Board 

finds that she 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 February 26 through March 11, 2022 causally related to her March 6, 2015 

employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 19, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 19, 2022

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

17 See supra note 16; see also C.M., Docket No. 18-1166 (issued July 9, 2019); L.H., Docket No. 18-1217 (issued 

May 3, 2019).