United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

JAMAICA PLAIN VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Jamaica Plain, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0759

Issued: January 23, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Marc J. Levy, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 2, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 26, 2023 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

for the period March 16 through August 6, 2022 causally related to his accepted January 30, 2022 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 31, 2022 appellant, then a 29-year-old police officer, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 30, 2022 he felt a sharp pain in the lower back when 

he slipped and fell when exiting his police vehicle while in the performance of duty. He stopped 

work on the date of the claimed injury. 

In a March 9, 2022 note, Dr. Steven C. Rosa, a chiropractor, opined that appellant was 

totally disabled from March 11 through 25, 2022. 

By decision dated May 12, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the January 30, 2022 employment incident 

occurred as alleged. 

Appellant submitted unsigned chiropractic treatment notes dated February 22 through 

April 12, 2022, which noted that he was disabled until April 14, 2022.

On April 14, 2022 Dr. Charles E. Raftery, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, described 

appellant’s January 30, 2022 slip and fall incident at work, and recounted appellant’s complaints 

of persistent low back and neck pain. On physical examination, he observed restricted cervical 

and lumbar range of motion. Dr. Raftery diagnosed low back and neck pain. He recommended 

that appellant remain out of work until diagnostic studies were completed and reviewed. 

In a report dated May 12, 2022, Dr. Raftery indicated that he evaluated appellant for 

complaints of low back pain and neck symptoms, and provided examination findings. He reported 

that lumbar spine x-rays revealed slight decreased disc space at L5-S1 and cervical spine x-rays 

demonstrated preserved disc spaces. Dr. Raftery recommended that appellant remain out of work

due to his restricted cervical range of motion. In a separate report dated May 12, 2022, he opined 

that, based on the mechanism of injury, he believed that appellant sustained cervical and lumbar 

sprains as a result of his fall at work on January 30, 2022. 

On May 27, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration.

In an August 2, 2022 note, Dr. Raftery indicated that appellant was under his care and was 

to remain out of work pending additional testing. 

By decision dated August 24, 2022, OWCP vacated the May 12, 2022 decision, finding 

that the factual evidence of record was sufficient to establish that the January 30, 2022 employment 

incident occurred as alleged. It also found that the evidence of record established that appellant’s 

diagnosed cervical and lumbar conditions were causally related to the January 30, 2022 

employment incident. By separate decision dated August 24, 2022, OWCP accepted appellant’s 

claim for cervical spine sprain and lumbar spine sprain.
3

On August 25, 2022 appellant returned to full-duty work. 

On September 12, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

disability from work for the period March 16 through August 6, 2022. On the reverse side of the 

claim form, an employee benefits specialist for the employing establishment indicated that 

appellant was on leave without pay (LWOP) status from March 16 through August 6, 2022.

In a September 16, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim for disability from work for the period March 16 through August 6, 2022. It advised 

him of the type of additional evidence needed and afforded him 30 days to provide the necessary 

evidence. 

In a report dated October 28, 2022, Dr. Raftery noted diagnoses of lower back pain and 

cervicogenic pain. He reported that appellant was disabled from work due to his work-related 

cervical and lumbar sprains from January 30, 2022 to the present and continuing “due to ongoing 

pain and limited range of motion.” Dr. Raftery explained that appellant did not make sufficient 

progress in his recovery to allow him to return to work sooner. He further reported that the 

“combination of ongoing pain and limited range of motion resulted in my opinion that [appellant] 

remain out of work.” Dr. Raftery noted that the end date of disability was currently unknown, and 

would be dependent on continuing progress in his recovery. 

OWCP received additional reports from Dr. Raftery. In a July 5, 2022 report, Dr. Raftery

reported physical examination findings and diagnosed lower back and cervicogenic pain. In an 

August 2, 2022 report, he reported physical examination findings, diagnosed resolving lower back

pain, cervicogenic pain with cervical radiculitis, and noted that appellant should remain out of 

work. Appellant also submitted November 2 and December 15, 2022 reports wherein

Dr. David C. Levi, Board-certified in pain medicine and anesthesiology, discussed his cervical and 

lumbar conditions and opined that he remained totally disabled. 

