M.W. and Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (Board decision, May 12, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP’s refusal to expand an accepted knee claim and its denial of claimed periods of disability. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A Navy boiler plant operator struck his left knee while moving through an obstructed area at work. OWCP accepted a left knee contusion. He sought acceptance of additional knee conditions and a consequential right ankle condition, along with compensation for several periods away from work. The Board found the medical evidence insufficient to establish the added conditions or connect the claimed disability periods to the accepted injury. It affirmed OWCP’s September and December 2022 decisions.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; Board review under 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3.
• Outcome: Claim expansion and disability denials affirmed.
• Key point: Added diagnoses and specific periods of disability require medical evidence linking them to the accepted injury.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
M.W., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket Nos. 23-0031 &
)
23-0333
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL ) Issued: May 12, 2025
FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS
)
COMMAND, Washington, DC, Employer )
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 12, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a September 2, 2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), assigned Docket No. 23-0031. On January 4, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from two December 22, 2022 merit decisions of OWCP, assigned Docket No. 23-0333. 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. 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to expand the acceptance of his claim to include additional left knee conditions and a consequential right ankle condition causally related to the accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury; and (2) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish disability from work for the period May 31 through June 27, 2020, and for intermittent disability commencing August 16, 2020, including August 2 and 11, 2021, causally related to his accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has been previously before the Board on a different issue .4 The facts and circumstances of the case as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On May 14, 2020 appellant, then a 57-year-old boiler plant operator, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 21, 2020, when walking through an area partially obstructed by a ladder and other items, he struck his left knee while in the performance of duty. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx364. Appellant stopped work on April 28, 2020.

In reports dated April 28 and 30, and May 13, 2020, Jose C. Balinas, a physician assistant, diagnosed a left knee contusion and held appellant off work. OWCP also received June 2, 2020 hospital discharge instructions for a right ankle sprain.

In a June 8, 2020 report, Dr. David Buchalter a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed a left knee contusion. He returned appellant to modified duty effective June 9, 2020, with restrictions through July 7, 2020.

On June 10, 2020 appellant filed a second Form CA-1 alleging that on April 28, 2020 he sustained a left knee injury when he struck it on a pipe while in the performance of duty. He also alleged a subsequent right ankle sprain when using a cane from physical therapy for this left knee injury. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx823.

2
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3
The Board notes that, following the January 4, 2023 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.
However, the Board’s Rules of Procedures provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. 4 Docket No. 20-1489 (issued March 29, 2021).

2
 In a June 17, 2020 report, Dr. Idris Amin, Board-certified in physiatry and sports medicine, related appellant’s account of an April 21, 2020 left knee injury while at work. He recounted appellant’s complaints of left knee pain, swelling, and instability. Dr. Amin also noted that appellant participated in physical therapy and that his therapist prescribed crutches due to left knee instability. On visual examination, he observed swelling of the left knee, extension limited to 0 degrees, and flexion limited to 100 degrees. Dr. Amin recommended over-the-counter medication and ordered an imaging study.

In a report dated June 19, 2020, Dr. Emily Jo Durance, a podiatrist, noted appellant’s account of an April 21, 2020 occupational left knee injury and his report that he tripped on his cane on April 28 and 29, 2020 thereby injuring his right ankle. She diagnosed a right ankle sprain with edema and held him off work. Dr. Durance prescribed a brace.

In a June 22, 2020 work slip, Karen C. Kohnen, medical secretary to Dr. Amin, related that appellant should remain off work from June 17 through July 1, 2020.5

A June 25, 2020 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left knee demonstrated quadriceps tendinopathy with a partial tear, focal full-thickness articular cartilage loss on the median patellar surface, trace suprapatellar joint effusion, and moderate edema in the patella likely from a prior contusion.6

In a July 16, 2020 report, Dr. Amin observed limited flexion and extension of the left knee, with no obvious effusion or gross deformity. He opined that the MRI scan of the left knee demonstrated insertional quadriceps tendinopathy with a partial tear. Dr. Amin prescribed a left knee immobilizer brace. He held appellant off work.

By decision dated July 22, 2020, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx823, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the injury and/or events occurred as he described. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On August 6, 2020 OWCP received photographs of appellant’s right ankle allegedly taken on April 28, 2020.

On August 14, 2020 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx364, appellant filed a series of claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work for the period May 31 through June 27, 2020.

