United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WEST AVENUE 

CARRIER ANNEX, Stamford, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0558

Issued: October 19, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 6, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 1, 2023 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to 

consider the merits of this case.

1 The Board notes that following the February 1, 2023 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

work for the period November 21 through December 1, 2022, causally related to her accepted 

July 24, 2019 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 24, 2019 appellant, then a 56-year-old delivery clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she sustained an injury to her left shoulder when another 

employee hit her with a postal container while in the performance of duty. She stopped work that 

day. OWCP accepted the claim for aggravation of spinal stenosis of the cervical region, and 

aggravation of cervical disc degeneration. It expanded acceptance of the claim to include 

incomplete lesion of the spinal cord at C4. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the 

periodic rolls beginning September 14, 2019.

On December 9, 2019 Dr. Arianne Boylan, a neurosurgeon, performed C4-T1 posterior 

cervical fusion on an urgent basis due to worsening myelopathy, head heaviness, and arm 

weakness. OWCP subsequently authorized this surgery.

Appellant accepted a limited-duty modified lead customer service clerk position beginning 

on September 21, 2020 working four hours a day. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation 

on the supplemental rolls beginning September 21, 2020 for four hours of partial disability.

Dr. Boylan examined appellant on November 8, 2021 and January 21, 2022, diagnosed

cervical pseudoarthrosis with some mechanical element. She also diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy 

with known degenerative disease that could have had an exacerbation at the time of her injury. 

On May 16, 2022 appellant accepted a modified lead customer service clerk position 

working from “2:00 to 10:50” five days a week with restrictions.

Dr. Boylan reported on May 11, 2022 that appellant had increased her work hours to eight 

hours a day with lifting restrictions. In an August 10, 2022 note, she determined that appellant’s

lower back symptoms had improved with minimal neck pain and that she did not require any 

surgical intervention.

Appellant began using intermittent leave on August 10, 2022. She subsequently accepted 

a modified lead customer service clerk position on August 18, 2022.

On October 13, 2022 Dr. Paul Eugene Lleva, a Board-certified vascular neurologist, found 

that appellant’s symptoms had much improved and reduced the dosage of her pain medication.

Dr. Boylan completed a note on November 9, 2022 addressing appellant’s reduced lumbar 

symptoms. She recounted her stable but persistent neck pain which was not responding well to 

injections. Dr. Boylan noted that appellant had refused additional cervical surgery for extension 

of the fusion given pseudoarthrosis. She noted hand symptoms which seemed consistent with 

carpal tunnel syndrome.
3

In a December 1, 2022 note, appellant advised OWCP that she had exhausted her sick leave 

due to her accepted employment injury. She alleged continued significant pain in her neck and 

both arms making it difficult for her to get dressed, drive, or lift and carry.

On December 5, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability

from work for the period November 21 through December 1, 2022.

In a December 7, 2022 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

her disability claim and the type of additional evidence needed. It afforded her 30 days to respond.

On December 14, 2022 Dr. Tabitha B. Fortt, a family practitioner, diagnosed chronic pain 

due to the work-related injury. She explained that appellant’s pain had been managed by 

medication but that her neck, upper back, and arm pain had increased since she stopped her 

medication, preventing her from sleeping during the claimed period.

In a December 14, 2022 note, Dr. Boylan recounted appellant’s history of injury and 

medical history. She related that appellant did not currently wish to undergo additional cervical 

surgery and that her back and leg pain had largely resolved. 

Dr. Fortt completed a December 28, 2022 note repeating her earlier history, diagnosing 

chronic pain, and relating that appellant had undergone injections which did not provide immediate 

pain relief.

On January 24, 2023 Dr. Leigh Flagler Hanke, a Board-certified physiatrist, related

treating appellant on November 22, 2022. She recounted appellant’s report that due to pain she 

was out of work from November 28 through December 1, 2022.

By decision dated February 1, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, 

beginning November 21, 2022. It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that she was totally disabled from work beginning November 21, 2022 due to her 

accepted July 24, 2019 employment-related injury.

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 

3

Id.

