United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
D.M., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MARINE
CORPS BASE, COMMUNICATION
STRATEGY (COMSTRAT) & OPERATIONS,
Quantico, VA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 21-1244
Issued: March 25, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On August 17, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 4, 2021
merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 2 Pursuant to the

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

The Board notes that, following the June 4, 2021 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.

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board
has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a back condition
causally related to the accepted January 15, 2019 employment incident.
FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has previously been on appeal before the Board. 4 The facts, as set forth in the
Board’s prior order, are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.
On January 18, 2019 appellant, then a 64-year-old head of training support, filed a
traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 15, 2019 he hit his head and injured
his back when he slipped on ice walking from a road to a walkway while in the performance of
duty. He stopped work on January 15, 2019.5
Dr. Vishal Bindal, a Board-certified neuroradiologist, examined appellant on January 15,
2019 and noted his history of injury. He diagnosed traumatic pain, as well as a history of chronic
back pain. Dr. Bindal reviewed x-rays and indicated no acute lumbar spine findings.
In a January 31, 2019 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of
his claim. It requested additional factual and medical evidence from him and provided a
questionnaire for his completion. OWCP provided 30 days for a response.
In January 18 and 30, 2019 notes, Dr. Vipul Mangal, a Board-certified pain medicine
specialist, described appellant’s January 15, 2019 fall and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy.
Dr. Yolanda Reid, a Board-certified family practitioner, examined appellant on
February 26, 2019 and diagnosed lumbar disc herniation and lumbar facet arthropathy. She noted
that appellant had experienced a fall one month ago and suffered moderate-to-severe back pain.
Dr. Reid found muscle weakness in the right lower extremity.
By decision dated March 19, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,
finding that he failed to submit medical evidence establishing a causal relationship between his
diagnosed conditions and his accepted January 15, 2019 employment incident.

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4

Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 19-1929 (issued August 3, 2020).

5

The record reflects that appellant has a prior traumatic injury claim involving a back injury. On October 5, 2015
appellant, then a 61-year-old audio visual specialist, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on
September 4, 2015 he sustained lumbar back pain, muscle strain, hypertension, and a contusion after he fell on office
steps and slipped onto his back while in the performance of duty. He did not stop work. OWCP assigned OWCP File
No. xxxxxx897. It administratively combined the files for OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx897 and xxxxxx142 designating
the latter as the master file.

2

On March 26, 2019 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative
of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
In additional February 26, 2019 treatment notes, Dr. Reid described appellant’s history of
back pain beginning one month earlier and noted his fall on January 15, 2019. She noted that he
had a spinal stimulator for previously diagnosed lumbar disc herniation and facet disease. Dr. Reid
diagnosed lumbar disc herniation with myelopathy status post a blunt injury with a fall on ice. She
examined appellant on March 27, 2019 due to musculoskeletal pain following a fall at work and
diagnosed herniated lumbar intervertebral disc.
On March 12, 2019 appellant underwent a lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) scan, which demonstrated a mild disc bulge at L4-5 with probable small superimposed
broad-based central protrusion and severe facet arthropathy.
On April 2, 2019 Dr. Thomas Raley, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, examined
appellant due to chronic low back pain with intermittent radiation to his lower extremities. He
noted the January 15, 2019 fall at work and findings on the March 12, 2019 MRI scan of mild disc
bulge at L4-S1with spinal nerve root compression or foraminal stenosis. Dr. Raley diagnosed
chronic pain syndrome and lumbar radiculopathy.
In an April 5, 2019 note, Dr. Reid diagnosed lumbar disc displacement and chronic pain.
She described an injury where appellant fell at work in January 2019.
On April 16, 2019 Dr. Teresa M. Kerge, a Board-certified physiatrist, examined appellant
due to back pain and noted that his condition was injury -related as he slipped and fell on ice at
work. She reviewed his March 12, 2019 MRI scan and diagnosed sacroiliitis.
By decision dated June 3, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the March 19,
2019 OWCP decision. Appellant appealed to the Board and in its August 3, 2020 order,6 the Board
set aside the June 3, 2019 decision and remanded the case, directing OWCP to combine appellant’s
claims under File Nos. xxxxxx142 and xxxxxx897 and issue a de novo decision.
In an April 1, 2019 note, Dr. Raley reported that appellant slipped on ice at work on
December 15, 2018 and had experienced pain since that fall. He diagnosed radiculopathy lumbar
region, spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy lumbar region, and low back pain.
Dr. Raley noted that appellant had experienced low back pain and bilateral lowe r extremity pain
since his fall. On April 17, 2019 he diagnosed chronic pain syndrome, lumbar spondylosis without
myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbar radiculopathy, and low back pain. Dr. Raley again noted
appellant’s fall at work on January 15, 2019. He further noted that appellant fell down a few stairs
at work on September 4, 2015 and landed on his back. Dr. Raley reviewed appellant’s
October 2015 lumbar MRI scan, which demonstrated L4-5 mild disc bulge and mild central canal
stenosis L5-S1 as well as his June 11, 2018 lumbar MRI scan, which demonstrated L4-5 and L5S1 facet hypertrophy and L4-5 degenerative disc disease. He diagnosed chronic pain syndrome

6

Supra note 4.

3

and radiculopathy of the lumbar region. Dr. Raley repeated his findings in notes dated May 15
through August 8, 2019.
On September 6 and October 4, 2019 Dr. Brian Lee, a Board-certified anesthesiologist,
noted appellant’s history of a January 15, 2019 fall on ice at work and reported that lumbar spine
surgery was scheduled for October 7, 2019. He diagnosed chronic pain syndrome, lumbar
spondylosis, lumbar radiculopathy, and low back pain. In a November 1, 2019 note, Dr. Lee
reported that the October 7, 2019 microdiscectomy had reduced appellant’s right leg radiating
pain.
By decision dated November 16, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim,
finding that the evidence of record had not established that the employment incident occurred as
alleged. Therefore, it concluded that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as
defined by FECA.
On November 20, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a
representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
In notes dated May 9, 2019 through November 4, 2020, Dr. Wahid Baqaie, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, opined that appellant originally injured himself in a 2015 fall and
that he fell again at work on January 15, 2019 resulting in back pain. He diagnosed lumbar
spondylosis, spinal stenosis, degenerative lumbar disc, and lumbar back pain . Dr. Baqaie found
that appellant was status post L5-S1 laminotomy with no evidence of instability.
A hearing was conducted on March 22, 2021, wherein appellant described the January 15,
2019 employment incident and resulting medical treatment.
Following the oral hearing, Dr. Baqaie provided treatment notes dated July 3, 2019 through
February 10, 2021. He reported that appellant’s back symptoms developed suddenly and were
associated with falling on ice at work on January 15, 2019.
By decision dated June 4, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed, as modified,
OWCP’s prior decision, finding that appellant had established that the January 15, 2019
employment incident occurred, as alleged, but determined that the medical evidence was
insufficient to establish causal relationship between the diagnosed back conditions and the
accepted January 15, 2019 employment incident.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA 7 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim, including that the individual is an employee of the United
States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time
limitation of FECA, 8 that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, as alleged, and that
7

Supra note 3.

