United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RINCON POST

OFFICE, Rincon, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0790

Issued: March 9, 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 April 20, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 23, 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 appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP following the March 23, 2022 

decision. 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 commencing September 22, 2021, causally related to her accepted November 11, 

2020 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 27, 2020 appellant, then a 41-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 11, 2020 she injured the flexor 

tendons in her right hand and sprained her right wrist when she set down a 70-pound box while in 

the performance of duty. She stopped work on November 11, 2020. By decision dated April 1, 

2021, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right radial styloid (de Quervain’s) tenosynovitis and 

an unspecified injury of the right hand, wrist, and fingers. It paid her wage-loss compensation on 

the supplemental rolls commencing January 3, 2021.

Appellant returned to full-time, full-duty work on August 13, 2021.3 She again stopped 

work on September 22, 2021. 

On December 8, 2021 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the period September 22 through November 19, 2021.

In a development letter dated December 9, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim for compensation. It advised her of the type of medical evidence needed 

and afforded her 30 days to respond.

Appellant also submitted a March 7, 2022 x-ray order by Dr. Bruce Kammerman, a family 

practitioner, March 8, 2022, x-ray reports of the right hand and wrist, a March 9, 2022 functional 

capacity examination referral by Dr. Kammerman, and March 22, 2022 physical therapy 

authorization request by Dr. Kammerman.

By decision dated March 23, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for wage-loss 

compensation commencing September 22, 2021, finding that the medical 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 

3 Appellant participated in physical therapy and occupational treatments commencing August 19, 2021, 

including on September 23, 29, and 30, and October 5, 12, 14, 18, and 22, 2021.
3

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury. 4 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.5

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.6

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

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.7 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.8

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. 9 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.10

4

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).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); B.O., supra note 4;N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).

6

Id.

7

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

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

9

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).

10 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).
4

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period commencing September 22, 2021, causally related to her accepted 

November 11, 2020 employment injury. 

In support of her claim for compensation, appellant submitted an imaging order, referral 

form, and authorization request dated from March 7 through 22, 2022 by Dr. Kammerman. These 

documents did not contain a medical opinion that the accepted injury had disabled appellant from 

work during the claimed period of 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.11 Therefore, Dr. Kammerman’s reports are of no 

probative value and, thus, are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.12

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing disability for the 

claimed period causally related to the accepted November 11, 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 disability from 

work for the period commencing September 22, 2021, causally related to her accepted 

November 11, 2020 employment injury.13

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

12 A.P., Docket No. 21-0300 (issued April6, 2022); L.B.,id.; D.K.,id.

13 Appellant participated in physical and occupational therapy treatments for the accepted conditions during the 

claimed period of disability on September 23, 29, and 30, and October 12, 14, 18, and 22, 2021. Upon return of the 

case record, OWCP should consider payment of up to four hours of compensation to appellant for attendance at these 

appointments. See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Compensation Claims, Chapter 2.901.19c 

(February2013); A.P., id.; 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).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 23, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 9, 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