By decision dated January 9, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

compensation for the period March 16 through August 6, 2022. It found that the medical evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish that he was disabled from work during the claimed period 

due to his accepted January 30, 2022 employment injury.

On January 30, 2023 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration.

In a report dated January 23, 2023, Dr. Byron V. Hartunian, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, reviewed appellant’s medical records and noted examination findings of no palpable 

muscular spasm over cervical and lumbar muscles during motion. He diagnosed resolved cervical 

and lumbar muscle strains and facet syndrome of the cervical spine. Dr. Hartunian opined that 

appellant was totally disabled from work from January 30, 2022 through mid-November 2022,

when he became capable of sedentary work. He also opined that appellant was totally disabled 

from his job as a police officer from January 30, 2022 until January 1, 2023. Dr. Hartunian

explained that the trauma from appellant’s slip and fall traumatic injury resulted in cervical and 

paraspinal muscle fibers tearing, causing an inflammatory reaction, irritating the surrounding 

nerves. He noted that the symptoms associated with the diagnosed conditions of cervical sprains 

were pain and limited range of motion. Dr. Hartunian reported that prolonged sitting, as would be 
4

required in appellant driving four hours to and from work, would aggravate these symptoms. He 

also explained that inflammation in the cervical and lumbar areas would make tasks such as 

driving, sitting, standing, walking, bending, lifting, and carrying extremely difficult, and would 

impair appellant’s focus and concentration. Dr. Hartunian opined that appellant was totally 

disabled from work during the periods of time mentioned. 

In a letter dated February 16, 2023, a workers’ injury program specialist for the employing 

establishment noted that appellant completed a preemployment physical on August 25, 2022 for 

another police officer position in a different jurisdiction. 

In a March 16, 2023 letter, appellant, through counsel, responded to the employing 

establishment’s February 16, 2023 letter and alleged that its arguments had no merit.

By decision dated April 26, 2023, OWCP denied modification of the January 9, 2023 

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 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 

To establish causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment injury, 

an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence.7 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background, 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.8 The Board will not require OWCP to pay 

compensation for disability in the absence of medical evidence directly addressing the specific 

3

Id. 

4 D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); F.H., Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August 23, 2019); 

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

ECAB 1143 (1989).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); S.T., Docket No. 18-0412 (issued October 22, 2018); CherylL. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 

397 (1999).

6 B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018); AmeliaS. 

Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

7 L.O., Docket No. 20-0170 (issued August 13, 2021); S.J., Docket No. 17-0828 (issued December 20, 2017); 

Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

8 V.A., Docket No. 19-1123 (issued October 29, 2019); C.B., Docket No. 18-0633 (issued November 16, 2018).
5

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. 9

ANALYSIS

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

work for the period March 16 through August 6, 2022 causally related to his accepted January 30, 

2022 employment injury.

In reports dated April 14, May 12, and October 28, 2022, Dr. Raftery described the 

January 30, 2022 employment injury, provided examination findings, and recommended that 

appellant remain out of work. In an August 2, 2022 work status note, he indicated that appellant 

was under his care and was to remain out of work pending additional testing. In an August 2, 2022 

narrative report, Dr. Raftery reported physical examination findings, diagnosed lower back and 

cervicogenic pain, and noted that appellant should remain out of work. In an October 28, 2022 

report, he further explained that appellant was disabled from work due to his cervical and lumbar 

sprains from January 30, 2022 to the present and continuing “due to ongoing pain and limited 

range of motion.” Although Dr. Raftery opined that appellant was disabled from work during the 

claimed period, he failed to explain how the period of disability was due to his January 30, 2022 

employment injury, or why he was unable to perform the duties of his position during the claimed 

period. A mere conclusion without medical rationale supporting a period of disability due to the 

accepted employment condition is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.10 Thus, this 

evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.11

In a January 23, 2023 report, Dr. Hartunian reviewed appellant’s history, and provided 