8

F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019);
Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4

any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the
employment injury. 9 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim,
regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 10
To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the
performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There
are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is that the
employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the
employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is
whether the employment incident caused a personal injury. 11
The evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion
evidence.12 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical
background of the employee, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported
by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and
specific employment incident identified by the employee.13
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a back condition
causally related to the accepted January 15, 2019 employment incident.
OWCP received treatment notes from Dr. Reid dated February 26 through April 5, 2019 in
which she diagnosed lumbar disc displacement. Dr. Reid found that appellant experienced a blunt
injury when he fall on ice at work on January 15, 2019. On April 16, 2019 Dr. Kerge diagnosed
sacroiliitis and opined that this condition was work related as appellant slipped and fell on ice at
work. Dr. Baqaie provided treatment notes dated July 3, 2019 through February 10, 2021
diagnosing lumbar spondylosis, spinal stenosis, degenerative lumbar disc and reporting that
appellant’s back symptoms developed suddenly and were associated with falling on ice at work on
January 15, 2019.
While Drs. Reid, Kerge, and Baqaie attributed appellant’s diagnosed back conditions to his
accepted January 15, 2019 employment incident, neither physician provided medical reasoning

9

L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020);
James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).
10

P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);
Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
11

T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J.
Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
12

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019);
Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).
13

T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020);
Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

5

explaining how or why the fall resulted in his diagnosed conditions. These reports are, therefore,
of limited probative value and insufficient to establish causal relationship. 14
In January 18 and 30, 2019 notes, Dr. Mangal described appellant’s January 15, 2019 fall
and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Raley submitted a series of notes from April 1 through
August 8, 2019 in which he recounted the January 15, 2019 fall at work and diagnosed lumbar
radiculopathy. Similarly, in notes dated September 6 and October 4, 2019, Dr. Lee noted his
history of a January 15, 2019 fall on ice at work and diagnosed chronic pain synd rome, lumbar
spondylosis, lumbar radiculopathy. None of these physicians provided an opinion on the cause of
appellant’s condition. The Board has long held that medical evidence that does not offer an
opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value. 15 Therefore,
these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.
On January 15, 2019 Dr. Bindal noted appellant’s history of injury and diagnosed traumatic
pain as well as a history of chronic back pain. In a February 26, 2019 note, Dr. Reid found
appellant experienced back pain for one month following a fall. The Board has held that pain is a
description of a symptom, not a clear diagnosis of a medical condition.16 A medical report lacking
a firm diagnosis is of no probative value. 17 These reports are, therefore, also insufficient to
establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the accepted employment incident.
Appellant submitted an MRI scan dated March 12, 2019. The Board has held that
diagnostic tests, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do
not address the relationship between the accepted employment factors and a diagnosed condition. 18
For this reason, the MRI scan is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.
As there is no medical evidence of record establishing that appellant’s diagnosed back
conditions were causally related to the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that
appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally
related to the accepted January 15, 2019 employment incident.
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.

14

J.N., Docket No. 21-0606 (issued November 23, 2021); T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021);
see H.A., Docket No. 18-1466 (issued August 23, 2019); L.R., Docket No. 16-0736 (issued September 2, 2016).
15

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

16

See E.S., Docket No. 21-0189 (issued November 16, 2021); C.S., Docket No. 20-1354 (issued January 29, 2021);
D.R., Docket No. 18-1408 (issued March 1, 2019); D.A., Docket No. 18-0783 (issued November 8, 2018).
17

L.T., Docket No. 20-0582 (issued November 15, 2021); E.S.; C.S., id.; J.P., Docket No. 20-0381 (issued July 28,
2020); R.L., Docket No. 20-0284 (issued June 30, 2020).
18

See W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020).

6

CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a back condition
causally related to the accepted January 15, 2019 employment incident.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 4, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: March 25, 2022
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

7


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
J.J., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Edison, NJ, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 15-359
Issued: April 3, 2015

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On December 5, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an
August 15, 2014 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision. 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.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained an
injury in the performance of duty.
On appeal, counsel contends that appellant was actually claiming a recurrence of
disability based on a change in the nature and extent of his limited-duty job requirements and,
therefore, OWCP erred in its adjudication of his claim as a new occupational disease claim.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On December 16, 2013 appellant, then a 64-year-old mail processor, filed a recurrence
claim (Form CA-2a), under File No. xxxxxx217, alleging that he sustained a recurrence of an
October 30, 2008 employment injury after returning to a limited-duty position. He indicated that
he returned to limited duty on November 4, 2013 and stopped work on November 23, 2013
because the position required him to use his thumbs and hands in excess of four hours per day.
The employing establishment indicated that appellant had not performed a full day on the job as
he was in training for three continuous weeks and did not exceed his medical restrictions as there
was no speed requirement and he was able to use either hand and the “one finger hunt and peck”
method to keyboard as needed.
In reports dated November 12, 2013 through January 16, 2014, Dr. Robert Lombardi, a
Board-certified orthopedic hand surgeon, indicated that appellant was a federal employee and
continued to have bilateral thumb pain “with light lifting and typing.” He also reported right
elbow pain with rotational movement. Dr. Lombardi diagnosed bilateral osteoarthritis of the
hand, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and severe degenerative joint disease of the bilateral
wrists, thumb, and right elbow. He restricted appellant from lifting more than one pound, no use
of thumbs, limited use of hands to four hours, no fine manipulation or grasping, and no repetitive
motion of the right and left thumb.
An electromyography and nerve conduction studies (EMG/NCS) dated January 15, 2014
revealed no evidence of peripheral entrapment neuropathy or cervical radiculopathy regarding
the right upper extremity and suggested ulnar nerve irritation at the elbow.
By letter dated March 19, 2014, OWCP determined that based on appellant’s description
of his condition he was actually claiming a new occupational disease attributed to repetitive work
and exposure over the course of more than one work shift. It developed appellant’s claim as a
new occupational disease and assigned File No. xxxxxx656.
In an April 7, 2014 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of his claim and
afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries.
Appellant, through counsel, submitted reports dated January 23 through April 10, 2014
from Dr. Lombardi who reiterated his diagnoses and opinions. In a brief dated May 1, 2014,
appellant’s counsel indicated that appellant had a previously accepted occupational disease claim
for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right radial styloid tenosynovitis under File No.
xxxxxx217. He further indicated that in November 2013 appellant returned to work in a fulltime limited-duty position, which required the use of hands more than four hours per day and the
use of thumbs in violation of his medical restrictions. As a result, appellant stopped work on
November 23, 2013 and did not return.
By decision dated May 15, 2014, OWCP denied the new occupational disease claim on
the basis that appellant failed to establish fact of injury, finding that the evidence was not
sufficient to establish that a medical condition was diagnosed in connection with factors of his
federal employment.

