United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.Y., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ANN ARBOR POST 

OFFICE, Ann Arbor, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0347

Issued: March 31, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 2, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 13, 2019 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 November 13, 2019decision, 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

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

work for the period April 9 through May 24, 2019, causally related to her accepted employment 

injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 17, 2016 appellant, then a 39-year-old city carrier assistant 1, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a bilateral heel condition due 

to factors of her federal employment, including walking and standing on hard surfaces for long 

periods of time. OWCP accepted the claim for bilateral plantar fasciitis/fibromatosis. Appellant 

stopped work on August 24, 2016. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation on the supplemental 

rolls through December 28, 2018. 

Appellant accepted a modified job offer on December 31, 2018. The duties of the position 

included mounted delivery for six hours per day and Express Mail delivery for two hours per day. 

Appellant subsequently stopped work on April 9, 2019. 

In a report dated April 11, 2019, Dr. Mohammed Bazzi, a podiatrist, noted that appellant 

was seen for complaints of bilateral foot pain and was currently attending physical therapy. 

Appellant’s physical examination revealed bilateral mid-arch heel tenderness on palpation, no 

edema, decreased bilateral arch foot deformity, good bilateral ankle range of motion, and bilateral 

hammertoe syndrome. A review of x-ray interpretations revealed bilateral plantar calcaneal central 

tubercle spurring and no fracture. Dr. Bazzi diagnosed history of plantar fasciitis, pain and heel 

spur syndrome. He recommended that appellant wear orthotics in good supportive shoes and 

related surgical options, including plantar fasciotomies bilaterally, were discussed if all 

conservative measures failed. 

In a May 21, 2019 note, Dr. Stanley Frencher, a Board-certified internist, prescribed 

physical therapy two to three times per week for appellant’s bilateral plantar fasciitis. 

On June 3, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from 

work during the period April 9 through May 24, 2019. 

In a development letter dated June 4, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim for wage-loss compensation. It advised her of the type of medical evidence required 

and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In response, appellant submitted physical therapy notes dated June 3, 2019. 

OWCP also received a May 21, 2019 report by Dr. Harry Kezelian, a podiatrist, who noted 

that appellant was seen for complaints of on and off bilateral foot pain over the past two years. 

Dr. Kezelian detailed physical findings including pain on palpation of plantar fascia insertional 

area into the inferior calcaneal area, greater on the left than the right, and along with increased 

edema. He diagnosed heel spur syndrome with bilateral plantar fasciitis, greater on the left than 

the right, which had been present for a very long time and had not been improving. Dr. Kezelian 

related that appellant’s feet had been immobilized and she was given a box brace to use daily. 
3

In a narrative report dated June 4, 2019, Dr. Kezelian noted that appellant worked as a mail 

carrier, but was not working at this time due to pain in her feet. He noted that she had heel spur 

syndrome with plantar fasciitis bilaterally, which had been present for a very long time and had 

not improved. Dr. Kezelian related that appellant had been prescribed a controlled ankle motion 

(CAM) walker bootto use on which ever foot bothered her the most. He explained that, if physical 

therapy did not help, she would be given a below the knee cast and, if that did not help, surgery 

would be recommended. 

In a June 4, 2019 note, Dr. Frencher diagnosed plantar fasciitis and found that appellant 

was disabled from work due to this condition beginning April 9, 2019. 

On June 11, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7, claiming wage-loss compensation for 

disability from work during the period May 25 through June 7, 2019. 

On June 28, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7, claiming wage-loss compensation for 

disability from work for the period June 8 through 21, 2019. 

On July 15, 2019 OWCP received an undated report from Dr. Frencher detailing dates 

appellant was seen either by him or her podiatrist for bilateral foot pain complaints, and noting the 

treatment provided. Dr. Frencher indicated that she was seen by him on April 9, 2019, by

Dr. Bazzi on April 11, 2019, and subsequently by Dr. Kezelian. He reported that appellant was 

receiving physical therapy and awaiting surgical treatment. Dr. Frencher opined that she was

totally disabled from work due to her bilateral plantar fasciitis. 

By decision dated July 23, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for disability from work for the period April 9 through May 24, 2019 and 

continuing. 

Following the denial of her claim, appellant submitted reports dated June 21 and 28, 2019 

from Dr. Kezelian. Dr. Kezelian diagnosed bilateral heel spur syndrome with plantar fasciitis, 

which had been present for a long time and was not improving. He noted appellant’s pain 

complaints on examination. On June 21, 2019 Dr. Kezelian related that immobilization of her feet 

had been performed, and she would continue using the box brace. He also related that appellant 

must use the CAM walker boot 24 hours, 7 days per week except to take a shower and drive in her 

car. Dr. Kezelian again related that if her condition did not improve, she would require surgical 

treatment. On June 28, 2019 he reported that appellant had been wearing the CAM walker boot 

all the time, but that it was not helping. Dr. Kezelian related that since her condition had not 

improved surgery was discussed. 