examination findings. He diagnosed resolved cervical and lumbar muscle strains and facet 

syndrome of the cervical spine. Dr. Hartunian opined that appellant was totally disabled from 

work from January 30, 2022 to mid-November 2022. He indicated that prolonged sitting would 

aggravate appellant’s symptoms. Dr. Hartunian also explained that inflammation in the cervical 

and lumbar areas, caused by the January 30, 2022 employment injury, would make tasks such as 

driving, sitting, standing, walking, bending, lifting, and carrying extremely difficult to do and 

would impair appellant’s focus and concentration. He concluded that appellant was totally 

disabled from work during the periods of time mentioned. Dr. Hartunian, however, did not provide 

sufficient medical reasoning to support his opinion on disability. Rather, he generally noted that 

appellant had work-related cervical and lumbar inflammation and alleged that prolonged sitting 

would aggravate his cervical and lumbar symptoms such that it would be difficult for him to 

perform specific tasks. The Board has found that when a physician’s statements regarding an 

employee’s ability to work consist only of repetition of the employee’s complaints that he or she 

hurt too much to work, without objective findings of disability being shown, the physician has not 

9

See S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon 

Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

10 A.L., Docket No. 21-0151 (issued January 21, 2022); C.B., Docket No. 19-0464 (issued May 22, 2020); S.H., 

Docket No. 19-1128 (issued December 2, 2019); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

11 See J.K., Docket No. 22-1024 (issued January 20, 2023).
6

presented a medical opinion on the issue of disability.12 For these reasons, the Board finds that

Dr. Hartunian’s opinion lacks sufficient medical reasoning to establish that appellant was unable 

to work during the claimed period.13

Appellant submitted additional reports, including May 12, July 5, and August 2, 2022 

reports wherein Dr. Raftery addressed appellant’s cervical and lumbar conditions. In November 2 

and December 15, 2022 reports, Dr. Levi discussed his cervical and lumbar conditions, and 

indicated that he remained totally disabled. However, none of these reports contains an opinion 

that appellant sustained disability during the period March 16 through August 6, 2022 due to the 

accepted January 30, 2022 employment injury. The Board has held that medical evidence that 

does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s disability is of no probative value 

on the issue of causal relationship.

14

 Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim.

In a March 9, 2022 work status note, Dr. Rosa, a chiropractor, indicated that appellant was 

totally disabled from March 11 through 25, 2022. This report, however, is of no probative medical 

value because he did not diagnose a spinal subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist, and 

therefore does not qualify as a physician under FECA.

15

 Appellant also submitted unsigned 

chiropractic treatment notes dated February 22 through April 12, 2022. However, in addition to 

the fact the notes do not diagnose spinal subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray, unsigned reports 

cannot be considered probative medical evidence because they do not provide an indication that 

the person completing the report qualifies as a physician under FECA.

16

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

period March 16 through August 6, 2022 causally related to the accepted January 30, 2022 

employment injury, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his 

claim.

12 B.F., Docket No. 19-0123 (issued May 13, 2019); P.D., Docket No. 14-744 (issued August 6, 2014); G.T., 59 

ECAB 447 (2008).

13 L.L., Docket No. 21-1194 (issued March 18, 2022).

14 See F.S., Docket No. 23-0112 (issued April26, 2023); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

15 Section 8101(2) provides that under FECA the term physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by the applicable state law. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part2 -

- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(3) (May 2023). Chiropractors are considered physicians under 

FECA only to the extent that their reimbursable services are limited to treatment consisting of manual manipulation 

of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by x-ray to exist and subject to regulations by the secretary. See 

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); P.T., Docket No. 21-0110 (issued December 8, 2021); R.N., Docket No. 19-1685 (issued 

February 26, 2020); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

16 B.S., Docket No. 22-0918 (issued August 29, 2022);see S.D., Docket No. 21-0292 (issued June 29, 2021); C.B., 

Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).
7

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 his burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for the period March 16 through August 6, 2022 causally related to his accepted January 30, 

2022 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 26, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 23, 2024

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board