2

On May 22, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted a
September 26, 2013 report from Dr. Lombardi who reiterated his diagnoses and medical
restrictions.
A September 5, 2013 rehabilitation assignment offer for a customer care agent position
from the employing establishment identified the date of injury as October 30, 2008 and OWCP
File No. xxxxxx217. It indicated that duties required “occasional simple grasping (mouse);
occasional pushing/pulling using a computer mouse, interchangeable to right/left side as needed
for comfort; and occasional fine manipulation or use of single finger when using a keyboard.”
The employing establishment noted that the learning process encompassed three weeks of
training, the first two weeks in a classroom setting and the third week with an instructor on “live”
customer calls.
By decision dated August 15, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 has the burden of establishing the essential
elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United
States” within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time
limitation period of FECA, and that an injury3 was sustained in the performance of duty. These
are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is
predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for an
occupational disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (1) a factual statement
identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or
occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or
existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical
evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors
identified by the employee.5
Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to
establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. The opinion of the physician must
be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must be one of
reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of

2

Id.

3

OWCP regulations define an occupational disease or illness as a condition produced by the work environment
over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).
4

See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004).

5

See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005);
Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

3

the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified
by the employee.6
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
Appellant filed a recurrence claim (Form CA-2a), under File No. xxxxxx217, for a
bilateral hand condition. OWCP developed the claim as a new occupational disease and
assigned File No. xxxxxx656. The record reveals that on October 30, 2008 appellant previously
filed an occupational disease claim, assigned File No. xxxxxx217, for injuries to the same part of
the body. The factual and medical evidence pertaining to appellant’s employment injuries in File
No. xxxxxx217, however, are not contained in the case record. Furthermore, the record contains
evidence of appellant’s attempt to file a recurrence claim of the October 30, 2008 employment
injury. Nevertheless, OWCP continued to adjudicate the claim as a new occupational disease
even though the evidence supports that appellant claimed he sustained a recurrence of his
bilateral hand injury. The Board finds that OWCP failed to properly combine or request
combination of the present case record with the record of the October 30, 2008 employment
injury, which appellant implicated as the initial cause of his bilateral hand condition.
Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a disinterested
arbiter. While the claimant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP
shares responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that justice is done.7 The Board
will consequently remand the case for OWCP to combine the current case record with File No.
xxxxxx217 and determine whether appellant sustained either a recurrence of disability due to his
October 30, 2008 employment injury or a new employment injury.8 Following this and any
further development deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on the merits.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

6

See O.W., supra note 4.

7

See Claudio Vazquez, 52 ECAB 496 (2001).

8

See C.B., Docket No. 13-1091 (issued September 16, 2013) (remanding the case to OWCP to combine case files
where the record revealed that appellant attributed a March 2, 2012 injury to a previously accepted April 12, 2004
employment injury). See also M.Z., Docket No. 13-414 (issued June 26, 2012) (remanding the case to OWCP to
combine case files where it did not adequately explain why it adjudicated appellant’s notice of recurrence of
disability as a new injury given that she alleged that she experienced pain immediately upon returning to work rather
than relating her condition to new work factors).

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 15, 2014 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for proceedings
consistent with this decision of the Board.
Issued: April 3, 2015
Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
D.B., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Omaha, NE, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 21-0550
Issued: March 7, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On February 22, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 22, 2021 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.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a left knee condition
causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On May 5, 2020 appellant, then a 54-year-old postal carrier, filed an occupational disease
claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he suffered a torn left meniscus due to factors of his federal
employment, including repetitive and prolonged walking for 8 to 10 hours per day for seven years.
He further noted that he switched his delivery route after he realized that his knee was injured.
1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

Appellant underwent meniscus surgery in 2016 and alleged that his knee condition has worsened.
He noted that he first became aware of his condition on January 1, 2010 and first realized that it
was caused or aggravated by his federal employment on April 20, 2020. Appellant did not stop
work.
In an attached statement, appellant explained that about 10 years prior he realized that the
route he was walking was causing pain in his left knee, noting that the route contained 100 houses
with four to five steps. He walked this route for five years before switching to a different route
with fewer steps. Appellant reported that changing his route helped with his knee pain , but that
the pain was still present. In June 2016, he was involved in a motorcycle accident that forced him
to miss six weeks of work due to a broken clavicle and two broken ribs he sustained in the accident.
Four weeks after his accident, appellant underwent surgery to repair a torn meniscus in his left
knee. He did not file a workers’ compensation claim at that time because he was already off from
work and did not want to have to go back in to take more time off from work for his knee.
Appellant subsequently returned to work two weeks later. In the fall of 2019 his knee pain returned
slowly and was now constant.
In an April 7, 2015 diagnostic report Dr. Tariq Suwan, a Board-certified radiologist,
performed an x-ray scan of appellant’s left knee and noted that it was unremarkable.
In an April 16, 2015 diagnostic report, Dr. Mark Fritze, a Board-certified diagnostic
radiologist, performed a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s left knee,
observing degenerative changes of the medical meniscus.
Dr. Brennen Lucas, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, in an April 29, 2015 medical
report, evaluated appellant for complaints of left knee pain, swelling, and stiffness. Appellant
noted that his pain began approximately five weeks earlier without an injury. Dr. Lucas reviewed
the April 7 and 16, 2015 diagnostic studies of appellant’s left knee which found degenerative
changes of the medial meniscus. He diagnosed left knee pain, left internal derangement of the
knee, and left derangement of the medial meniscus. Dr. Lucas expressed concern that appellant
may have sustained a small medial meniscus tear and administered a corticosteroid injection to
appellant’s left knee to treat his symptoms.
In an April 27, 2020 medical note, Malissa Paxton, a physician assistant, explained that
appellant underwent an MRI scan on April 23, 2020 that revealed a probable tear of his left
meniscus. She opined that his job detail of walking aggravated his pain daily.
In a May 12, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his
claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary and provided a
questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested
that the employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding
the accuracy of appellant’s allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.
In an April 7, 2015 medical report, Dr. Kurt Hesse, Board-certified in family medicine,
evaluated appellant for pain in his low back and left knee. On examination, he diagnosed low back
pain and left knee pain and prescribed medications to treat appellant’s symptoms.

2

In a July 13, 2015 medical report, appellant informed Dr. Lucas that he was experiencing
pain in his left knee and of his employment duties involved excessive walking to carry mail. On
review of an MRI scan of appellant’s left knee and examination, Dr. Lucas diagnosed left internal
derangement of the knee, left derangement of the medial meniscus and left knee pain. He arranged
for appellant to undergo surgery to treat his condition.
In an April 20, 2020 medical report, Ms. Paxton noted that appellant previously underwent
meniscus surgery in 2016 and that he was now experiencing pain in his left knee. Appellant
reported that he suffered no injury to his knee and opined that his condition was work related.
Ms. Paxton diagnosed chronic left knee pain2 and ordered that he undergo an MRI scan for further
evaluation.
In an April 23, 2020 diagnostic report, Dr. Kamran Ali, a Board-certified radiologist,
performed an MRI scan of appellant’s left knee, observing findings of appellant’s previous medial
meniscus surgery. He recorded increased T2 signal along the inferior articular surface of the
posterior horn of the medial meniscus that was suspicious for a possible retear. Dr. Ali also noted
that prior surgical changes could also appear like this.
In a May 7, 2020 medical report, Gregory Knoblauch, a physician assistant, evaluated
appellant for a possible retear of his left meniscus. Appellant informed Mr. Knoblauch that he
previously underwent an arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy five years p rior and that he
recently underwent an MRI scan that revealed a retear of his medial meniscus. Mr. Knoblauch
diagnosed a retear of the left knee medial meniscus and degenerative arthritis of the left knee
medial compartment/patellofemoral joint.
In a May 18, 2020 e-mail response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, T.G.,
appellant’s supervisor, noted that she did not have reason to dispute his claim as she was not his
supervisor at the time of his first surgery. She detailed his current workload in wh ich he worked
eight plus hours a day, casing mail for three to four hours and spending four to five hours walking
and standing to deliver mail. T.G. explained that appellant was previously on an overtime desired
list, which had him working additional hours, but had since removed himself from the list a couple
of months ago. Appellant had returned to working eight hours per day and reported that he did not
want to sit in the office performing limited-duty work, asserting that he would rather perform his
regular carrier assignments.
In a May 19, 2020 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant advised that
his left knee injuries began in 2010 and had since continued to hinder his ability to perform his
job. His job consisted of walking, going up and down stairs, twisting, turning, lifting, squatting,
and being on his feet for six to seven hours daily. Appellant explained that he had been performing
these duties for 16.5 years and that he did not sustain a specific injury that caused his conditions.
By decision dated June 25, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim,
finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship
between a diagnosed medical condition and the accepted factors of his federal employment. It

