United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, 

JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL 

AIRPORT, Jamaica, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0457

Issued: June 16, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 4, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 12, 

2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to 

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 authoritie s for investigation.
2

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.

3

ISSUE

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

work commencing July 8, 2019 causally related to his April 28, 2019 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 28, 2019 appellant, then a 58-year-old customs and border patrol officer, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he slipped when pulling a postal 

container and injured his back, left foot, and ankle while in the performance of duty. He did not 

immediately stop work. 

On July 10, 2019 Dr. Gus Katsigiorgis, a Board-certified orthopedist, treated appellant

for persistent low back and left ankle pain. He diagnosed left ankle derangement, lumbar 

derangement, left knee tendinitis compensatory to antalgic gait, sprain of other ligament of the 

left ankle, sprain of ligaments of lumbar spine, and sprain of other parts of the left knee. In a 

July 10, 2019 work excuse note, Dr. Katsigiorgis advised that appellant was totally disabled. In 

an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated July 11, 2019, he indicated that the 

diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by the described employment incident and 

noted that appellant was disabled. On August 28, 2019 Dr. Katsigiorgis released appellant to 

light-duty modified work on September 1, 2019 with the restriction of no heavy lifting.

In a Form CA-20 dated July 30, 2019, Dr. Kanwarpaul Grewal, a Board-certified 

orthopedist, referenced his July 1, 2019 report. He examined appellant on August 12, 2019 and 

provided a history of the April 28, 2019 employment incident noting that appellant had a twisting 

injury to the left leg leading to a fall. Dr. Grewal opined that the left knee is likely strained from 

that injury since the pain persisted since that time. He diagnosed acute lumbar strain improving, 

thoracic disc herniation with radiculopathy, and left knee pain.

On September 4, 2019 the employing establishment offered appellant a temporary 

limited-duty position, eight hours a day, with the same pay as his current salary. The position 

was subject to the restrictions set forth by appellant’s treating physician.

In a report dated September 14, 2019, Dr. Manoj Sadhnani, a podiatrist, treated appellant 

for an injury to his left foot and left ankle/heel sustained at work on April 8, 2019. He noted that 

a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan demonstrated tearing of the left heel Achilles tendon 

and prominent bone spur on the posterior left heel. Dr. Sadhnani diagnosed strain of left 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the August 12, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedures 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.
3

Achilles tendon and calcaneal spur, left foot and recommended surgical debridement of frail 

tendon, repair of Achilles tendon, and excision of spur and bony prominence left heel.

OWCP received additional evidence. Dr. Katsigiorgis continued to treat appellant 

through August 28, 2019 for persistent low back, left ankle, and left knee pain. He diagnosed 

sprain of the ligaments of the lumbar spine, sprain of other ligament of the left ankle, and sprain 

of other specified parts of the left knee. Dr. Katsigiorgis advised that appellant could resume 

light-duty work.

In reports dated January 15, June 10, and July 15, 2020, Dr. Grewal treated appellant in 

follow-up for his work injury and related continued lower back pain that occasionally radiates 

down the right leg. Appellant reported having left knee surgery on November 1, 2019 and left 

Achilles surgery on December 11, 2019. He diagnosed improving acute lumbar strain, 

improving thoracic disc herniation with radiculopathy, left knee pain, and Achilles pain. 

Dr. Grewal noted that appellant was stable for light-duty work. In a report dated February 24, 

2020, he noted that appellant was postoperative left knee arthroscopy and left Achilles tendon 

debridement and had limited mobility. In an addendum report dated July 21, 2020, Dr. Grewal 

advised that, due to compressive disc herniation in the thoracic spine, chronic pain management 

needs with injections, and potential surgery, appellant was not an ideal candidate for police or 

correction work. He opined that appellant’s injury was causally related to the fall on April 28, 

2019 and as a result appellant has developed significant limitations secondary to his work-related 

injury. 

