United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, COLEMAN FEDERAL 

CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, Coleman, FL, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0112

Issued: April 26, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 1, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 4, 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 October 4, 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 intermittent 

disability from work during the period February 29 through May 19, 2020, causally related to her

accepted January 4, 2020 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has been previously before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances of the case 

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

as follows.

On January 7, 2020 appellant, then a 42-year-old correctional officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 4, 2020 she injured her left knee when removing 

property from a cell while in the performance of duty.4 She did not stop work.

In an emergency room report dated January 10, 2020, Gregory Cobb, an advanced 

practiced registered nurse, noted that appellant related complaints of left knee pain, which she 

attributed to twisting her knee at work on January 4, 2020. He noted a history of prior left knee 

surgery in 2011 and performed a physical examination, which revealed pain with palpation of the 

left knee. Mr. Cobb reviewed x-rays of the left knee, which were negative for acute injury, and

diagnosed left knee pain. He recommended that appellant be evaluated by orthopedics to

determine her work capabilities. The report was cosigned by Dr. Ryan Day, a Board-certified 

transplant and abdominal surgeon. 

Hospital records dated February 19, 2020 indicate that appellant was evaluated and treated 

for bronchitis. 

In a May 4, 2020 medical report, Dr. Derek Farr, an orthopedic surgeon, indicated that 

appellant related complaints of left knee pain, which she attributed to the January 4, 2020 

employment injury. He noted a history of two prior meniscus repair surgeries to the left knee. 

Dr. Farr performed a physical examination and diagnosed left knee pain and a tear of the medial 

meniscus. He recommended a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. In a form report of even 

date, Dr. Farr released appellant to return to work with a restriction of sitting as needed.

An employing establishment health clinic incident report form dated May 22, 2020

indicated that appellant reported that her left knee twisted and gave out while she was arising from 

a chair, which caused her to fall to the ground.

3 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 21-0428 (issued October 28, 2021).

4 OWCP assigned the present claim File No. xxxxxx829. Appellant subsequently filed a claim for a May 22, 2020 

traumatic injury to the left knee under File No. xxxxxx813, which OWCP denied. OWCP previously accepted a 

September 5, 2010 traumatic injury claim for a left knee sprain under File No. xxxxxx882 and a November 30, 2010 

traumatic injury claim for a left knee sprain and derangement of lateral meniscus under File No. xxxxxx398. Appellant 

also has a prior claim for an October 21, 2011 traumatic injury to left knee under File No. xxxxxx304, which OWCP 

denied.
3

A report of MRI scan of the left knee dated May 22, 2020 revealed mild chondromalacia

changes in the patellofemoral compartment, a sprain of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), 

partial meniscectomy changes in the medial meniscus, and mild joint effusion. 

In reports dated May 27, 2020, Dr. Farr diagnosed a left knee ACL tear and recommended 

that appellant remain out of work and undergo ACL reconstruction surgery. 

By decision dated June 2, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish that the January 4, 2020 incident occurred, as alleged.

On June 14, 2020 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

In a narrative report dated August 3, 2020, Dr. Farr described the January 4 and May 22, 

2020 employment incidents, reviewed the May 22, 2020 MRI scan results, and reiterated his 

recommendation for surgery to the left knee.

By decision dated August 24, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative modified the June 2, 

2020 decision to find that the January 4, 2020 employment incident occurred as alleged and that a 

condition had been diagnosed. However, it denied her claim, finding that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the accepted employment incident 

and the diagnosed condition.

On September 9, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of the August 24, 2020

decision.

By decision dated December 14, 2020, OWCP denied modification of the August 24, 2020 

decision. 

Appellant appealed to the Board. By order dated October 28, 2021, the Board remanded 

the case to OWCP to administratively combine File Nos. xxxxxx882, xxxxxx398, xxxxxx304, and 

xxxxxx829 and issue a de novo merit decision on her traumatic injury claim.5

OWCP subsequently administratively combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx882, xxxxxx398, 

xxxxxx304, xxxxxx829, and xxxxxx813, with the latter serving as the master file.