2

Ms. Paxton’s medical report diagnosed chronic right knee pain; however, this appears to be a typographical error.

3

concluded therefore that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined under
FECA.
On July 28, 2020 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of
OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
Appellant submitted a copy of Mr. Knoblauch’s May 7, 2020 medical report.
In a June 1, 2020 operative report, Dr. Bradley Bruner, a Board-certified orthopedic
surgeon, performed an arthroscopic left partial medial meniscectomy, an arthroscopic left loose
body removal and an arthroscopic left chondroplasty to treat appellant’s left medial meniscus tear.
Dr. Bruner reported on June 11, 2020 that he evaluated appellant following his June 1,
2020 left knee surgical procedure. He diagnosed a medial meniscus tear of the left knee, loose
body of the left knee, and possible deep vein thrombosis of the left lower extremity.
In a September 16, 2020 statement, appellant detailed his employment duties over the past
17 years in which he walked approximately four to five miles a day, lifted packages, walked up
and down stairs, bended, squatted, and stood for long periods of time. He alleged that these
activities caused him to tear his meniscus twice. Appellant attached an information sheet
explaining that postal workers were susceptible to repetitive stress injuries due to their employment
duties.
In a September 23, 2020 medical report, Dr. Bruner recounted his treatment of appellant
for a retear of appellant’s left medial meniscus. He opined that appellant’s condition was a direct
result of appellant’s work for the employing establishment over the past 17 years where appellant
carried mail for approximately 10 miles per day.
In a September 24, 2020 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Bruner diagnosed a tear of
the left medial meniscus and advised that appellant was able to perform his normal work duties as
of July 13, 2020.
By decision dated October 21, 2020, an OWCP hearing representative vacated the June 25,
2020 decision and remanded the case for further development.
On remand OWCP routed the case file, along with a statement of accepted facts (SOAF),
to Dr. Michael J. Johnson, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an evaluation and review of
the medical evidence of record as to whether appellant sustained a left knee condition causally
related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. In his January 7, 2021 narrative medical
report, Dr. Johnson indicated that he reviewed the SOAF as well as the medical evidence of record.
He reviewed appellant’s employment duties, history of left knee pain and left knee surgeries in
2016 and 2020. Dr. Johnson diagnosed a left knee medial meniscus tear in 2015, a left knee medial
meniscus tear in 2020 and left knee grade III chondromalacia. Referring to page 370 of the sixth
edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment
(A.M.A., Guides),3 he opined that, while there was “some evidence” of kneeling and squatting,
3

A.M.A., Guides (6 th ed. 2009).

4

the A.M.A., Guides did not mention standing or walking as a job task risk for a medial meniscus
tear. Dr. Johnson therefore concluded that appellant’s medial meniscus tears were secondary to
appellant’s preexisting, unrelated, degenerative chondromalacia and his age, but not his
employment duties. Referring to page 364 of the A.M.A., Guides, he explained that there was
“insufficient evidence” support a relationship between appellant’s occupation and his diagnosed
left knee arthritis/chondromalacia. Consequently, Dr. Johnson opined that appellant’s
chondromalacia was caused by a combination of appellant’s age and genetics, not his employment
tasks.
By de novo decision dated January 22, 2021, OWCP again denied appellant’s occupational
disease claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his
diagnosed medical condition was causally related to the accepted factors of his federal
employment.
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 the individual is an employee of the
United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable
time limitation period of FECA, 4 that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged,
and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related
to the employment injury. 5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim,
regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 6
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational
disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying
employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the
disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or
condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the
diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee. 7
Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion
evidence to resolve the issue.8 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship
between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors must be based on a

4

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB
153 (1989).
5

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40
ECAB 312 (1988).
6

K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);
Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
7

R.G., Docket No. 19-0233 (issued July 16, 2019). See also Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I.
Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
8

T.H., 59 ECAB 388, 393 (2008); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

5

complete factual and medical background.9 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be
expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical
rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s
specific employment factors. 10
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a left knee
condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.
Dr. Bruner, in his September 23, 2020 medical report, recounted his treatment for a retear
of appellant’s left medial meniscus and opined that appellant’s condition was a direct result of his
employment duties over the past 17 years where he carried mail for approximately 10 miles per
day. While he provided an affirmative opinion on causal relationship, he did not offer any medical
rationale sufficient to explain why he believes that appellant’s employment duties could have
resulted in or contributed to appellant’s diagnosed condition. Without explaining how walking
approximately 10 miles per day caused or aggravated his diagnosed medical condition,
Dr. Bruner’s September 23, 2020 medical report is of limited probative value.11
Dr. Bruner’s remaining medical evidence consisted of medical reports dated June 1 and 11,
2020 in which he indicated that he performed an arthroscopic left partial medial meniscectomy, an
arthroscopic left loose body removal, and an arthroscopic left chondroplasty to treat appellant’s
left medial meniscus tear and subsequently conducted a follow-up evaluation of his repaired knee.
He also submitted a September 24, 2020 Form CA-17 wherein he diagnosed a tear of the left
medial meniscus and advised that appellant was able to perform his normal work duties as of
July 13, 2020. However, Dr. Bruner did not offer an opinion on causal relationship in any of these
reports. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the
cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 12 For
this reason, Dr. Bruner’s remaining medical evidence is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of
proof.
Dr. Lucas, in medical reports dated April 29 and July 13, 2015, reviewed appellant’s
complaints of pain in his left knee and appellant’s employment duties involving walking to carry
mail. He reviewed diagnostic studies of appellant’s left knee, expressed concern that appellant
may have sustained a small medial meniscus tear, but did not offer an opinion on causal
relationship. As noted above, medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause

9

M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018).

10

Id.; Victor J. Woodhams, supra note 7.

11

See A.P., Docket No. 19-0224 (issued July 11, 2019).

