United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, INDIANA 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CLAIMS OFFICE, 

Indianapolis, IN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0573

Issued: September 15, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 8, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 11, 2023 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.

ISSUE

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

commencing October 21, 2022, causally related to her accepted August 8, 2022 employment 

injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2022 appellant, then a 47-year-old human resources clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on August 8, 2022,she contracted COVID-19while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on August 12, 2022, and returned to full-time regular duty 

on August 23, 2022. OWCP accepted the claim for COVID-19. 

In a September 1, 2022 report, Dr. Samuel A. Gbenro, a family medicine specialist, noted 

that appellant was seen on August 30, 2022, and that due to prior complications of COVID-19, she 

was unable to perform work duties currently, and was not cleared to return to work until she was 

evaluated at her next doctor visit on September 27, 2022. 

In a September 15, 2022 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Gbenro noted a 

history of COVID-19 complications and diagnosed chronic post viral fatigue. In a September 15, 

2022 report, he noted that appellant complained of fatigue which began on August 30, 2022 due 

to complications of COVID-19. Appellant noted symptoms of general malaise, fatigue, diffuse 

soft tissue aches and pain, and poor athletic performance. In a note of even date, Dr. Gbenro 

indicated that due to prior complications of COVID-19, appellant was unable to perform her work 

duties, and would not be cleared to return to work until her next evaluation on November 11, 2022.

In October 11, 2022 progress notes, Dr. Gbenro noted that appellant was seen for COVID19 complications and chronic fatigue syndrome. He assessed chronic fatigue syndrome, mixed 

hyperlipidemia, and acute left ankle pain. 

On October 28, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work during the period October 4 through 21, 2022. On November 4, 2022 appellant filed a

Form CA-7 for disability from work during the period October 22 through November 4, 2022. 

In a development letter dated November 8, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of medical evidence necessary to establish her 

claim and that a medical slip disabling her from work, or a duty status report (Form CA-17) would 

not be sufficient. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In a November 11, 2022 after visit summary, Dr. Gbenro noted that appellant was seen for 

post viral fatigue syndrome, low back pain of multiple sites of the spine with sciatica, and 

obstructive sleep apnea. In a Form CA-17 of the same date, he noted critical findings of chronic 

fatigue and pain, diagnosis of “none,” and other disabling conditions of low back pain. In a report 

of the same date, Dr. Gbenro indicated that due to prior complications of COVID-19, appellant 

was unable to perform work duties and that she was not cleared to return to work until she was 

reevaluated at her next doctor visit on January 3, 2023. 

OWCP also received September 21 and November 11, 2022 laboratory reports.

On November 21, 2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for disability from work during the 

period November 5 through 18, 2022.

On December 2, 2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for disability from work during the 

period November 19 through December 2, 2022. 
3

By decision dated January 11, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for wage-loss 

compensation for disability from work commencing October 21, 2022, finding that the medical 

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

to the accepted employment injury.

2

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 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.5 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.6

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 p reponderance of the 

reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence. 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. 7

ANALYSIS

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

work commencingOctober 21, 2022, causally related to her accepted August 8, 2022 employment 

injury.

In a September 1, 2022 report, Dr. Gbenro noted that appellant was seen on August 30, 

2022 due to prior complications of COVID-19, and that she was not cleared to return to work. 

However, as this report predated the period of disability in question, Dr. Gbenro did not provide 

an opinion on causal relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment 

2 The Board notes that OWCP did not address appellant’s claim for disability from October 4 through 20, 2022.

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4

See L.R., Docket No. 21-0018 (issued February 17, 2023); C.B., Docket No. 20-0629 (issued May 26, 2021);D.S., 

Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989);see also Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 712 (1986).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see A.N., Docket No. 20-0320 (issued March 31, 2021); S.T., Docket No. 18-0412 (issued 

October 22, 2018); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).

6

See D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018); Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 4.

7 W.C., Docket No. 19-1740 (issued June 4, 2020); J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019); 

Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
4

injury.8 Therefore, this evidence is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

disability claim. 

In a September 15, 2022 report, Dr. Gbenro indicated that appellant was not cleared to 

return to work until her next doctor visit on November 11, 2022, due to prior complications of 

COVID-19. He noted that her symptoms began on August 30, 2022. Dr. Gbenro also provided a

Form CA-20 in which he diagnosed chronic post viral fatigue. On October 11, and November 11, 

2022 he again assessed chronic fatigue syndrome. The Board finds, however, that Dr. Gbenro’s 

reports are conclusory in nature as they did not provide rationale explaining how or why appellant

was disabled from work due to the accepted injury.

9

 Therefore, this evidence is of limited 

probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

In an October 11, 2022 report, Dr. Gbenro noted that appellant had acute left ankle pain. 

On November 11, 2022 he noted that she was seen for low back pain of multiple sites of the spine 

with sciatica. The Board has held that a medical report lacking an opinion regarding causal 

relationship is of no probative value.10 This evidence is therefore insufficient to establish 

appellant’s disability claim.

Appellant also submitted laboratory reports. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic 

test reports, standing alone, lack probative value as they do not provide an opinion on causal

relationship.

11

 Thus, this evidence is also insufficient to establish the disability claim.

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

commencing October 21, 2022, causally related to the accepted August 8, 2022 employment 

injury, the Board finds that appellant 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 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 commencingOctober 21, 2022, causally related to her accepted August 8, 2022 employment 

injury.

8

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

9

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

10 Supra note 8.

11 W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 11, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 15, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board