A bilateral knee x-ray scan dated August 19, 2020 demonstrated a probable small left joint effusion, and mild bilateral osteoarthritis with patellar spurring.

By decision dated September 9, 2020, under OWCP Filed No. xxxxxx364, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 5 Thereafter, OWCP received work slips dated July 14 and 17 and September 25, 2020, which were not signed by a physician.
6
July 2, 2020 x-rays of the toes of the left foot were negative for occult fracture in the first toe.

3 establish a medical diagnosis in connection with the accepted employment incident. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On September 16, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing from the September 9, 2020 decision before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held January 13, 2021.

By decision dated February 23, 2021, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx364, an OWCP hearing representative reversed, in part, OWCP’s September 9, 2020 decision and accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim for a left knee contusion. Additionally, the hearing representative affirmed the September 9, 2020 OWCP decision, in part, by denying expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include additional conditions, finding that causal relationship was not established. OWCP’s hearing representative directed OWCP to administratively combine OWCP File No. xxxxxx823 with OWCP File No. xxxxxx364, as the April 28, 2020 right ankle injury “may possibly be a consequential injury” related to the accepted left knee injury.

Thereafter, OWCP received a February 10, 2021 report by Dr. Jonathan David Packer, Board-certified in orthopedic surgery and orthopedic sports medicine, who recounted a history of the April 21, 2020 employment injury in which appellant struck his left knee on a metal pipe. On examination of the left knee, Dr. Packer observed a palpable mass and focal tenderness at the central quadriceps tendon insertion and limited left knee flexion. He diagnosed left knee quadriceps insertion enthesophytes and high-grade tendinopathy with a possible partial thickness quadriceps tendon tear. Dr. Packer prescribed continued physical therapy and noted work restrictions.

On March 1, 2021 OWCP administratively combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx823 and xxxxxx364, with the latter designated as the master file.

By decision dated March 1, 2021, OWCP accepted the claim for left knee contusion.

In development letters dated March 19 and 25, 2021, OWCP advised appellant that additional medical evidence was required to approve physical therapy as the requested treatment did not appear medically necessary and/or causally related to the accepted left knee contusion. It requested that he submit a detailed narrative report from his physician as to whether a newly diagnosed condition was causally related to the accepted injury . OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

In an April 21, 2021 report, Dr. Packer observed a palpable mass and focal tenderness at the central quadriceps insertion, and limited flexion. He diagnosed left knee quadriceps insertion enthesophytes and high-grade tendinopathy with a possible partial-thickness quadriceps tendon tear, and a small full-thickness central patellar chondral defect. Dr. Packer recommended a left knee arthroscopy. He maintained appellant on light duty with restrictions.

On April 26, 2021 appellant submitted a Form CA-7 claim for four hours of disability from work on April 21, 2021.

4
 In a development letter dated May 25, 2021, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of his claim for wage-loss compensation commencing May 31, 2020. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed and afforded him 30 days to respond.

On June 1, 2021 Dr. Packer performed a left knee arthroscopy and synovectomy of all three compartments, chondroplasty, left quadriceps tendon debridement, enthesophyte excision, and left quadriceps tendon transpatellar repair.

Commencing June 4, 2021, appellant submitted a series of Form CA-7 claims for disability from work for the periods June 1 through July 3, 2021.

In a development letter dated June 9, 2021, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of his claim for wage-loss compensation for the period June 1 through 4, 2021. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed to establish the claim and afforded him 30 days to respond.

In a June 10, 2021 letter, Dr. Packer held appellant off work for the eight weeks following the June 1, 2021 left knee surgery.

On July 26, 2021 OWCP received photographs of appellant’s left lower extremity and images from the June 1, 2021 surgical procedure.

In a July 26, 2021 letter, the employing establishment indicated that appellant would return to restricted duty on July 27, 2021.

On July 28, 2021 appellant submitted a Form CA-7 claim for disability from work on July 19 and 20, 2021.

In a development letter dated August 10, 2021, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies in his claim for wage-loss compensation for July 19 and 20, 2021. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed to establish the claim and afforded him 30 days to respond.

On August 23, 2021 appellant submitted Form CA-7 claims for disability from work on August 2 and 11, 2021.