12

S.J., Docket No. 19-0696 (issued August 23, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-0951 (issued January 7, 2019); L.B.,
Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

6

of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 13
Consequently, Dr. Lucas medical reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.
On April 7, 2015 Dr. Hesse evaluated appellant for his complaints of pain in his low back
and left knee diagnosed low back pain and left knee pain. The Board has consistently held that a
diagnosis of “pain” does not constitute the basis for payment of compensation, as pain is a
symptom not a specific diagnosis. 14 As Dr. Hesse did not offer a valid diagnosis, his April 7, 2015
medical report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.
Appellant submitted multiple diagnostic studies. The Board has held, however, that
diagnostic reports standing alone lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they
do not address the relationship between accepted employment factors and a diagnosed condition. 15
For this reason, these diagnostic reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.
Appellant also submitted medical evidence by physician assistants. However, certain
healthcare providers such as physician assistants, physical therapists, nurses, and social workers
are not considered physicians as defined under FECA. 16 Consequently, their medical findings
and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.
The remaining medical evidence consisted of Dr. Johnson’s January 7, 2021 second
opinion narrative medical report wherein he opined that appellant’s conditions were caused by a
combination of appellant’s age and genetics and not his employment tasks. As his report is
well-rationalized and based on examination and an accurate history of the employment injury, the
Board finds that Dr. Johnson’s report constitutes the weight of the medical evidence. 17
As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing that his left
medial meniscus tear is causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment, the
Board finds that he 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.

13

Id.

14

T.S., Docket No. 20-0343 (issued July 15, 2020); D.H., Docket No. 19-0931 (issued October 2, 2019); R.R.,
Docket No. 18-1093 (issued December 18, 2018); A.C., Docket No. 16-1587 (issued December 27, 2016); Robert
Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004).
15

W.M., Docket No. 19-1853 (issued May 13, 2020); L.F., Docket No. 19-1905 (issued April 10, 2020).

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 M.F., Docket No. 17-1973 (issued December 31, 2018); K.W., 59 ECAB
271, 279 (2007); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006). A report from a physician assistant or certified
nurse practitioner will be considered medical evidence if countersigned by a qualified physician. Federal (FECA)
Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013).
16

17

See B.B., Docket No. 20-1187 (issued November 18, 2021).

7

CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a left knee
condition causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 22, 2021 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: March 7, 2022
Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
B.C., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
UNITED STATES NAVAL SHIP COMET,
FPO, San Francisco, CA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 20-0566
Issued: March 8, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On January 13, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 22, 2019 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 OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization of home
equipment and modifications.

1
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that, following the issuance of the November 22, 2019 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.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On January 6, 1968 appellant, then a 27-year-old seaman, filed a notice of injury or
occupational disease claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 5, 1968 he sustained a broken
left arm and a fractured left patella as a result of a motorcycle accident in Vietnam while in the
performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for skull fracture with convulsive disorder, left
wrist fracture, left patella open fracture, left bicep laceration, right hip fracture, and traumatic right
hip osteoarthritis. 3 The record reflects that OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the
periodic rolls as of June 16, 2002. On August 8, 2013 appellant underwent OWCP-authorized
total right hip replacement surgery.
In an August 8, 2019 letter, appellant requested that OWCP grant authorization for a
handicap bathroom extension, a new chair lift with a table, a ramp to access the rear of his property,
widen internal doors, and level and resurface areas around his house to facilitate his use of a
wheelchair, as recommended by his occupational therapist in an accompanyin g June 6, 2019
medical report.
Appellant also submitted an undated quote and quotes dated January 13, 18, June 16, and
August 8, 2019 for the recommended home modifications.
In an August 14, 2019 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that it required
periodic medical reports in cases in which compensation was being paid for prolonged disability.
It requested that he submit an opinion from his physician regarding the status of his accepted
condition, his ability to return to work, and his current medical treatment plan. OWCP afforded
appellant 30 days to respond.
A memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110) dated September 4, 2019 reflects that
OWCP requested that appellant submit a report from his treating physician explaining the necessity
of an outdoor wheelchair ramp since he was not currently using a wheelchair.
OWCP received medical evidence from Dr. Aidan F. Lynch, an attending orthopedic
surgeon. In an August 27, 2019 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Lynch noted
appellant’s accepted conditions. He advised that appellant sustained multiple injuries and stiff
lower limbs that were caused or aggravated by the January 5, 1968 employment injury. Dr. Lynch
indicated that appellant was totally disabled from work as of May 1, 1986 and that he was
becoming increasingly disabled.
In a September 4, 2019 narrative report, Dr. Lynch noted appellant’s history of injury on
January 5, 1968. He also noted his current complaints of persistent shoulder discomfort.
Dr. Lynch observed that appellant’s ability to remain active was gradually deteriorating, he walked
with a shufﬂing gait and used a stick to mobilize, and his ability to walk was becoming more
restricted especially on rough ground or when attempting to climb steps or stairs. He further
observed that appellant was physically unable to work and he had to drive an automatic car.
Dr. Lynch reported findings on physical examination. He indicated that in 2013 appellant
3

By decision dated January 14, 1972, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 10 percent permanent
impairment of the left arm, 55 percent permanent impairment of the left leg, a nd 12 percent permanent impairment of
the right leg.

2

underwent total right hip replacement surgery to convert a fused hip to a hip arthroplasty.
Dr. Lynch indicated that the operation provided him with improved hip mobility, but he still had
a signiﬁcant degree of stiffness in his hip in view of his previous arthrodesis. He advised that no
further improvement was anticipated regarding appellant’s hip function. Additionally, Dr. Lynch
advised that appellant had arthrodesis to his left knee, which was in a ﬁxed position, discomfort in
his back, which appeared to be associated with stiffness in both his right hip and left knee, and
restricted movement of both shoulders. He related that, in light of appellant’s injury, he was
becoming increasingly disabled in his ability to remain active. Dr. Lynch was also no longer able
to climb steps or stairs. He determined that appellant was 100 percent permanently disabled from
work. Dr. Lynch related that appellant was also becoming increasingly disabled from performing
activities of daily living (ADLs). He advised that his house required indoor modifications to
provide access to his bedroom and toilet. Dr. Lynch further advised that outdoor modifications,
which included a ramp to gain entrance into his house were required as appellant had to avoid
using steps or stairs and likely required a wheelchair in the future.
Dr. Lynch, in an October 1, 2019 addendum letter, advised that appellant had restricted
mobility as a result of his multiple injuries, which required indoor and outdoor modifications to
his house. He requested that OWCP grant authorization for such modifications. Dr. Lynch noted
that the ground at appellant’s house was quite rough and he was unable to walk on uneven surfaces.
As such, he maintained that a solid surface, either concrete or tarmac, was required. Dr. Lynch
also maintained that ramps instead of steps would be required at the entrance to appellant’s house.
He indicated that the front door and indoors of the house needed to be widened to allow wheelchair
access in the future. Dr. Lynch again opined that appellant remained permanently totally disabled
from work.
OWCP received additional estimates for a handicap bathroom and other home
modifications, including a wheelchair ramp with a platform and widened front and rear doorways.
By decision dated October 11, 2019, OWCP granted authorization for modification of
appellant’s existing bathroom and other indoor home modifications.
In an October 25, 2019 decision, OWCP denied authorization for a wheelchair ramp and
other outdoor home modifications, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to
establish that the requested equipment and modifications were medically necessary to address the
effects of the January 5, 1968 employment injury.
By decision dated November 22, 2019, OWCP reissued the October 25, 2019 decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Section 8103 of FECA provides that the United States shall furnish to an employee who is
injured while in the performance of duty, the services, appliances, and supplies prescribed or
recommended by a qualified physician, which OWCP considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce
the degree, or the period of disability, or aid in lessening the amount of monthly compensation. 4
While OWCP is obligated to pay for treatment of employment-related conditions, the employee
4

