United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.U., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MICHIGAN

METROPLEX PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Pontiac, MI, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0469

Issued: August 2, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 February 20, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 27, 

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 her burden of proof to establish disability from work 

for the period September 15 through October 12, 2018, causally related to her accepted June 19, 

2018 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 20, 2018 appellant, then a 61-year-old markup clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 19, 2018 she sustained a sprain of the left thigh and upper leg 

when her chair rolled backwards as she sat down while in the performance of duty. She stopped 

work on June 20, 2018. OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of the left thigh/hip. Appellant 

subsequently returned to full-duty work with restrictions on June 28, 2018

On May 25, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from 

work for the period September 15 through 28, 2018. 

In a development letter dated May 31, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her disability claim for the period September 15 through 28, 2018. It advised her of the type of 

medical evidence needed and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No medical 

evidence was received.

By decision dated August 3, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for disability from work for the period September 15 through 28, 2018. It explained 

that it had not received any medical evidence regarding either medical treatment or disability for 

the period claimed. OWCP, therefore, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish 

that appellant was disabled from work due to her accepted employment injury.

On August 9, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review with regard to the August 3, 2022 

decision. 

On August 16, 2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for disability from work for the period 

September 29 through October 12, 2018. 

In a development letter dated August 17, 2022, OWCP advised appellant that there was no 

medical evidence of record related to the period September 29 through October 12, 2018. It 

advised herthat additional evidence was needed to establish disability from work during the period 

claimed, and provided 30 days to submit the requested information. No medical evidence was 

received.

By decision dated September 19, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for disability from work for the period September 29 through October 12, 2018. It 

explained that it had not received any medical evidence which pertained to either treatment or 

disability for the claimed period. OWCP concluded that there was insufficient evidence to 

establish that appellant was disabled from work due to her accepted employment injury.
3

On September 23, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before 

a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

A hearing was held on December 6, 2022 regarding disability during the period

September 15 through October 12, 2018. 

By decision dated January 27, 2023, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

August 3 and September 19, 2022 decisions.

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 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.5 Whether a particular injury causes an 

employee to be disabled from employment and the duration of that disability are medical issues, 

which must be proven by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial medical

evidence.6 Findings on examination are generally needed to support a physician’s opinion that an 

employee is disabled from work.7

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.8 Disability is thus not synonymous 

with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wage s.9 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.10

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of any 

medical evidence addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed.

3

Id.

4 C.B., Docket No. 20-0629 (issued May 26, 2021); D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); M.C., 

Docket No. 18-0919 (issued October 18, 2018); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 

1143 (1989).

5

Id.; William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).

6 V.H., Docket No. 18-1282 (issued April2, 2019); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); WilliamA. Archer, 

id.

7 Dean E. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989).

8

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

397 (1999).

9 G.T., Docket No. 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); Robert L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002).

10 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); N.M., Docket No. 18-939 (issued December 6, 2018).
4

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 disability from 

work for the period September 15 through October 12, 2018, causally related to her accepted 

June 19, 2018 employment injury.

As noted, it is appellant’s burden of proof to submit medical evidence addressing the 

specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed.12 The Board finds that there is no 

medical evidence of record pertaining to the claimed period of disability. 

As appellant has not provided rationalized medical opinion evidence establishingdisability 

during the period September 15 through October 12, 2018, 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 for the period September 15 through October 12, 2018, causally related to her accepted 

June 19, 2018 employment injury.

11 See B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018); AmeliaS. Jefferson, supra note 6; see also C.S., 

Docket No. 17-1686 (issued February 5, 2019).

12 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 27, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 2, 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