In a development letter dated August 31, 2021, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies in his claim for wage-loss compensation for the period August 2 and 11, 2021. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed to establish the claim and afforded him 30 days to respond.

Commencing September 21, 2021, appellant submitted a series of Form CA-7 claims for disability from work during intermittent periods between August 16, 2020, and October 4, 2021.

By decision dated November 23, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s disability claim for the period May 31 through June 27, 2020.

On November 30, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on March 18, 2022.

5
 On January 11, 2022 appellant submitted a Form CA-7 claim for disability from work on December 30, 2021.

In a development letter dated January 19, 2022, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies in his claim for wage-loss compensation on December 30, 2021. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed to establish the claim and afforded him 30 days to respond.

In a January 28, 2022 note, Dr. Packer recounted that appellant had continued left knee pain and weakness “likely related to symptomatic patellofemoral osteoarthritis and incomplete postoperative rehabilitation since physical therapy was not authorized. ” He recommended that appellant be assigned to a one-floor worksite, “which would limit stairs and ladders.”

In a February 16, 2022 report, Dr. Joseph K. Jamaris, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, returned appellant to work with no crawling, kneeling, or repetitive stair climbing.

In a March 7, 2022 report, Dr. Packer opined that continued weakness in the left knee contributed to appellant’s ongoing dysfunction and pain. He again recommended physical therapy. In a March 15, 2022 note, Dr. Packer returned appellant to limited-duty work with restrictions against repetitive climbing of steep steps or ladders, and working in confined, obstructed, or poorly-lit spaces. He directed a 5-to-10-minute sitting break each hour and that appellant utilize required safety equipment. 7

Thereafter, OWCP received an August 19, 2020 report, wherein Dr. Packer discussed the April 21, 2020 employment injury and opined that appellant “suffered a left knee blunt traumatic events [sic], possibly causing soft tissue injury and exacerbation of quadriceps tendinopathy.” He referenced a left knee MRI scan of unspecified date, which he characterized as showing a possible partial thickness quadriceps tear, and noted in the assessment section of the report, “[t]his does not appear to be an acute tear based on the MRI [scan].” Dr. Packer held appellant off work for six weeks. In an April 21, 2021 report, he recounted that appellant’s left knee mobility had improved and his pain symptoms had decreased. Dr. Packer strongly recommended additional physical therapy and maintained appellant on light duty with restrictions.

By decision dated May 25, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from work on July 19 and 20, 2021.

By decision dated May 26, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability from work on August 2 and 11, 2021.

By a second decision also dated May 26, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for intermittent disability from work commencing August 16, 2020.

By decision dated June 1, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s November 23, 2021 decision denying appellant’s claim for disability from work during the period May 31 through June 27, 2020.

7
On March 24, 2022 appellant submitted a photograph of his right ankle.

6
 On June 3, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding both May 26, 2022 decisions.

On June 22, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration from OWCP’s June 1, 2022 decision. Counsel contended that OWCP should expand the acceptance of appellant’s traumatic injury claim to include the additional left knee conditions diagnosed by Dr. Packer.

By decision dated September 2, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its June 1, 2022 decision denying appellant’s claim for disability from work during the period May 31 through June 27, 2020.

Thereafter, OWCP received an August 24, 2022 report by Dr. Packer, who diagnosed a near full-thickness chondral defect in the trochlea, high grade partial thickness three -by-four millimeter proximal patellar chondral defect, grade 1 and 2 chondral changes throughout the lateral compartment and medial femoral condyle, extensive hypertrophic impinging synovitis in all three compartments, and moderate/severe distal quadriceps tendinopathy with intratendinous loose enthesophyte. Dr. Packer returned appellant to restricted duty.

In an August 26, 2022 letter, Dr. Packer returned appellant to work with limitations on using stairs and ladders. He directed that appellant wear his left knee brace and utilize appropriate personal protective equipment.

A hearing was held on October 11, 2022 with regard to both May 26, 2022 decisions. By decision dated December 22, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s May 26, 2022 decision denying appellant’s claim for intermittent disability from work commencing August 16, 2020.