5 U.S.C. § 8103; see R.P., Docket No. 17-0428 (issued April 19, 2018); Thomas W. Stevens, 50 ECAB
288 (1999).

3

has the burden of proof to establish that the expenditure is incurred for treatment of the effects of
an employment-related injury or condition. 5
In interpreting section 8103, the Board has recognized that OWCP has broad discretion in
approving services, with the only limitation on OWCP’s authority being that of reasonableness.6
Abuse of discretion is shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise
of judgment, or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deductions from
established facts. It is not enough to merely show that the evid ence could be construed so as to
produce a contrary factual conclusion.7
The Board has previously noted that OWCP’s procedures provide for housing
modifications under limited circumstances. 8 To be eligible for housing modifications, the claimant
must be severely restricted in terms of mobility, functionality, and independence in normal living
functions, on a permanent basis, due to the work-related injury. Examples are impairments that
require the use of a prosthesis, wheelchair, motorized scooter, leg braces, crutches, ca ne, or other
self-help devices. Such medical conditions include quadriplegia, paraplegia, amputation, total loss
of use of limbs, blindness, and profound deafness bilaterally.9
Before considering the technicalities of housing modification proposals, a determination
must be made on the medical necessity of the requested modification. There are several aspects
to consider when reviewing the evidence of record:
“(1) Does the level of impairment rise to the level delineated in the eligibility
section above?
“(2) Does the medical evidence support that the claimant has restrictions or
physical limitations which necessitate the modification?
“(3) Are these restrictions caused by the accepted work-related condition?
“(4) Does the physician provide detailed findings and rationale for the opinion that
the claimant’s work injury has caused restrictions which necessitate the requested

5

See R.P., id.; Kennett O. Collins, Jr., 55 ECAB 648 (2004); Zane H. Cassell, 32 ECAB 1537 (1981).

6
See B.I., Docket No. 18-0988 (issued March 13, 2020); see also Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990)
(abuse of discretion by OWCP is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of
judgment, or administrative actions which are contrary to both logic, and probable deductions from established facts).
7

D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued May 18, 2020); P.L., Docket No. 18-0260 (issued April 14, 2020); L.W., 59
ECAB 471 (2008).
8

R.K., Docket No. 14-1238 (issued September 23, 2014).

9

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Housing and Vehicle Modifications, Chapter 2.1800.3
(October 2009).

4

modification? This should come from a physician who is a recognized authority in
the appropriate medical specialty.”10
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that OWCP properly appellant’s request for authorization of home
equipment and modifications.
OWCP accepted that on January 5, 1968 appellant sustained a work-related skull fracture
with convulsive disorder, left wrist fracture, left patella open fracture, left bicep laceration, right
hip fracture, and traumatic right hip osteoarthritis. Consequently, it granted authorization for
appellant’s handicap bathroom and other indoor home modifications, but denied authorization for
a wheelchair ramp and other outdoor home modifications.
In a September 4, 2019 report and October 1, 2019 addendum letter, Dr. Lynch requested
that OWCP authorize modification to the outside of appellant’s existing home, noting that he
would benefit from handicap accessible equipment. He noted that appellant’s current and
worsening ability to walk was restricted especially when he walked on rough or uneven ground
and attempted to climb steps or stairs. Dr. Lynch also noted that he had increasing difficulty
performing ADLs. He maintained that appellant would “likely” needed a wheelchair ramp to enter
his house because he should avoid using steps or stairs. As such, Dr. Lynch also related that the
front door and indoors of appellant’s house required widening to allow for the use of a wheelchair
in the future. Additionally, he indicated that a solid surface, such as concrete or tarmac, was
required outside appellant’s house due to his inability to walk on uneven surfaces. Dr. Lynch
found that appellant’s permanent total disability from work resulted from the January 5, 1968
employment injury, which required total right hip replacement surgery in 2013.
To establish the medical necessity of the requested modification, Dr. Lynch was required
to explain how appellant’s present inability to negotiate steps, requiring a wheelchair ramp, and to
walk on uneven ground, requiring a solid surface, were caused by the accepted employment injury
that occurred 51 years prior. The Board finds that Dr. Lynch failed to provide a rationalized
medical opinion explaining why the requested the wheelchair ramp and other home modifications
were medically necessary.11 Dr. Lynch did not provide the necessary medical explanation as to
how the wheelchair ramp and other outdoor home modifications would cure, reduce the period of
disability, or aid in lessening the amount of monthly compensation. 12
As noted, the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is approving or disapproving services
under FECA is one of reasonableness. 13 As the medical evidence submitted provided insufficient
10

Id. at Chapter 2.1800.4.

11

Supra note 4; see also O.M., Docket No. 20-0640 (issued April 19, 2021); D.K., Docket No. 20-0002 (issued
August 25, 2020); G.B., Docket No. 18-1444 (issued March 25, 2019); M.B., Docket No. 17-1679 (issued February 8,
2018); R.K., Docket No. 14-1238 (issued September 23, 2014) (medical conclusions unsupported by rationale are of
diminished probative value).
12

Supra note 3.

13

Supra note 5.

5

explanation of medical necessity, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s requests
under section 8103 of FECA.14
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 OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization of home
equipment and modifications.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 22, 2019 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: March 8, 2022
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

14

Supra note 10.

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
T.M., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Township of Washington, NJ, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Jason S. Lomax, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 17-1552
Issued: July 10, 2018

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On July 7, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from January 18 and 30,
2017 merit decisions 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 claim.

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.

ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish intermittent periods of
disability during the period July 24, 2014 to May 26, 2015, causally related to a December 9,
2013 employment injury.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On December 10, 2013 appellant, then a 56-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury
claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 9, 2013 he sustained right knee and lower back
injuries as a result of slipping on ice and falling while climbing stairs in the performance of duty.
He stopped work on the date of injury and returned to limited-duty work on March 19, 2014. On
December 23, 2014 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left knee contusion, left knee abrasion,
L4-5 lumbar disc protrusion without myelopathy, and lumbar sprain.
On December 11, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation
(Form CA-7) for the period July 24, 2014 to January 24, 2015.3
In a July 22, 2014 status/progress report of injury/illness (form report), Dr. Christine M.
Corradino, an examining Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted an injury date of
December 9, 2013 and diagnosed lumbar and knee sprains. She checked a box marked “no” to
the question of whether appellant could perform his preinjury job. With respect to work
restrictions, Dr. Corradino checked light duty, which included restrictions of no lifting more than
20 pounds, walk or stand as needed, and pull or push with arms alone and/or legs and feet.
In a report dated October 28, 2014, Dr. Corradino, noted that appellant was seen that day
for lumbar pain complaints. She recommended physical therapy and recommended he continue
with light-duty work.
Dr. Corradino, in a November 11, 2014 report, noted treating appellant since
February 2014 for a low back and left knee injuries. Physical findings included some paraspinal
tenderness and negative straight leg raise. Dr. Corradino reviewed a 2014 lumbar spine magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) scan which showed facet arthritis, spondylitic changes, and disc
protrusion abutting the thecal sac at the L5 nerve root. She again indicated that appellant was to
continue with light-duty work and recommended physical therapy. In form reports dated
November 11, 2014, and January 6 and 11, 2015, Dr. Corradino diagnosed lumbar and knee
sprains. She checked a box that appellant could perform light-duty work with restrictions noting
no lifting more than 20 pounds, walk and stand as needed, and pull or push with arms and/or legs
and or feet.
The record contains physical therapy records for December 15 and 19, 2014 and
January 6 to 9, 14, 16, and 29, February 3, 4, 11, 16, 25, and 27, and March 2, 18, 19, 23, 25, 26,
and 31, 2015.

