United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MILLERSVILLE 

POST OFFICE, Baltimore, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1324

Issued: January 13, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 6, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 20, 2022 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 July 20, 2022 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 intermittent 

disability from work for the period May 7 through 20, 2022 causally related to her accepted 

January 15, 2021 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 21, 2021 appellant, then a 48-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 15, 2021 she injured her left shoulder and right 

thumb when a 106-pound box being loaded into a truck slipped during a team lift while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on January 20, 2021 and returned to modified duties on 

March 20, 2021. OWCP accepted the claim for sprains of the metacarpophalangeal joint of the 

right thumb, the right wrist, the right hand, and the left rotator cuff capsule. It paid compensation 

on the supplemental rolls beginning March 13, 2021.

On September 9, 2021 Dr. Russell Bear, an osteopath, performed an OWCP-authorizedleft 

shoulder arthroscopy, subacromial decompression with acromioplasty, and distal clavicle 

resection. On September 8, 2021 OWCP paid compensation on the periodic rolls.

In a note dated January 19, 2022, Dr. Bear released appellant to return to work with a 20-

pound lifting restriction. On January 24, 2022 he completed a work capacity evaluation 

(OWCP-5c) advising that she could not return to full duty, but could return to light duty on 

February 5, 2022 working eight hours a day, lifting up to 20 pounds and pushing or pulling up to 

30 pounds.

On February 7, 2022 appellant returned to full-time light-duty work. In a February 15, 

2022 report, Dr. Bear noted that she had been performing light-duty work and was experiencing 

pain and bruising over the superior left shoulder. He diagnosed left rotator cuff sprain and shoulder 

impingement and provided additional work restrictions including working no more than eight 

hours, avoiding overexertion, and no pushing, pulling, or lifting. Dr. Bear completed a 

February 15, 2022 duty status report (Form CA-17) with identical restrictions. Appellant began a 

new light-duty position at the employing establishment working in the lobby on 

February 18, 2022. OWCP paid wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from

February 19 through May 6, 2022 based on appellant’s actual earnings.

On May 24, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting wageloss compensation from May 7 through 20, 2022. On the attached time analysis form (Form CA7a) she indicated that she used eight hours of leave without pay (LWOP) on May 7 and 9, 2020

due to a “medical procedure” and “medical,” respectively. Appellant used 1.20 hours of LWOP 

on May 11, 12, and 13, 2022.

In a May 25, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

received was insufficient to establish her claim for wage-loss compensation benefits beginning 

May 7, 2020. It advised her of the type of medical evidence necessary to establish that she was 

disabled from work beginning May 7, 2020 and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary 

evidence.
3

A memorandum of telephone call (CA-110) dated May 27, 2022 noted that appellant 

contacted OWCP and asserted that she experienced a “flare up” on May 7 and 9, 2022.

In a June 1, 2022 note, Dr. Bear recounted that appellant reported a “flare up” of her left 

shoulder pain on or about May 7 through 9, 2022. He observed that this could be expected as she 

recovered and advanced her activity level.

By decision dated July 20, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

commencing May 7, 2022. It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that she was unable to work her limited-duty assignment due to her accepted January 15, 

2021 employment 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 the fact 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 preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial medical evidence. 7

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.8

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 

3

Supra note 1.

4 B.W., Docket No. 21-0785 (issued September 1, 2022); C.B.,Docket No. 20-0629 (issued May 26, 2021); D.S.,

Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April 19, 2019); Elaine 

Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989); see also Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 712 (1986).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); S.T., Docket No. 18-412 (issued October 22, 2018); Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 

397 (1999).

6 K.C.,Docket No. 17-1612 (issued October 16, 2018); WilliamA.Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

7

S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 292 (2001).

8 K.H., Docket No. 19-1635 (issued March 5, 2020); V.A.,Docket No. 19-1123 (issued October 29, 2019).
4

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 her burden of proof to establish intermittent 

disability from work for the period May 7 through 20, 2022 causally related to her accepted 

January 15, 2021 employment injury.

In his June 1, 2022 note, Dr. Bear recounted that appellant reported a “flare up” of her left 

shoulder pain on or about May 7 through 9, 2022. He opined that this could be expected as she 

recovered and advanced her activity level. Dr. Bear, however, did not otherwise provide an 

opinion on whether appellant was disabled from work during the claimed period due to her 

accepted employment injury. Accordingly, this report is of no probative value and is insufficient 

to establish her claim for compensation.10 Therefore this report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim for compensation.

As appellant has not provided rationalized medical opinion evidence sufficient to establish 

disability during the period May 7 through 20, 2022 causally related to the accepted 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 from May 7 through 20, 2022 causally related to her accepted January 15, 2021 employment 

injury.

9 K.A., Docket No. 19-1564 (issued June 3, 2020); J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019); 

WilliamA. Archer, supranote 6.

10 See M.M., Docket No. 18-0817 (issued May 17, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 16-1238 (issued January 26, 2017).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 20, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 13, 2023

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