United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TAMPA POST 

OFFICE, Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1349

Issued: June 12, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 23, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 26, 2022 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. 3

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.

3 The Board notes that, following the August 26, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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

ISSUE

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

for the period July 22 through October 22, 2021 causally related to her accepted April 12, 2021 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 3, 2021 appellant, then a 59-year-old general expediter, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 12, 2021 a bulk mail container struck her head and back 

while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on that date. OWCP accepted appellant’s 

claim for lumbar spine sprain and thoracic muscle strain. 

On April 14, 2021 appellant was released to modified-duty work. 

In a report dated July 21, 2021, Dr. David P. Kalin, Board-certified in family medicine,

indicated that appellant was evaluated for complaints of lower back and bilateral knee pain. He 

described the April 12, 2021 employment injury and noted that her claim was accepted for lumbar 

and thoracic sprains. Dr. Kalin reviewed appellant’s medical records and past medical history, 

including preexisting bilateral knee, lumbar, cervical, and thoracic conditions. He reported that 

on May 27, 2021 she sought treatment with Dr. Stephen R. Goll, an orthopedic surgeon, for 

complaints of progressive worsening low back symptoms. Dr. Kalin noted that appellant was on 

full-time, limited-duty work with restrictions on standing and walking for prolonged periods of 

time, kneeling, stooping, bending, and lifting greater than five pounds. He indicated that she now 

had more difficulty with bending, twisting, standing, and walking and felt like she was “becoming 

incompetent in her work due to physical decompensation.” 

Dr. Kalin provided diagnoses of lumbosacral musculoskeletal ligamentous strain and 

post-traumatic pain and swelling of both knees. He advised that appellant be “released from work 

for 6 weeks” and avoid overly repetitive or strenuous sudden motion of the neck, bending, twisting, 

prolonged standing, kneeling, walking, squatting, and any other activities, which may aggravate 

her underlying condition. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated July 21, 2021, Dr. Kalin indicated that appellant 

should not work for six weeks. 

On August 25, 2021 appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

from work for the periods July 17 through 30, 2021 and July 31 through August 13, 2021. 

In an August 25, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received 

her claim for wage-loss compensation benefits for the period July 17 through 30, 2021. It 

requested that she provide medical evidence to establish that she was disabled from work during 

the claimed period and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In a letter dated September 22, 2021, an employing establishment health and resource 

management specialist, indicated that appellant only stopped work on her date of injury. She 

provided a position description for general expeditor. 
3

By decision dated September 27, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for the dates of July 17, 18, and 19, 2021.4 

By decision dated September 28, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from 

work for the period July 21 through August 13, 2021, finding that the medical evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish disability from work during the claimed period due to her accepted 

April 12, 2021 employment injury. 

Appellant submitted a report dated September 1, 2021 by Dr. Kalin who indicated that her

symptoms remained more or less unchanged from her initial evaluation. Dr. Kalin reviewed her

history and noted diagnosed conditions identical to his previous report. He indicated that appellant 

would only be able to return to sedentary, part-time, light-duty work. 

On September 27, 2021 OWCP referred appellant, along with a statement of accepted facts

(SOAF), the case record, and a series of questions to Dr. Richard C. Smith, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation regarding the status of her employmentrelated injuries. In an October 18, 2021 report, Dr. Smith described the April 12, 2021 

employment injury and noted her current complaints of lower back and right leg pain. On physical 

examination of appellant’s lumbar spine, he observed tenderness of the spinous process L4 and L5 

and diminished flexion and extension on range of motion. Neurological examination revealed 

normal sensation bilaterally. Straight leg raise testing was negative. In response to OWCP’s 

questions, Dr. Smith reported that appellant’s accepted thoracic and lumbar strain conditions had 

resolved. He noted that she did not require any more treatment related to her employment injury, 

but indicated that she had preexisting and underlying conditions, including degenerative disc 

disease. Dr. Smith further reported that appellant would be able to resume her duties as a general 

expeditor, with respect to the reported employment injury. He completed a work capacity 

evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), which indicated that she could work her usual job without 

restrictions. 

On October 5, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the September 28, 2021 

decision. 

On October 28, 2021 appellant filed an additional Form CA-7 for disability for the period 

August 14 through September 10, 2021. 

In a November 1, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received 

her claim for wage-loss compensation for the period August 14 through September 10, 2021. It 

requested that she provide medical evidence to establish that she was disabled from work during 

the claimed period and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

On November 4, 2021 appellant filed an additional Form CA-7 for disability for the period 

September 11 through October 22, 2021. 