3
The Board notes that the Form CA-7 incorrectly requested wage-loss compensation to January 24, 2014, a date
prior to the requested date for disability compensation, rather than 2015.

2

In a February 19, 2015 report, Dr. Mohammad H. Dorri, an examining physician
specializing in physical therapy and rehabilitation, provided examination findings and diagnosed
lumbar radiculopathy with concomitant discogenic pain versus lumbar lactogenic pain. A
physical examination revealed L4-5 and L5-S1 significant tenderness on palpation of the lumbar
paraspinals, positive bilateral reverse straight leg raising (SLR), and significant hip flexors
muscle weakness. In a form dated February 19, 2015, Dr. Dorri noted an injury date of
December 9, 2013 and indicated that appellant was capable of working light duty, with the same
restrictions noted by Dr. Corradino.
On February 20, 2015 OWCP received a November 12, 2014 e-mail from the postmaster,
T.V. regarding appellant’s claim. The postmaster noted that appellant returned to work on
March 24, 2014 and worked until July 24, 2014. He stated that he questioned appellant about
ascending and descending stairs by putting one foot to the step and then bringing the other foot
to the same step while delivering mail. Appellant stated that he had restrictions, but the
postmaster noted that there were no restrictions regarding stairs. The postmaster noted that
appellant had refused to provide work restrictions since September 4, 2014 and that he refused to
deliver his route on November 6, 2014. Appellant did work his route from March 24 to July 24,
2014 until being told that the way he ascended and descended stairs was unacceptable, unsafe,
and extended his delivery time. The postmaster also related that he sent appellant a certified
letter on September 14, 2014 informing him that his claim had not been accepted and that there
was no record of a work-related condition or incident.
On February 20, 24, and 25, 2015 OWCP received claims for compensation (Form CA-7)
claiming intermittent wage-loss compensation for the periods July 26 to August 8, August 23 to
September 5, September 20 to October 17, and November 1 to December 12, 2014. In attached
CA-7a forms, appellant indicated that the reason for using leave without pay (LWOP) during the
period was “work[-]related disability.” Appellant claimed 53.10 hours for the period July 26 to
August 6, 2014, 40.12 hours for the period August 27 to September 5, 2014, 62.07 hours for the
period September 20 to October 3, 2014, 54.99 hours for the period October 4 to 17, 2014, 38.82
hours for the period November 1 to 14, 2014, 51.55 hours for the period November 15 to 28,
2014, and 56.79 hours for the period November 29 to December 12, 2014.
On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment checked a box
marked “No” indicating that appellant did not return to his predate-of-injury job. It also noted a
job offer was forthcoming, work was available, and appellant refused to work.
In a development letter dated February 26, 2015, OWCP noted receipt of appellant’s
claim for intermittent wage-loss compensation for the periods July 26 to August 8, August 23 to
September 5, September 20 to October 17, and November 1 to December 12, 2014. It informed
him that the record was unclear as to why he was claiming leave. OWCP noted that the
employing establishment indicated that appellant refused to work even though he had been
offered work within his restrictions. It advised appellant regarding the medical evidence
required to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to provide the requested evidence.
In a March 19, 2015 report, Dr. Dorri diagnosed sciatica and lumbago. A physical
examination revealed decreased lumbar axial range of motion, right paraspinal muscle
tenderness, and normal gait. Based on review of a lumbar spine MRI scan, Dr. Dorri diagnosed

3

lumbar disc herniation/radiculopathy, which he explained correlated with appellant’s pain
location.
On March 30, 2015 OWCP received a hospital report dated March 6, 2015 indicating
appellant underwent lumbar epidural injections.
By decision dated May 13, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss
compensation for the periods July 26 to August 8, August 23 to September 5, September 20 to
October 17, and November 1 to December 12, 2014.
A May 28, 2015 report from Dr. Dorri was unchanged from prior reports including work
restrictions.
In a letter dated May 29, 2015, counsel requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP
hearing representative, which was held on January 13, 2016.
On June 1, 2015 appellant accepted a modified job offer of casing mail for up to eight
hours, if mail was available.
In a June 2, 2015 report, Dr. Corradino noted that appellant had a left knee strain which
continued to bother him. She reported that appellant was working light-duty work and provided
work restrictions which remained unchanged. Examination findings revealed full knee range of
motion with medial joint line tenderness.
On September 29, 2015 OWCP received a Form CA-7 claiming intermittent wage-loss
compensation for the period May 16 to July 29, 2015.
On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment checked a box
marked “No” indicating that appellant did not return to his predate-of-injury job. It noted that
appellant was claiming 228.48 hours of LWOP and attached five CA-7a forms.
By decision dated December 16, 2015, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a
recurrence of disability commencing May 27, 2015 based on the withdrawal of his light-duty job.
On January 27, 2016 OWCP received CA-7 forms claiming intermittent wage-loss
compensation for the periods September 6 to 19 and October 18 to 31, 2014 and December 13,
2014 to March 6, 2015. In attached CA-7a forms, he indicated that the reason for using 63.24
hours of LWOP during the period was “work[-]related disability.”
By decision dated February 24, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the
May 13, 2015 decision denying compensation for the periods July 26 to August 8, August 23 to
September 5, September 20 to October 17, and November 1 to December 12, 2014. The hearing
representative noted appellant’s recurrence of disability beginning May 27, 2015 had been
accepted based on the withdrawal of light-duty work and that intermittent wage-loss
compensation had been paid for the period May 29 to July 24, 2015.
In a Form CA-7 dated March 25, 2016, appellant claimed intermittent wage-loss
compensation for the period December 13, 2014 to March 6, 2015. On the reverse side, the

