United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MADISON POST 

OFFICE, Madison, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0851

Issued: October 31, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 5, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 8, 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

ISSUE

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

for the period September 23 through October 21, 2022, causally related to her accepted July 18, 

2022 employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the December 8, 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 22, 2022 appellant, then a 50-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 18, 2022 she sustained a left calf gastrocnemius 

tear when she stepped off a gap between the lift and dock while in the performance of duty. She 

stopped work on July 18, 2022.

On September 23, 2022 appellant filed claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the period September 23 through 30, 2022.

By decision dated September 27, 2022, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left

gastrocnemius muscle tear.

In a development letter dated September 27, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her disability claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence 

needed and afforded her 30 days to respond.

On October 8, 2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for disability from work for the 

period September 30 through October 7, 2022. No evidence was submitted.

On October 22, 2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for disability from work for the 

period October 7 through 21, 2022.

In an October 4, 2022 left knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report, Dr. Patrick 

Aldred, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, noted a history and associated diagnosis of 

“crushing injury of left lower leg” and compared the MRI scan to left tibia and fibula radiographs 

of July 18, 2022. He provided an impression of partially imaged lower leg lateral superficial mild 

soft tissue edema distal to knee which may correspond to patient’s known injury, potentially 

resolving contusion or seroma, and patellar median ridge focal near full-thickness fissure. 

In an October 18, 2022 report, Dr. Tracy Ray, a sports medicine specialist, noted that 

appellant, a mail carrier, was seen for her complaints of left knee and lower leg pain that stemmed 

from a July 2022 injury. He indicated that appellant wasinitially seen by P.S., a certified physician 

assistant, for a lateral leg hematoma received when she “slipped losing the dog and a left.” Dr. Ray 

reviewed the left knee October 4, 2022 MRI scan and found left knee chondromalacia patella with 

no true meniscal tear. He released appellant to full duty without restriction on October 24, 2022. 

In an October 18, 2022 note, Dr. Ray cleared appellant to return to work on Monday, 

October 24, 2022. He noted that until that day appellant had restrictions of no climbing and 

sedentary work only.

By decision dated December 8, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for wage-loss 

compensation for the period September 23 through October 21, 2022, finding that the medical 
3

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

the accepted employment-related 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 that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury. 3 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.4

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. Disability is thus not 

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

wages. 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.5

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.6 Rationalized medical evidence is medical evidence, 

which includes a physician’s detailed medical opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal 

relationship between the claimant’s claimed disability and the accepted employment injury. 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 period of disability and the accepted 

employment injury.7

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. 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 

3

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

B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019); D.W., Docket No. 18-0644 (issued November 15, 2018); Kathryn 

Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); B.O., supra note 3; N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).

5

Id.

6

J.M., Docket No. 19-0478 (issued August 9, 2019).

7 R.H., Docket No. 18-1382 (issued February 14, 2019).

8

20 C.F.R. § 10.501(a);C.E., Docket No. 19-1617 (issued June 3, 2020); M.M., Docket No. 18-0817 (issued 

May 17, 2019);see T.A., Docket No. 18-0431 (issued November 7, 2018);see also Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 

183 (2005).
4

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 her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for the period September 23 through October 21, 2022, causally related to her accepted 

July 18, 2022 employment injury.

OWCP received October 18, 2022 reports from Dr. Ray. While Dr. Ray indicated that 

appellant had work restrictions of no climbing and sedentary work only prior to October 24, 2022, 

he did not provide a rationalized medical opinion causally relating these restrictions to the July 18, 

2022 employment incident. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not provide 

sufficient rationale on the issue of causal relationship is of limited probative value.

10

 Therefore,

this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

OWCP also received a November 2, 2022 report signed by a physical therapist. The Board 

has held that the report of a physical therapist does not constitute probative medical evidence as a 

physical therapist is not considered a physician as defined under FECA. 11 Therefore, the 

November 2, 2022 physical therapy report is of no probative value and, thus, is insufficient to 

establish appellant’s disability claim.12 

The record also contains diagnostic studies. The Board has held that diagnostic studies, 

standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship, as they do not provide an 

opinion as to whether the employment incident caused any of the diagnosed conditions. 13 

Accordingly, these diagnostic studies are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

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

period causally related to the accepted July 18, 2022 employment injury, the Board finds that 

appellant has not met her burden of proof.

9 C.E., id.; M.M., id.;see V.B., Docket No. 18-1273 (issued March 4, 2019); S.M., Docket No. 17-1557 (issued 

September 4, 2018); WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674, 679 (2004);Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

10 See S.F.,Docket No. 20-0347 (issued March 31, 2023); T.B., Docket No. 20-0255 (issued March 11, 2022).

11 Section 8101(2) of FECA 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). SeeFederal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship,

Chapter 2.805.3a (January 2013). R.L., Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (a physical therapist is not 

considered a physician as defined under FECA); see David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006). A report 

from a physical therapist will be considered medical evidence if countersigned by a qualified physician.

12 T.W., Docket No. 22-0790 (issued March 9, 2023); A.P., Docket No. 21-0300 (issued April 6, 2022).

13 E.B., Docket No. 19-1390 (issued May 7, 2020); F.S., Docket No. 19-0205 (issued June 19, 2019).
5

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 September 23 through October 21, 2022, causally related to her accepted 

July 18, 2022 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 8, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 31, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board