By separate decision also dated December 22, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s May 26, 2022 decision denying appellant’s claim for disability from work on August 2 and 11, 2021.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

When an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally related to the employment injury. 8

To establish causal relationship, the employee must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence.9 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported

8
J.R., Docket No. 21-0790 (issued June 21, 2022); J.R., Docket No. 20-0292 (issued June 26, 2020); W.L., Docket No. 17-1965 (issued September 12, 2018); V.B., Docket No. 12-0599 (issued October 2, 2012); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004). 9 R.H., Docket No. 21-0493 (issued March 4, 2022); E.W., Docket No. 20-0338 (issued October 9, 2020).

7 by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by the claimant. 10 The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.11

With respect to consequential injuries, the Board has held that, where an injury is sustained as a consequence of an impairment residual to an employment injury, the new or second injury, even though nonemployment related, is deemed, because of the chain o f causation, to arise out of and in the course of employment and is compensable. 12

In a case in which a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present and the issue of causal relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation, the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.13

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to expand the acceptance of his claim to include additional left knee conditions and a consequential right ankle condition causally related to the accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury.

In support of his claim, appellant provided June 2, 2020 hospital discharge instructions for a right ankle sprain; Dr. Amin’s June 17, 2020 report recounting that appellant’s physical therapist prescribed crutches to address left knee instability; and Dr. Durance’s June 19, 2020 report recounting that on April 28 and 29, 2020 appellant tripped on a case prescribed for a left knee injury. Dr. Durance diagnosed right-ankle sprain with edema. However, the Board has held that neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship. 14 Therefore, the opinions of Dr. Amin and Dr. Durance are insufficient to establish expansion of the claim.

Dr. Packer, in an August 19, 2020 report, discussed the April 21, 2020 employment injury and opined that appellant suffered blunt trauma to the left knee with a possible soft-tissue injury

10
D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued February 18, 2020); T.K., Docket No. 18-1239 (issued May 29, 2019); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 11 R.H., supra note 9; C.L., 20-0213 (issued September 15, 2021); J.L., Docket No. 20-0717 (issued October 15, 2020); James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).
12
See J.H., Docket No. 22-0616 (issued January 17, 2023); L.M., Docket No. 21-0644 (issued March 15, 2022); see also S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008).
13
G.D., Docket No. 20-0966 (issued July 21, 2022); R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013). 14 D.W., Docket No. 18-0644 (issued November 15, 2018); V.L., Docket No. 19-0069 (issued February 10, 2020);
J.B., Docket No. 19-1101 (issued November 20, 2019); J.L., Docket No. 18-1804 (issued April 12, 2019); Leon D. Faidley, 41 ECAB 104 (1989).

8 and exacerbation of quadriceps tendinopathy. In reports dated February 10 and April 21, 2021, he diagnosed left knee quadriceps insertion enthesophytes and high -grade tendinopathy with a possible partial thickness quadriceps tendon tear, and a small full-thickness central patellar chondral defect. On June 10, 2021 Dr. Packer performed left knee arthroscopy and synovectomy of all three compartments, chondroplasty, left quadriceps tendon debridement, enthesophyte excision, and left quadriceps tendon transpatellar repair. He opined in a January 28, 2022 note that OWCP’s denial of additional physical therapy resulted in incomplete postoperative rehabilitation. However, Dr. Packer provided only a conclusory opinion on causal relationship. He did not provide medical rationale explaining, physiologically, how appellant’s additional diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by the accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury.15 As Dr. Packer failed to provide rationale in support of causal relationship between the additional diagnosed conditions and the accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury, this evidence is of limited probative value and is insufficient to establish expansion of the claim. 16

Appellant also submitted diagnostic testing reports. The Board has held that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack probative value as they do not address whether the accepted employment injury caused or aggravated any of the additional diagnosed conditions. 17

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between additional diagnosed conditions and the accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his expansion claim.

Appellant may submit new evident 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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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. 18 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to become disabled from work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be proven by a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.19

15
S.S., Docket No. 23-0391 (issued October 24, 2023); see F.H., Docket No. 18-1238 (issued January 18, 2019);
J.R., Docket No. 18-0206 (issued October 15, 2018).
16
S.S., id.; M.C., Docket No. 18-0361 (issued August 15, 2018).
17
S.S., id.; J.P., Docket No. 19-0216 (issued December 13, 2019); A.B., Docket No. 17-0301 (issued May 19, 2017).
18
See C.B., Docket No. 20-0629 (issued May 26, 2021); D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020);
B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019); D.W., supra note 14.; Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 19 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); B.O., id.; N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).