4

employing establishment noted that appellant was claiming 333.42 hours of LWOP. In an
attached CA-7a form, appellant indicated that the reason for using LWOP during the period was
“work[-]related disability,” except for March 6, 2015 when he claimed he underwent an epidural
injection. Appellant claimed 53.65 hours for the period December 13 to 26, 2014, 53.80 hours
for the period December 27, 2014 to January 9, 2015, and 54.35 hours for the period January 10
to 17, 2015, 54.45 hours for the period February 7 to 20, 2015, 51.65 hours for the period
February 21 to March 4, 2015, and 8 hours for March 6, 2015.
By decision dated March 31, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for intermittent
wage-loss compensation for the periods January 25 to March 18, September 6 to 19, and
October 18 to 31, 2014, and continuing. It noted the employing establishment’s concerns
regarding what it termed his abnormal method of climbing stairs and that no medical restrictions
for stair climbing had been submitted. OWCP further found that disability due to pain was
insufficient to support wage-loss compensation as pain is considered a symptom and not a
diagnosis.
By decision dated November 18, 2016, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a
recurrence of disability beginning May 3, 2016 based on the withdrawal of his light-duty job
offer.
On November 30, 2016 OWCP received a November 11, 2014 progress report from
Dr. Corradino indicating that appellant was capable of performing light-duty work. She
provided work restrictions of lifting up to 20 pounds, standing or walking as necessary, up to 10
pounds frequent carrying. Diagnoses included lumbago, lumbar sprain/strain, and knee/leg
sprain/strain.
Appellant timely requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of
Hearings and Review from the March 31, 2016 decision, which was held via telephone
conference on November 30, 2016.
By decision dated January 18, 2017, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed as
modified the March 31, 2016 decision. He concurred with the prior hearing representative’s
finding that appellant was properly disqualified from performing modified work as of July 17,
2014 based his unusual method of ascending and descending stairs, which was not a work
restriction given by his physician until February 4, 2016. The hearing representative noted that a
claim for a recurrence of disability beginning May 27, 2015 had been accepted. Thus, he
affirmed the denial of compensation for the periods January 25 to March 18, September 6 to 19,
and October 18, 2014 to May 26, 2015.
By decision dated January 30, 2017, OWCP denied modification of the February 24,
2016 decision, which denied appellant’s claim for compensation for the periods July 26 to
August 8, August 23 to September 5, September 20 to October 17, and November 1 to
December 12, 2014.

5

LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.5 For each period of
disability claimed, the employee has the burden of establishing that he or she was disabled for
work as a result of the accepted employment injury.6 Whether a particular injury causes an
employee to become disabled for work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that
must be proved by a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.7
Under FECA the term “disability” means incapacity, because of an employment injury, to
earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.8 Disability is, thus, not
synonymous with physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn
wages.9 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to his federal
employment, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages he was receiving at the time
of injury, has no disability and is not entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning
capacity.10 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 employment, he is entitled to compensation for any loss of wages.
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 their disability and
entitlement to compensation.11
OWCP’s implementing regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 10.500 addresses the basic rules
governing continuing receipt of compensation benefits after a return to work.
“(a) Benefits are available only while the effects of a work-related condition
continue. Compensation for wage loss due to disability is available only for any
periods during which an employee’s work-related medical condition prevents him
or her from earning the wages earned before the work-related injury. For
example, an employee is not entitled to compensation for any wage-loss claimed
4

Supra note 2.

5
See Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); see also Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 712 (1986); Joseph M.
Whelan, 20 ECAB 55 (1968).
6

See Amelia S. Jefferson, id.; see also David H. Goss, 32 ECAB 24 (1980).

7

See Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301 (1989).

8
S.M., 58 ECAB 166 (2006); Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004); Conard Hightower, 54 ECAB 796
(2003); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).
9

Roberta L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002).

10

Merle J. Marceau, 53 ECAB 197 (2001).

11

See William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

6

on a Form CA-7 to the extent that evidence contemporaneous with the period
claimed on a Form CA-7 establishes that an employee had medical work
restrictions in place; that light duty within those work restrictions was available;
and that the employee was previously notified in writing that such duty was
available. Similarly, an employee receiving continuing periodic payments for
disability was not prevented from earning the wages earned before the workrelated injury if the evidence establishes that the employing establishment had
offered, in accordance with OWCP procedures, a temporary light-duty assignment
within the employee’s work restrictions.”12
ANALYSIS
OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a left knee contusion, left knee abrasion, L4-5
lumbar disc protrusion without myelopathy, and a lumbar sprain as a result of the accepted
December 9, 2013 employment injury. Appellant stopped work and returned to limited-duty
work on March 19, 2014. He filed claims for intermittent wage-loss compensation for the period
July 26, 2014 to May 26, 2015.
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision regarding appellant’s claim
for periods of intermittent disability from July 26, 2014 to May 26, 2015 as the evidence of
record lacks sufficient information to determine whether there was appropriate modified-duty
work available for appellant such that he was not entitled to intermittent periods of partial
disability. On the reverse side of the CA-7 claim forms, the employing establishment noted that
appellant had not returned to the job he held on the date of injury. In the CA-7 forms, except for
the Form CA-7 covering the period December 13, 2014 to March 6, 2017, the employing
establishment noted that work was available and a job offer was forthcoming. The evidence of
record reflects that appellant returned to work on March 19, 2014 to a limited-duty job.
However, the record contains no copy of a modified job offer for the period in question.13 The
first modified job offer in the record is dated June 1, 2015 when appellant accepted a modified
job casing mail, when it was available.
Although the employing establishment asserted on the CA-7 forms that there was work
available, the evidence of record does not contain a copy of the modified job offer until June 1,
2015, which is after the period appellant is claiming intermittent wage-loss compensation. The
current record before the Board does not clearly establish that the employing establishment was
able to accommodate appellant’s work restrictions full time, such that his claim for intermittent
periods of partial wage-loss compensation should be denied.14 Appellant claimed work-related
disability for the periods of intermittent wage-loss compensation. It is unclear from the record
12

20 C.F.R. § 10.500(a).

13

Id.

14

See J.G., Docket No. 17-0910 (issued August 28, 2017) (the Board remanded the case for OWCP to determine
whether there was modified work available for appellant on November 25, 2016 when the employing establishment
initially noted that he only worked 15.54 hours for the period September 17 through November 30, 2016, but later
claimed that there was always work available for the claimant); see also J.T., Docket No. 15-1133 (issued
December 21, 2015).

7

what modified job appellant was performing on his return to work on March 19, 2014. In
addition, it appears that the employing establishment placed appellant off work beginning
July 24, 2014 because of the way he ascended and descended stairs.
On remand OWCP must develop the case and make factual findings on the status of
appellant’s employment at the time he requested wage-loss compensation for partial disability
from July 24, 2014 to May 26, 2015 because the record is unclear as to the requirements of the
modified job appellant was performing and if it was within his restrictions. OWCP’s procedures
also provide that wages lost for compensable medical examination or treatment may be
reimbursed.15 It notes that a claimant who has returned to work following an accepted injury or
illness may need to undergo examination or treatment and such employee may be paid
compensation for wage loss while obtaining medical services and for a reasonable time spent
traveling to and from the medical provider’s location.16 As a rule, no more than four hours of
compensation or continuation of pay should be allowed for routine medical appointments.
Longer periods of time may be allowed when required by the nature of the medical procedure
and/or the need to travel a substantial distance to obtain the medical care.17
After such further development as necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision.

15

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Computing Compensation, Chapter 2.901.19
(February 2013).
16

D.V., Docket No. 17-1344 (issued March 19, 2018); Daniel Hollars, 51 ECAB 355 (2000); Jeffrey R. Davis, 35
ECAB 950 (1984).
17

Supra note 15 at Chapter 2.901.19(c) (February 2013).

8

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated January 30 and 18, 2017 are set aside and the case is remanded
for proceedings consistent with the above opinion.
Issued: July 10, 2018
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

9