In an April 20, 2020 report, Dr. Craig S. Radnay, a Board-certified orthopedist, noted 

treating appellant since February 15, 2017 for left posterior ankle pain. He diagnosed left 

Achilles insertional tendinopathy with gastrocnemius contracture. Dr. Radnay treated appellant 

again on September 25, 2019 for left Achilles tendon pain and left knee pain. Appellant reported 

pulling something heavy at work and he slipped and fell. Dr. Radnay reviewed an MRI scan of 

the left ankle dated May 15, 2019 and opined that appellant’s recent work injury exacerbated his

preexisting condition. He recommended a left Achilles tendon debridement, repair with 

resection of Haglund’s deformity, and gastrocnemius recession and bursectomy. Dr. Radnay 

indicated that the Achilles tendinopathy pain occurred secondary to appellant’s work as a police 

officer, the recent fall in April 2019, and after a cart that rolled over his posterior left ankle at 

work causing him to fall. He reviewed an MRI scan of the left knee from October 2, 2019, 

which demonstrated a medial meniscus tear along the inferior articular surface with a flap tear of 

the body and posterior horn from the inferior articular surface. Dr. Radnay indicated that since 

appellant’s injury on April 28, 2019 he remained very tender with limited mobility. On 

October 29, 2019 he performed a left knee arthroscopic partial medial meniscectomy with 

arthroscopic partial synovectomy, arthroscopic excision of the medial plica, arthroscopic 

debridement, chondroplasty of the medial femoral condyle, medial tibial plateau, and femoral 

trochlea. On December 11, 2019 Dr. Radnay performed a left Achilles tendon debridement with 

repair of chronic Achilles insertional tendinopathy with left Achilles gastrocnemius recession 

and a left calcaneus exostectomy and saucerization. Appellant developed a deep vein thrombosis 

after surgery. Dr. Radnay treated appellant on January 29 and March 11, 2020 and noted that he 

transitioned into a weight-bearing shoe, but experienced neuritis symptoms consistent with 

decreased sensation along the sural nerve.
4

By decision dated October 15, 2020, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for lumbar 

sprain, lumbar strain, thoracic strain, left ankle sprain, left knee sprain, and left Achilles strain.

However, OWCP found that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the 

remaining orthopedic conditions including thoracic disc herniation with radiculopathy, 

compressive disc herniation of the thoracic spine, left Achilles insertional tendinopathy, left knee 

tear, left foot calcaneal spur, left ankle internal derangement, lumbar derangement, and left knee 

tendinitis were caused by the April 28, 2019 work injury.

On October 23 and 26, 2020 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

disability from work commencing July 8, 2019

In a development letter dated November 9, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claims for compensation. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence required and afforded him 30 days to submit the requested information.

OWCP received an MRI scan of the left ankle dated May 15, 2019, an MRI scan of the 

thoracic spine dated June 25, 2019, reports and work excuse notes from Dr. Grewal dated June 5, 

June 10, July 1, and August 12, 2019, and reports from Dr. Katsigiorgis dated July 10 and 

August 28, 2019, all previously of record. 

During the pendency of the appeal before the Board, on March 22, 2021, appellant filed 

additional Form CA-7 claims for disability from work for the period commencing July 8, 2019. 

He submitted accompanying Form CA-7a’s.

In a development letter dated April 21, 2021, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional factual and medical evidence, including a report from his physician explaining how 

his accepted condition had worsened such that he was unable to work beginning July 8, 2019. It 

afforded him 30 days to submit the requested information.

By decision dated August 12, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from 

work commencing July 8, 2019 causally related to his accepted April 28, 2019 employment 

injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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

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. 5 Disability is, thus, not 

4 A.R., Docket No. 20-0583 (issued May 21, 2021); S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April 19, 2019); Kathryn 

Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April 29, 2020); Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 

746 (2004).
5

synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages.6 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.7 When, however, the medical 

evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an employment injury are such that, from a 

medical standpoint, they prevent the employee from continuing in his or her employment, he or 

she is entitled to compensation for loss of wages.8

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 claim, 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.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

ANALYSIS

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

work commencing July 8, 2019 causally related to his accepted April 28, 2019 employment 

injury.