9
 Under FECA the term “disability” means the incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury. Disability is thus not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment injury, but who nevertheless has the capacity to earn the wages he or she was receiving at the time of injury, has no disability as that term is used in FECA.20

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. 21 Rationalized medical evidence is medical evidence, which includes a physician’s detailed medical opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s claimed disability and the accepted employment injury. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the claimed period of disability and the accepted employment injury. 22

For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled from work as a result of the accepted employment injury. 23 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. 24

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish disability from work for the period May 31 through June 27, 2020, and for intermittent disability commencing August 16, 2020, including August 2 and 11, 2021, causally related to his accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury.

OWCP received several medical reports indicating periods of partial disability for work.
Dr. Buchalter, in a June 8, 2020 report, returned appellant to modified duty effective June 9, 2020, with work restrictions through July 7, 2020. OWCP also received reports from Dr. Packer dated February 10 and April 21, 2021, and from January 28 through August 26, 2022, maintaining

20
Id.
21
J.M., Docket No. 19-0478 (issued August 9, 2019).
22
See supra note 10.
23
20 C.F.R. § 10.501(a); C.E., Docket No. 19-1617 (issued June 3, 2020); M.M., Docket No. 18-0817 (issued May 17, 2019); see T.A., Docket No. 18-0431 (issued November 7, 2018); see also Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005). 24 T.G., Docket No. 23-0851 (issued October 31, 2023); J.R., Docket No. 23-0215 (issued July 28, 2023); K.G., Docket No. 22-1358 (issued June 27, 2023); B.M., Docket No. 19-1075 (issued February 10, 2021); R.A., Docket No. 19-1752 (issued March 25, 2020); A.W., Docket No. 18-0589 (issued May 14, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 292 (2001).

10 appellant on light-duty work with a 5-to-10-minute hourly sitting break, use of mandatory safety equipment, and restrictions against repetitive climbing of steps or ladders, and working in confined or poorly lit spaces. Dr. Jamaris, in his February 16, 2022 report, also maintained appellant on restricted duty, with no crawling, kneeling, or repetitive stair climbing. While Dr. Buchalter, Dr. Packer, and Dr. Jamaris provided an opinion on disability during the claimed periods, they failed to provide sufficient rationale explaining causal relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not provide sufficient rationale on the issue of causal relationship is of limited probative value. 25 Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

Dr. Durance, in her June 19, 2020 report, noted the accepted April 21, 2020 left knee injury and his report that he injured his right ankle when he tripped on his cane on April 28 and 29, 2020, thereby injuring his right ankle. She diagnosed a right ankle sprain with edema and held appellant off work. Dr. Amin, in a July 16, 2020 report, held appellant off work due to insertional left quadriceps tendinopathy with a partial tear. Dr. Packer, in an August 19, 2020 report, discussed the April 21, 2020 employment injury, and held appellant off work for six weeks and, in a June 10, 2021 report, held appellant off work for the eight weeks following the June 1, 2021 nonauthorized left knee surgery. However, these physicians did not provide medical rationale explaining how appellant’s accepted left knee injury prevented him from working during the claimed periods of disability.26 These reports, therefore, are of limited probative value and are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

In a June 22, 2020 work slip, Ms. Kohnen, medical secretary to Dr. Amin, related the physician’s directive that appellant should remain off work from June 17 through July 1, 2020. However, as this document was not signed or reviewed by a physician, it is of no probative value. 27

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing causal relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment injury, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof. 28

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R.
§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to expand the acceptance of his claim to include additional left knee conditions and a consequential right ankle condition

25
See T.G., id.; S.F., Docket No. 20-0347 (issued March 31, 2023); T.B., Docket No. 20-0255 (issued March 11, 2022).
26
Id.; see also J.C., Docket No. 23-0669 (issued November 20, 2023).
27
M.B., Docket No. 22-0422 (issued April 3, 2023); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).
28
J.C., supra note 26; M.N., Docket No. 18-0741 (issued April 2, 2020); J.W., Docket No. 19-1688 (issued March 18, 2020).

11 causally related to the accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury. The Board further finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish disability from work for the period May 31 through June 27, 2020, and for intermittent disability commencing August 16, 2020, including August 2 and 11, 2021, causally related to his accepted April 21, 2020 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 2 and December 22, 2022 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: May 12, 2025
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

12