4 On October 5, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on January 4, 2022. By decision dated March 8, 2022, OWCP’s 

hearing representative affirmed the September 27, 2021 decision. 
4

In a November 8, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received 

her claim for wage-loss compensation benefits for the period September 11 through 

October 22, 2021. It requested that she provide medical evidence to establish that she was disabled 

from work during the claimed period and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

Appellant submitted a November 3, 2021 report and accompanying Form CA-17 by

Dr. Kalin. Dr. Kalin repeated the diagnosed conditions and indicated that she felt no significant 

improvement from the effects of the April 12, 2021 employment injury. He opined that appellant 

continued to be off work due to ongoing symptoms, recurrent pain, and inability to sit or stand for 

a short period of time. 

Following a preliminary review, by decision dated November 19, 2021, an OWCP hearing 

representative reversed, in part, and remanded, in part, the September 28, 2021 decision. The 

hearing representative authorized wage-loss compensation for four hours on July 21, 2021 because 

appellant had attended a medical appointment. OWCP’s hearing representative also remanded the 

case for further development of the wage-loss compensation claim for the period July 22 through 

August 13, 2021, finding that OWCP did not issue a proper development letter affording her 30 

days to submit medical evidence supporting her disability from work during the entire claimed 

period. 

In a December 1, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received 

her claim for wage-loss compensation benefits for the period July 21 through August 13, 2021. It 

requested that she provide medical evidence to establish that she was disabled from work during 

the claimed period and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

By decision dated December 16, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability for 

the period August 14 through October 22, 2021. It found that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish disability from work during the claimed period due to her accepted 

April 12, 2021 employment injury. 

Appellant submitted a letter and examination report dated November 11, 2021 by

Dr. David S. Rosen, a Board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Rosen described the April 12, 2021 

employment injury and noted that she had stopped work as of July 2021 due to lower back and 

right hip pain. He noted physical examination findings of normal gait and pain with 

internal/external rotation of the right hip. Dr. Rosen diagnosed lumbar spondylosis, right hip pain, 

and lumbar stenosis. 

On December 21, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before 

a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review of OWCP’s December 16, 2021 

decision. 

By de novo decision dated January 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

from work for the period July 22 through August 13, 2021. It found that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish disability from work during the claimed period due to her 

accepted April 12, 2021 employment injury. 

In a report dated January 5, 2022, Dr. Kalin indicated that appellant continued to be off 

work due to ongoing symptoms, recurrent pain, and inability to sit or stand for a short period of 
5

time. He reported diagnosed conditions identical in his previous reports and recommended that 

she continue on a “no work” status. 

On January 13, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review of OWCP’s January 4, 2022 decision. 

In an April 6, 2022 work status note, Dr. Kalin indicated that appellant was “continued on 

a no work status from [June 21, 2021 through July 9, 2022] due to pain from work-related injuries 

exacerbated by work duties.” 

On April 11, 2022 a telephonic hearing was held to address appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for the period July 22 through October 22, 2021. 

Appellant submitted a May 4, 2022 report by Dr. Kalin who reviewed her history. 

Dr. Kalin indicated that her condition remained unchanged from her last examination on January 5, 

2022 and noted diagnosed conditions identical in his previous reports. He reported that appellant 

has been unable to work due to her continued musculoskeletal symptoms. Dr. Kalin opined that 

her April 12, 2021 employment injury had caused her condition to deteriorate significantly and 

was responsible for her inability to return to work. 

By decision dated June 27, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

December 16, 2021 and January 4, 2022 decisions. 

On August 11, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the June 27, 

2022 decision. 

In a report dated August 3, 2022, Dr. Kalin noted diagnosed conditions identical to those 

in his previous reports. He reported that appellant’s condition remained unchanged from the 

May 4, 2022 follow-up medical evaluation. 

By decision dated August 26, 2022, OWCP denied modification of the June 27, 2022 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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. 6 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.7 For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the 

5

Supra note 2.

6 D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); F.H., Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August 23, 2019); 

C.R., Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989).

7

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

397 (1999).
6

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

employment injury.8 

To establish causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment injury, 

an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence.9 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background, 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 accepted employment injury.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 disability from 

work for the period July 22 through October 22, 2021 causally related to her accepted April 12, 

2021 employment injury.

