United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tallassee, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1182

Issued: August 7, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 5, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 27, 2022 merit decision of 

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

Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

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

commencing March 26, 2022 causally related to his accepted October 24, 2016 employment 

injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the June 27, 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 8, 2016 appellant, then a 32-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 24, 2016 he strained his lower back lifting items while 

in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar sprain. It subsequently 

expanded its acceptance of the claim to include other intervertebral disc displacement at L4-5. 

Appellant stopped work on February 10, 2017 and returned to part-time modified employment on 

July 22, 2017. OWCP paid him wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls.

In a report dated March 18, 2022, Dr. Bradley Katz, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, 

evaluated appellant for pain in his low back that increased with physical activity. He noted that 

appellant’s pain began after a 2016 employment injury, and had worsened over the last month. 

Dr. Katz diagnosed lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbar spondylosis, sacroiliitis, and lumbar 

radiculitis.

A notification of personnel action (Standard Form SF-50) indicated that appellant resigned 

effective March 4, 2022; however, an SF-50 dated March 9, 2022 indicated that he had timely 

rescinded his resignation.

In a progress report dated April 5, 2022, Dr. Joel McCloud, Jr., an internist, noted that 

appellant remained off work after a “recurrence of his chronic lumbar regional pain.” He indicated 

that he had “limitations which significantly prohibit his ability to remain at work.” Dr. McCloud 

provided findings on examination, and diagnosed chronic back pain due to chronic lumbar region 

pain and spasm and secondary radiculopathy. He recommended a magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan and noted that he would fill out paperwork for workers’ compensation. In a duty status 

report (Form CA-17) of even date, Dr. McCloud provided work restrictions.

On May 13, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from 

work for the period March 26 through April 8, 2022. On May 20, 2022 he filed a Form CA-7 for 

disability from work for the period March 12 through 25, 2022 due to his accepted work injury. 

He continued to file Form CA-7s requesting wage-loss compensation for subsequent periods. 

In a development letter dated May 24, 2022, OWCP requested that appellant clarify 

whether he had resigned, the date of his work stoppage, and his leave usage. It further requested 

that he explain the reason for his total disability given that a limited-duty assignment was available. 

OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

OWCP subsequently received an April 18, 2022 report from Dr. Katz. Dr. Katz discussed 

appellant’s complaints of sacroiliac pain and noted that it was “related to a workplace injury.” He 

opined that his “symptoms are work related.” Dr. Katz diagnosed inflammation of the sacroiliac 

joint.

In a May 31, 2022 response, appellant asserted that his back had healed incorrectly after 

his October 24, 2016 employment injury because of OWCP’s delay in accepting his claim. He 

accepted a light-duty position, but knew he could not physically maintain the work. Appellant 

subsequently took a job as a customer service supervisor but found that the work entailed more 

standing, lifting, and bending. He advised that he had reinjured his back working as a supervisor,

because it involved doing the same duties that he performed as a letter carrier. 

Appellant submitted physical therapy reports dated April 2022. 
3

By decision dated June 27, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

disability from work commencing March 26, 2022 causally related to his accepted October 24, 

2016 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

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 

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

ANALYSIS

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

work commencing March 26, 2022 causally related to his accepted October 24, 2016 employment 

injury.

On April 5, 2022 Dr. McCloud advised that appellant was off work due to a recurrence of 

chronic lumbar pain and noted that he had limitations that prevented him from working. He 

diagnosed chronic back pain due to lumbar region pain and spasm and secondary radiculopathy. 

Dr. McCloud, however, did not provide a history of the accepted October 24, 2016 employment 

injury, or specifically relate appellant’s disability to the accepted work 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.9 Consequently, Dr. McCloud’s report 

is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

3

Supra note 1.

4 A.R., Docket No. 20-0583 (issued May 21, 2021); S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April19, 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).

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

See R.H., Docket No. 22-0140 (issued August 12, 2022); A.M., Docket No. 20-1144 (issued July 23, 2021); R.J., 

Docket No. 18-1701 (issued May 18, 2020).
4

In an April 18, 2022 report, Dr. Katz found that appellant’s symptoms of sacroiliac pain 

were related to an injury at work. He diagnosed inflammation of the sacroiliac joint. On March 18, 

2022 Dr. Katz discussed appellant’s history of back pain after an employment injury in 2016 that 

had worsened over the last month. He diagnosed lumbar degenerative disc disease, lumbar 

spondylosis, sacroiliitis, and lumbar radiculitis. Dr. Katz, however, did not address the relevant 

issue of whether appellant was disabled from work during the claimed period due to the accepted 

employment injury; consequently, his reports are of no probative value, and are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s disability claim.10

In a Form CA-17, Dr. McCloud provided work restrictions. However, this report is of no 

probative value regarding the underlying issue of the present case because it does not contain an 

opinion regarding causal relationship. As discussed, medical evidence that does not offer an 

opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no probative value on 

the issue of causal relationship.11 Therefore, this report is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim.

Appellant further submitted a physical therapy report dated April 2022. However, certain 

healthcare providers, such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and physical therapists are 

not considered physicians as defined under FECA.12 Their medical findings, reports and/or 

opinions, unless cosigned by a qualified physician, will not suffice for purposes of establishing 

entitlement to FECA benefits.13 Consequently, the physical therapy notes are insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.

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

the claimed period due to his accepted employment injury, the Board finds that he has not met his 

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.

10 See R.H., id.; T.S., Docket No. 20-1229 (issued August 6, 2021); J.M., Docket No. 19-1169 (issued 

February 7, 2020).

11 See L.M., Docket No. 21-0063 (issued November 8, 2021); C.M., Docket No. 20-1077 (issued December 18, 

2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

12 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that physician “includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law.”

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); A.Z., Docket No. 21-1355 (issued May 19, 2022) (nurse 

practitioners are not physicians under FECA); DavidP. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals 

such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under 

FECA); see also E.W., Docket No. 20-0388 (issued October 9, 2020) (physical therapists are not considered physicians 

under FECA).

13 Id.
5

CONCLUSION

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

work commencing March 26, 2022 causally related to his accepted October 24, 2016 employment 

injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 27, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board