In an August 10, 2019 report, Dr. Frencher summarized appellant’s history of injury and 

medical treatment provided by himself and her podiatrists. He related that, since her August 15, 

2016 injury, her physicians had modified her work restrictions multiple times to determine the 

level of work she could perform without causing further injury. Dr. Frencher related that appellant 

was seen by him on April 9, 2019 and subsequently referred to Dr. Kezelian, who performed x-rays 

of her feet and confirmed plantar fasciitis in both feet, for which he prescribed a CAM walker

boot. He explained that she had been instructed not to drive a vehicle or perform any work duties 

while wearing the CAM walker boot. Dr. Frencher opined that appellant was totally disabled from 
4

performing her job duties due to the worsening of her bilateral foot plantar fasciitis. He concluded 

that the worsening of her condition was directly related to the amount of walking/standing she 

performed while working on hard surfaces. 

On August 16, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of the July 23, 2019 decision 

denying her claim for wage-loss compensation. 

By decision dated August 19, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for the period April 9 through May 24, 2019. 

On August 24, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In support thereof, appellant submitted physical therapy notes covering the periodsMay 2 

to June 3 and July 1 to 31, 2019 for treatment of plantar fascial fibromatosis. 

On October 7, 2019 OWCP received progress notes dated August 2, 2019 from

Dr. Kezelian. Dr. Kezelian diagnosed heel spur syndrome, with plantar fasciitis greater on the 

right side, which had been present for a long time. He noted appellant’s pain complaints, that she 

was frequently using a CAM walker boot, and considering surgical options. Appellant’s physical 

examination revealed pain on palpation of the right foot plantar fascia insertional area into the 

inferior calcaneal area. 

By decision dated November 13, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the August 19, 2019 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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.

4

 For each period of 

disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled 

for work as a result of the accepted employment injury.5 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.6

3

Supra note 1.

4

See D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); F.H., Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August23, 2019); 

C.R., Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989).

5

See Y.D., Docket No. 20-0097 (issued August 25, 2020); L.S.,Docket No. 18-0264 (issued January 28, 2020); 

Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April 29, 2020); S.L.,Docket No. 19-0603 (issued 

January 28, 2020).
5

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.7 Disability is, thus, not 

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

wages.8 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to his or her federal 

employment, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages that he or she was receiving 

at the time of injury, has no disability and is not entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning 

capacity.9 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 employment, the employee is entitled to compensation for any loss of wages. 10

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of any 

medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is 

claimed. To do so would essentially allow employees to self-certify their disability and entitlement 

to compensation.11

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period April 9 through May 24, 2019, causally related to her accepted employment 

injury. 

In support of her claim for disability, appellant submitted reports and notes from

Dr. Frencher. In a June 4, 2019 note, Dr. Frencher found that she was disabled from work 

beginning April 9, 2019 due to her diagnosed plantar fasciitis. In an undated report received on 

July 15, 2019 he detailed dates appellant received medical treatment and opined that she was 

totally disabled from work due to her plantar fasciitis. Dr. Frencher’s opinion, however, is 

conclusory in nature and does not provide rationale explaining why she was disabled due to the 

accepted bilateral plantar fasciitis. He did not provide medical rationale, based on objective 

findings, supporting disability from work during the claimed period causally related to the 

accepted employment injury.

12

 Therefore, this report is of limited probative value and is 

insufficient to establish the disability claim. 

In his report dated August 10, 2019, Dr. Frencher related that appellant’s work restrictions 

had been modified to prevent further injury. However, he did not provide an opinion on causal 

relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment injury. The Board has 

held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 

7

Id. § 10.5(f);see J.T.,Docket No. 19-1813 (issued April14, 2020);CherylL. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).

8

J.S.,Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January24, 2020).

9

Supra note 6 at § 10.5(f); see D.N., Docket No. 19-1344 (issued November 6, 2020); G.R.,Docket No. 19-0940 

(issued December 20, 2019). S.M., 58 ECAB 166 (2006); Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004).

10 J.T., supra note 7; S.L., supra note 6.

11 Id.

12 See T.B., Docket No. 20-0255 (issued March 11, 2022). 
6

condition or disability is of no probative value.13 This report is, therefore, insufficient to establish 

appellant’s disability claim.

Appellant also submitted a medical report from Dr. Bazzi dated April 11, 2019 and reports

from Dr. Kezelian dated May 21 to August 2, 2019. However, neither of these physicians 

provided an opinion as to whether she was disabled from work during the claimed period due to a 

worsening of the accepted bilateral plantar fasciitis. As noted above, medical evidence that does 

not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no probative 

value.14 As such, this evidence is insufficient to establish the disability claim.

During the relevant time period, OWCP also received physical therapy notes. The Board, 

however, has held that treatment notes from physical therapists have no probative value as these 

providers are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.15

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

the claimed period causally related to the accepted employment injury, the Board finds that 

appellant has not met her burden of proof.16

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 April 9 through May 24, 2019, causally related to her accepted employment 

injury. 

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

14 Id. 

15 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that physicianincludes 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 also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); see 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 also V.R., Docket No. 19-0758 (issued March 16, 2021) (a physical therapist is not considered a

physician under FECA); J.R.,Docket No. 19-0812 (issued September 29, 2020) (an occupational therapist is not 

considered a physician under FECA).

16 Upon return of the case record, OWCP shall consider payment of up to four hours of compensation to appellant 

for lost time from work due to documented medical appointments to assess or treat symptoms related to the accepted 

employment injury. See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Compensation Claims, Chapter 

2.901.19(c) (February 2013); J.E., Docket No. 19-1758 (issued March 16, 2021); A.V., Docket No. 19-1575 (issued 

June 11, 2020). See also K.A., Docket No. 19-0679 (issued April6, 2020);WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 13, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 31, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board