On March 9, 2022 OWCP accepted the January 4, 2020 claim for sprain of the left ACL 

and complex tear of medial meniscus of the left knee. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation 

on the supplemental rolls from May 27 through November 30, 2020. 

5 Supra note 3.
4

On July 28, 2022 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx829, appellant filed a claim for 

compensation (Form CA-7) for intermittent disability during the period February 29 through 

May 19, 2020.6 

In a compensation claim development letter dated August 18, 2022, OWCP informed 

appellant that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation for 

the specific periods of compensation claimed from February 29 through May 19, 2020. It 

requested that she submit medical evidence from her physician explaining how her employmentrelated conditions caused or contributed to her inability to work during the claimed period. 

OWCP thereafter received a June 17, 2021 note by Dr. Robert Hood, an emergency 

medicine specialist, who opined that appellant’s left knee pain was a direct result of occupational 

factors and a prior altercation at work.

In a May 12, 2022 medical report, Dr. Karl F. Siebuhr, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted appellant’s ongoing left knee complaints and examination findings. He

recommended an updated MRI scan and indicated that she had no functional limitations or 

restrictions as of that date. 

In an August 30, 2022 note, Stacy Cruz, a registered nurse, indicated that appellant had 

been treated in her office since February 9, 2021 for left knee pain that she developed as a direct 

result of her work duties. 

By decision dated October 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, 

finding that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish intermittent disability 

from work during the period February 29 and May 19, 2020 due to the accepted conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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.7 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.8 Disability is, thus, not synonymous with 

physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wages.9 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 

6 Appellant submitted a time analysis form (Form CA-7a) noting specific periods of compensation claimed, as 

follows: 8 hours leave without pay (LWOP) on February 29, 2020; 16 hours LWOP from April 9 through 10, 2020; 

8 hours LWOP on April 21, 2020; 8 hours LWOP on April 19, 2020; 8 hours LWOP on May 6, 2020; 3 hours LWOP 

on May 15, 2020; and 8 hours LWOP on May 19, 2020. 

7 S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April 19, 2019); J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009). 

8 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

9 See H.B., Docket No. 20-0587 (issued June 28, 2021); L.W., Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).
5

no disability as that term is used in FECA.10 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.11

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.12

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.13

ANALYSIS

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

disability from work during the period February 29 through May 19, 2020, causally related to her

accepted January 4, 2020 employment injury.

In support of her claim for compensation, appellant submitted reports of Dr. Farr dated 

May 4 and 27 and August 3, 2020, where he described the January 4, 2020 employment injury, 

conducted examinations, reviewed MRI scan results, and recommended surgery. He further 

indicated that she was totally disabled from all work effective May 27, 2020. Appellant also 

submitted hospital records dated February 19, 2020 regarding treatment for bronchitis and

additional treatment notes pertaining to her left knee, including emergency room records dated 

January 10, 2020; a June 17, 2021 note by Dr. Hood; and a May 12, 2022 report by Dr. Siebuhr. 

However, none of these reports offered an opinion as to whether appellant was disabled from work 

during the claimed period due to the accepted employment-related conditions. Therefore, this 

evidence is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim for 

compensation.14

10 See H.B., id.; K.H., Docket No. 19-1635 (issued March 5, 2020).

11 See D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).

12 Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020).

13 J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019).

14 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
6

Appellant also submitted a note from a registered nurse. Certain healthcare providers such 

as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and physical therapists are not considered qualified 

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

The remainder of the evidence of record consists of diagnostic study reports. The Board

has held that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship as they do not address whether the accepted employment injury caused any of the 

additional diagnosed conditions.17

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish intermittent disability during 

the claimed period causally related to the accepted January 4, 2020 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 intermittent 

disability from work during the period February 29 through May 19, 2020, causally related to her

accepted January 4, 2020 employment injury.

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); C.G., Docket No. 20-0957 (issued January 27, 2021); 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). 

16 K.A., Docket No. 18-0999 (issued October 4, 2019); K.W., 59 ECAB 271, 279 (2007); David P. Sawchuk, id.

17 F.D., Docket No. 19-0932 (issued October 3, 2019); J.S., Docket No. 17-1039 (issued October 6, 2017).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 4, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 26, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board