On July 10, 2019 Dr. Katsigiorgis diagnosed left ankle derangement, lumbar 

derangement, left knee tendinitis compensatory to antalgic gait, sprain of other ligament of the 

left ankle, sprain of ligaments of lumbar spine, and sprain of other parts of the left knee. In a 

July 10, 2019 work excuse note, he advised that appellant remained totally disabled. In a Form 

CA-20 dated July 11, 2019, Dr. Katsigiorgis affirmed that the diagnosed conditions were caused 

or aggravated by the described employment incident and noted that appellant was disabled. 

However, Dr. Katsigiorgis did not provide a rationalized medical opinion explaining why 

appellant was disabled from his light-duty work due to his accepted employment injury. The 

Board has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does 

6 D.W., Docket No. 20-1363 (issued September 14, 2021); L.W., Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).

7

See M.W., Docket No. 20-0722 (issued April26, 2021); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018).

8

See A.R., supra note 4; D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).

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

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

William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).
6

not contain medical rationale explaining how the claimed disability was related to employment 

factors.11 Thus, this evidence is also insufficient to establish the disability claim.

In reports dated August 28, 2019, Dr. Katsigiorgis related that appellant could return to 

light-duty work. Similarly, reports from Dr. Grewal dated January 15, June 10, and July 15, 

2020, diagnosed improving acute lumbar strain, improving thoracic disc herniation with 

radiculopathy, left knee pain, and Achilles pain and noted that appellant was stable for light-duty 

work. The Board has held that medical evidence that negates causal relationship is of no 

probative value.12 Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability 

claim. 

On August 12, 2019 Dr. Grewal provided a history of the April 28, 2019 work injury and 

diagnosed acute lumbar strain improving, thoracic disc herniation with radiculopathy, and left 

knee pain. A Form CA-20 dated July 30, 2019 from Dr. Grewal referenced his July 1, 2019 

report but did not address disability. On February 24, 2020 Dr. Grewal noted that appellant was 

postoperative left knee arthroscopy and left Achilles tendon debridement and had limited 

mobility. In an addendum dated July 21, 2020, he opined that appellant’s injury was causally 

related to the fall on April 28, 2019 and as a result he has developed significant limitations 

secondary to his work-related injury and was not an ideal candidate for police or correction 

work. Similarly, on September 14, 2019, Dr. Sadhnani diagnosed strain of left Achilles tendon 

and calcaneal spur, left foot and recommended surgical debridement of frail tendon, repair of 

Achilles tendon, and excision of spur and bony prominence left heel. Likewise, o n April 20, 

2020, Dr. Radnay diagnosed left Achilles insertional tendinopathy with gastrocnemius 

contracture. He indicated that since appellant’s injury on April 28, 2019 appellant remained very 

tender with limited mobility. On October 29, 2019 and December 11, 2019 Dr. Radnay

performed surgery and in reports dated January 29 and March 11, 2020, he noted that appellant 

transitioned into a weight-bearing shoe, but experienced neuritis symptoms. However, 

Drs. Grewal, Sadhnani, and Radnay did not address the specific period of disability at issue or 

provide a rationalized medical opinion as to why appellant was disabled from his light-duty work 

due to his accepted employment injury.13 Thus, this evidence is also insufficient to establish the 

disability claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish employment-related 

disability from work commencing July 8, 2019 causally related to the accepted April 28, 2019 

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

claim.

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. 

11 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) (finding that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining causal relationship between the 

accepted employment injury and a diagnosed condition/disability).

12 T.W., Docket No. 19-0677 (issued August 16, 2019).

13 Supra note 10.
7

CONCLUSION

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

work commencing July 8, 2019 causally related to his April 28, 2019 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 12, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 16, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board