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

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

397 (1999).
4

burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled from work as a result of the accepted 

employment injury.6

When an employee who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account 

of employment-related residuals returns to a limited-duty position, or the medical evidence 

establishes that he or she can perform the limited-duty position, the employee has the burden of 

proof to establish by the weight of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence of 

total disability and to show that he or she cannot perform such limited-duty work. As part of this 

burden of proof, the employee must show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related 

condition or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty job requirements.7 This burden 

of proof includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a qualified physician who concludes, 

on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history that, for each period of 

disability claimed, the disabling condition is causally related to the employment injury, and 

supports that conclusion with medical reasoning.8 Where no such rationale is present, the medical 

evidence is of diminished probative value.9

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed period 

of disability and an employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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 disability and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.10

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.11

ANALYSIS

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

from work for the period November 21 through December 1, 2022, causally related to her accepted 

July 24, 2019 employment injury.

6

See S.H., Docket No. 21-0640 (issued February 2, 2023); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018); 

Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

7

S.H., id.; S.F.,Docket No. 19-1735 (issued March 12, 2020); J.B.,Docket Nos. 18-1752, 19-0792 (issued May 6, 

2019); C.G., Docket No. 16-1503 (issued May 17, 2017); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986).

8 H.T., Docket No. 17-0209 (issued February 8, 2019); Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001).

9 E.M., Docket No. 19-0251 (issued May 16, 2019); MaryA. Ceglia, Docket No. 04-0113 (issued July 22, 2004).

10 S.H., supra note 6; V.A., Docket No. 19-1123 (issued October 29, 2019).

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

Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
5

In support of her disability claim for the period November 21 through December 1, 2022, 

appellant submitted reports from Dr. Boylan dated November 9 and December 14, 2022 which 

described her stable but persistent neck pain and found that this was not responding well to 

injections. Dr. Boylan further reported that appellant had refused additional surgery for the 

accepted cervical condition and that her back and leg pain had largely resolved. To the extent in 

which Dr. Boylan attributed appellant’s disability to her accepted cervical conditions, she failed to 

address whether she was totally disabled from work during the period claimed. The Board has 

held that medical evidence that does not address appellant’s dates of disability is of no probative 

value and insufficient to establish her claim.12

On December 14 and 28, 2022 Dr. Fortt diagnosed chronic pain due to the work-related 

injury. She explained that appellant’s pain had been managed by medication, but that it did not 

provide immediate pain relief. Dr. Fortt found that appellant’s neck, upper back, and arm pain had 

increased since she stopped her medication, preventing her sleeping during the claimed period. 

She failed to provide any medical rationale explaining how appellant’s accepted cervical 

conditions from her July 24, 2019 employment injury caused disability during the alleged time 

period. Dr. Fortt failed to explain how appellant’s inability to work was causally related to her 

accepted employment conditions.13 Thus, these reports are of limited probative value and 

insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

On January 24, 2023 Dr. Hanke related that, due to pain, appellant was out of work from

November 28 through December 1, 2022. However, she did not provide an opinion that appellant 

was disabled from work during the claimed period due to the accepted July 2019 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, the above-noted report is of no probative value with regard to the issue of appellant’s 

disability for the claimed period and is insufficient to establish her claim for wage-loss 

compensation.

Although on October 13, 2022 Dr. Lleva reported that appellant’s symptoms had 

improved, he did not address the claimed period of disability. As noted above, 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.15 The Board finds, therefore, that his 

report is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

As the medical evidence of record does not contain a rationalized opinion establishing 

causal relationship between appellant’s claimed period of total disability and her accepted 

12 See G.H., Docket No. 20-1214 (issued December 16, 2022); T.G.,Docket No. 20-0121 (issued May 17, 2022); 

M.L., Docket Nos. 18-1058 & 18-1224 (issued November 21, 2019); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 

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

13 G.H., and T.G., id.; M.M.,Docket No. 18-0817 (issued May 17, 2019); Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004).

14 G.J., Docket No. 22-0942 (issued January 10, 2023); L.B., supra note 12; D.K., supra note 12.

15 Id.
6

employment condition, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish total 

disability from work for the period November 21 through December 1, 2022.

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 total disability 

from work for the period November 21 through December 1, 2022, causally related to her accepted 

July 24, 2019 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 1, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 19, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board