F.J. and U.S. Postal Service, Baltimore Processing and Distribution Center (Board decision, February 19, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed denial of intermittent disability compensation tied to an accepted wrist injury. 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 postal equipment operator sought wage-loss benefits for intermittent absences between June 2020 and September 2021 after an accepted left wrist condition. A physician listed days she had been away from work but did not adequately explain why the accepted injury made her unable to work on each claimed date. The Board found the evidence insufficient to establish disability for the requested periods. It affirmed OWCP’s denial.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: FECA; 5 U.S.C. § 8101.
• Outcome: Intermittent wage-loss compensation denied.
• Key point: A list of absence dates did not establish injury-related disability for those dates.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
F.J., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0094
)
Issued: February 19, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BALTIMORE
)
PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER, )
Baltimore, MD, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

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

JURISDICTION

On November 6, 2024 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 8, 2024 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

1
The Board notes that appellant also sought an appeal from an August 29, 2024 decision. By that decision, OWCP’s hearing representative vacated the June 7, 2024 decision and remanded the case to OWCP to refer appellant for a second opinion evaluation to determine whether she sustained any additional conditions causally related to, or as a consequence of, the accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury. Section 501.2(c)(2) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “There will be no appeal with respect to any interlocutory matter decided (or not decided) by OWCP during the pendency of a case.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(2). The Board is, therefore, without jurisdiction to review the August 29, 2024 decision on appeal. Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 3

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish intermittent disability from work during the period June 1, 2020 through September 17, 2021 causally related to her accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 23, 2020 appellant, then a 63-year-old equipment operator, filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) noting that on May 7, 2020 she experienced a recurrent flare up of left wrist pain while performing her regular job duties.4 OWCP adjudicated the May 7, 2020 incident as a new traumatic injury claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx788 and accepted it for left radial styloid tenosynovitis (de Quervain’s). Appellant did not stop work.

On May 8, 2023, appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for intermittent disability from work during the period June 1, 2020 through September 17, 2021.

In support thereof, appellant submitted a June 11, 2020 report by Dr. Brian Janz, a Board- certified plastic surgeon, who noted that she related complaints of resolving left wrist pain. Dr. Janz performed a physical examination of the left hand and wrist, where he observed swelling and mild pain with palpation of the first dorsal compartment and slight numbness in the dorsal aspect of the thumb. He diagnosed left de Quervain’s tenosynovitis.

In a report dated August 21, 2020, Dr. Janz noted that appellant related moderate complaints of pain in the left wrist. He administered an injection into the left thumb first dorsal compartment. Dr. Janz diagnosed left de Quervain’s tendinitis related to appellant’s repetitive work activities. He indicated that he would request approval for surgery if appellant did not respond to the injection.

In a narrative report dated January 5, 2021, Dr. Janz noted that appellant had pain and discomfort along the radial aspect of the wrist in the area of the first dorsal compartment when

2
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3
The Board notes that, following the July 8, 2024 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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. 4 Appellant filed a recurrence claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx013, which was a November 6, 2013 occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) accepted for bilateral wrist tenosynovitis and left dorsal ganglion cyst (wrist), due to repetitive work activities. Appellant also has a prior September 7, 2001 traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1), which OWCP accepted for right shoulder strain and impingement under OWCP File No. xxxxxx206. Her claims under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx206, xxxxxx013, and xxxxxx788 have been administratively combined by OWCP, with the latter serving as the master file.

2 lifting, grasping, and holding objects. He documented physical examination findings, including swelling in the first dorsal compartment and a positive Finkelstein’s test. Dr. Janz diagnosed left radio styloid tendinitis due to repetitive work activities and noted that this condition caused appellant to have difficulty grasping and holding objects such that she was unable to perform her work duties. He recommended a surgical release of the first dorsal compartment.

OWCP also received medical reports by Dr. Janz from November 5, 2021 through October 12, 2023.

In a development letter dated January 25, 2024, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her claim for compensation. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP thereafter received additional medical reports by Dr. Janz for treatment provided from November 20, 2023 through March 7, 2024.

By decision dated April 30, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s disability claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish intermittent disability from work during the period June 1, 2020 through September 17, 2021 causally related to the accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In a May 9, 2024 medical report, Dr. Janz noted that appellant had undergone left carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel release surgeries. He released her to return to work operating a forklift, with no lifting greater than 10 pounds.