On September 27, 2021 OWCP referred appellant, along with a SOAF, the case record, 

and a series of questions to Dr. Smith for a second opinion evaluation regarding the status of her 

employment-related injuries. In an October 18, 2021 report, Dr. Smith described the April 12, 

2021 employment injury and noted her current complaints of lower back and right leg pain. On 

physical examination of appellant’s lumbar spine, he observed tenderness of the spinous process 

L4 and L5 and diminished flexion and extension on range of motion. Neurological examination 

revealed normal sensation bilaterally. Straight leg raise testing was negative. In response to 

OWCP’s questions, Dr. Smith reported that appellant’s accepted thoracic and lumbar strain 

conditions had resolved. He noted that she did not require any more treatment related to her 

employment injury, but indicated that she had preexisting and underlying conditions, including 

degenerative disc disease. Dr. Smith further reported that appellant would be able to resume her 

duties as a general expeditor, with respect to the reported employment injury. He completed a 

Form OWCP-5c, which indicated that she could work her usual job without restrictions. The 

Board finds that Dr. Smith provided a well-rationalized opinion based on medical evidence 

regarding appellant’s work capacity. Accordingly, OWCP properly accorded Dr. Smith’s second 

opinion report the weight of the medical evidence in denying appellant’s disability claim. 

8 B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018); AmeliaS. 

Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

9 L.O., Docket No. 20-0170 (issued August 13, 2021); S.J., Docket No. 17-0828 (issued December 20, 2017); 

Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

10 V.A., Docket No. 19-1123 (issued October 29, 2019); C.B., Docket No. 18-0633 (issued November 16, 2018).

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

Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
7

In support of her claim for compensation, appellant submitted a series of reports by

Dr. Kalin dated July 21, 2021 through August 3, 2022. Dr. Kalin described the April 12, 2021 

employment injury and reviewed her medical history. He provided examination findings and 

diagnosed several conditions, including lumbosacral musculoskeletal ligamentous strain and 

post-traumatic pain and swelling of the bilateral knees. Dr. Kalin noted that appellant was 

currently working in a full-time, limited-duty capacity, but she felt like she was becoming more 

incompetent in her work due to physical decompensation. He advised that she be “released from 

work for 6 weeks” and completed a Form CA-17 indicating that she should not work for six weeks. 

Dr. Kalin did not, however, provide any medical reasoning to support his opinion on disability nor 

did he attribute appellant’s disability to her accepted April 12, 2021 employment injury.12 The 

Board has held that an opinion is of limited probative regarding causal relationship if it does not 

contain medical rationale explaining how a given medical condition/period of disability has an 

employment-related cause.13 Consequently, these reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.14 

In a September 1, 2021 report, Dr. Kalin indicated that appellant would be able to return to 

sedentary, part-time, light-duty work. As this report negates total disability from work during the 

claimed period, it is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish the disability claim.15

Dr. Kalin’s additional reports did not address the relevant issue of whether appellant was 

disabled from work for the period July 22 through October 22, 2021 due to her accepted April 12, 

2021 employment injury.16 As the Board has held, 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.17

In reports dated November 11 and 13, 2021 reports, Dr. Rosendescribed the April 12, 2021 

employment injury and noted that appellant had stopped work as of July 2021 due to lower back 

and right hip pain. However, he did not provide an opinion on causal relationship between her

claimed disability and the accepted employment injury. Dr. Rosen’s opinion, therefore, is 

insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.18 

12 M.A., Docket No. 20-0033 (issued May 11, 2020); F.S., Docket No. 18-0098 (issued August 13, 2018); P.W., 

Docket No. 17-0514 (issued June 9, 2017).

13 A.H., Docket No. 22-0001 (issued July 29, 2022); L.M., Docket No. 21-0063 (issued November 8, 2021); T.T., 

Docket No. 18-1054 (issued April 8, 2020).

14 E.F., Docket No. 20-1680 (issued November 20, 2021).

15 S.H., Docket No. 21-0640 (issued February 2, 2023).

16 See K.E., Docket No. 19-1922 (issued July 10, 2020); F.S., supra note 12; P.W., supra note 12.

17 See F.S., Docket No. 23-0112 (issued April26, 2023); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

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

18 Id. 
8

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to overcome the weight accorded to 

second opinion physician Dr. Smith, or to create a conflict in medical opinion, the Board finds that 

appellant has not met her burden of proof.19

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 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 July 22 through October 22, 2021 causally related to her accepted April 12, 

2021 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 26, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 12, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

19 D.L, Docket No. 22-0161 (issued March 10, 2023).