On July 3, 2024 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s April 30, 2024 decision.
In support thereof, she submitted a June 20, 2024 narrative report, wherein Dr. Janz found that appellant “has had an injury to her upper extremities and has been out of work intermittently over the course of several years.” Dr. Janz related that she had been off work June 1, 19, and 22, July 10 and 31, August 21, November 26 and December 3 and 31, 2020. The patient was also off work January 4 through 6, and 22, February 18, March 18 and 22, April 16 and 19, May 13, and July 6 through 9, and 16, 2021. Patient was also off work August 27 and September 17, 2021. Dr. Janz explained that “due to her work-related issues [appellant] intermittently had to be off work because of the pain, discomfort, and inability to use her upper extremities.” He advised that she also had trigger finger of the left middle finger and thumb.

By decision dated July 8, 2024, OWCP denied modification of its April 30, 2024 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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. 5 Under FECA, the term

5
S.F., Docket No. 20-0347 (issued March 31, 2023); S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April 19, 2019); J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

3
“disability” means the incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury. 6 Disability is, thus, not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wages. 7 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. 8 When, however, the medical evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an employment injury are such that, from a medical standpoint, they prevent the employee from continuing in his or her employment, he or she is entitled to compensation for loss of wages.9

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed period of disability and the accepted employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 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 disability and the accepted employment injury. 10

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so would essentially allow an employee to self -certify his or her disability and entitlement to compensation. 11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish intermittent disability from work between June 1, 2020 and September 17, 2021, causally related to her accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury.

In support of her claim for compensation, appellant submitted a June 20, 2024 narrative report by Dr. Janz, who indicated that appellant “has had an injury to her upper extremities and has been out of work intermittently over the course of several years.” He indicated that she had been “off work June 1, 19 th, 22 nd of 2020. July 10, 2020 second [sic] and 31 st of 2020. August 21, 2020. November 26, 2020. December 3 and December 31, 2020. 2021 the patient was off of work on January 4, January 5, January 6 in January 22. Patient was also off work February 18, March 18, March 22, April 16, April 19, May 13, July 6, July 7, July 8, July 9 and July 16, 2021. Patient will [sic] also off work August 27 and September 17.” Dr. Janz explained

6
20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).
7
See H.B., Docket No. 20-0587 (issued June 28, 2021); L.W., Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).
8
See H.B., id.; K.H., Docket No. 19-1635 (issued March 5, 2020).
9
See D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).
10
M.R., Docket No. 24-0846 (issued October 29, 2024); Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020).
11
M.R., id.; J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005);
Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

4 that appellant “due to her work-related issues intermittently had to be off work because of the pain, discomfort, and inability to use her upper extremities.” He did not, however, provide sufficient rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the claimed intermittent disability and the accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury.12 As such, this report is insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

In his June 11, 2020 and January 5, 2021 reports, Dr. Janz diagnosed left de Quervain’s tenosynovitis and documented physical examination findings. He did not offer an opinion on whether appellant was disabled from work during the claimed period causally related to the accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 13 Therefore, these reports are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

OWCP also received reports by Dr. Janz dated November 5, 2021 through May 9, 2024.
None of these reports offered an opinion as to whether appellant was disabled from work due to the accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury on the claimed dates during the period June 1, 2020 through September 17, 2021. Therefore, these reports are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish her disability claim.14

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish intermittent disability from work during the period June 1, 2020 through September 17, 2021 due to the accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof. 15

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.

12
M.F., Docket No. 24-0445 (issued May 23, 2024); T.H., Docket No. 23-0811 (issued February 13, 2024); L.L., Docket No. 21-1194 (issued March 18, 2022); R.C., Docket No. 17-0748 (issued July 10, 2018); Dean E. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989). 13 See A.D., Docket No. 24-0411 (issued June 20, 2024); T.H., Docket No. 21-1429 (issued November 2, 2023);
L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018). 14 Id.
15
To the extent that appellant is alleging that she missed time from work to undergo medical care due to the accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury, she may file a Form CA-7 and submit evidence that she attended an examination or treatment for the accepted work injury on the dates claimed. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Wages Lost for Medical Examination or Treatment, Chapter 2.901.19 (February 2013); see S.M., Docket No. 17-1557 (issued September 4, 2018). For a routine medical appointment, a maximum of four hours of compensation may be allowed. J.B., Docket No. 22-1301 (issued March 26, 2024); A.F., Docket No. 20-0522 (issued November 4, 2020).

5
CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish intermittent disability from work during the period June 1, 2020 through September 17, 2021 causally related to her accepted May 7, 2020 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 8, 2024 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 19, 2025
Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

6