T.H. and U.S. Postal Service, Baltimore Post Office (Board decision, March 20, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's denial of disability benefits beginning April 10, 2021. 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 Baltimore postal worker sought wage-loss benefits after an accepted February 2021 injury. The Board found the medical evidence did not adequately establish disability from work beginning April 10, 2021 due to that injury. It upheld the denial.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Disability claim beginning April 10, 2021 denied.
• Key point: The record did not establish work-related disability for the claimed period.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
T.H., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0345
)
Issued: March 20, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BALTIMORE POST )
OFFICE, Baltimore, MD, Employer
)
__________ )

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

DECISION AND ORDER

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

JURISDICTION

On February 28, 2025 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 6, 2025 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

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 has met her burden of proof to establish disability from work commencing April 10, 2021, causally related to her accepted February 22, 2021 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board. The facts and circumstances of the case as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference.3 The relevant facts are as follows.

On February 25, 2021 appellant, then a 43-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 22, 2021 she injured her head, right elbow, neck, and back when she slipped and fell on ice while in the performance of duty.4 She did not stop work.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) reports dated February 22, 2021 indicated that appellant was found lying on the ground and complaining of head pain and headaches after slipping on ice while delivering mail. The responding EMS technician noted swelling to the back of her head and that she was transported to the emergency room.

In an emergency room report dated February 22, 2021, Brinton Barnett-Jackson, a physician assistant, performed a physical examination and observed a small area of bruising and contusion to the occipital scalp. He diagnosed a closed head injury.

In a medical report dated February 25, 2021, Dr. Michael A. Randolph, a Board-certified internist, noted that appellant related complaints of head, right elbow, and low back pain, which she attributed to a fall on ice on February 22, 2021. He performed a physical examination and diagnosed concussion without loss of consciousness and a right elbow contusion. Dr. Randolph recommended that appellant remain out of work and referred her to neurology for evaluation of a concussion.

In a follow-up report dated March 25, 2021, Dr. Randolph noted appellant’s complaints and examination findings and diagnosed right elbow contusion, cervicalgia, and concussion without loss of consciousness. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date, he continued to find her totally disabled.

3
Docket No. 23-0811 (issued February 13, 2024).
4
OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx157. Appellant previously filed a July 14, 2015 claim occupational disease (Form CA-2) for repetitive trauma to her neck and back, which OWCP accepted for a lumbar sprain under OWCP File No. xxxxxx895. She thereafter filed a claim for an August 3, 2017 traumatic injury, which OWCP accepted for other muscle spasm and strain of muscle of neck under OWCP File No. xxxxxx703. Appellant also has a prior claim for a December 20, 2019 traumatic injury including migraines and traumatic stress under OWCP File No. xxxxxx839, which OWCP denied.

2
On May 4, 2021 appellant began filing claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work, effective April 10, 2021.

In a medical report dated May 5, 2021, Dr. Sumanjit Kaur, a neurologist, noted that appellant related a history of migraine headaches which began when she was a teenager. She further noted that she related severe, pulsating, and throbbing head pain following a fall at work on February 22, 2021. Dr. Kaur performed a neurological examination, which was normal. She diagnosed postconcussion syndrome and migraine.

OWCP also received March 25, May 13, and June 29, 2021 reports by Dr. Randolph, who recommended that appellant remain out of work until August 19, 2021.

On June 15, 2021 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a right elbow contusion and strains of the muscles of the neck and lower back.

On June 29, 2021 OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts, the medical evidence of record, and a series of questions to Dr. Michael S. Sellman, a Board-certified neurologist, and Dr. John C. Barry, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for second opinion examinations.

In a July 20, 2021 report, Dr. Sellman diagnosed a mild cerebral concussion due to the February 22, 2021 employment injury. He opined that appellant had no neurological issues involving her head that would preclude her from returning to full-duty work without restrictions.

In a report dated July 23, 2021, Dr. Barry diagnosed cervical and lumbar strain syndrome and right elbow contusion as a result of the February 22, 2021 employment injury. He opined that appellant could return to work without restrictions from an orthopedic standpoint.

By decision dated August 18, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, finding that she had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish disability from work during the claimed period due to the accepted conditions.

OWCP continued to receive additional evidence.

On September 16, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on January 7, 2022.

In a report dated December 15, 2021, Dr. Randolph indicated that he reviewed his treatment records and found no mention of a remote history of migraine headaches or treatment for migraine headaches during the several years prior to the February 22, 2021 employment injury. In CA-17 forms dated December 15, 2021 through February 7, 2022, he continued to find her totally disabled.

3
By decision dated March 24, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative denied modification of the August 18, 2021 decision.5

OWCP continued to receive evidence, including reports by a speech language pathologist.

In follow-up reports and CA-17 forms dated October 5, 2021 through March 13, 2023, Dr. Randolph continued to find appellant totally disabled and diagnosed postconcussion syndrome, cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy, right elbow contusion, and strains of the neck and lower back. On March 13, 2023 he noted that she was experiencing symptoms of post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including fear of driving in icy conditions, due to the February 22, 2021 employment injury.

By decision dated May 1, 2023, OWCP denied modification of its March 24, 2023 decision.

Appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board. By decision dated February 13, 2024,6 the Board affirmed OWCP’s May 1, 2023 decision, finding that she had not met her burden of proof to establish disability from work commencing April 10, 2021, causally related to her accepted February 22, 2021 employment injury. The Board also noted that the evidence of record established that appellant sustained injuries to her head, including visible injuries of swelling and contusion.

OWCP continued to receive evidence, including medical reports dated June 8, 2023 through December 2, 2024 by Dr. Randolph, who noted that appellant related complaints of ongoing neck and right elbow pain, brain fog, and headaches, which she attributed to the February 22, 2021 employment injury. He documented physical examination findings and diagnosed post-concussional syndrome, PTSD, cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy, contusion of the right elbow, migraine, other amnesia, frontal lobe and executive function deficit, and attention and concentration deficit. On July 11, 2023 Dr. Randolph noted that appellant related increased neck pain following a motor vehicle accident on July 5, 2023. In a Form CA-17 dated July 12, 2023, he released her to return to work full time with restrictions of lifting no more than 60 pounds intermittently; two hours of sitting, standing, climbing, kneeling, bending/ stooping, twisting, and fine manipulation; five hours of walking and reaching above shoulder

5
OWCP’s hearing representative also instructed OWCP to administratively combine OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx895, xxxxxx703, and xxxxxx839 with the current claim. She further noted that OWCP was developing expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include a head injury, but that, even if the claim was expanded, the record was insufficient to establish disability during the claimed period. OWCP subsequently administratively combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx895, xxxxxx703, xxxxxx839, and xxxxxx157, with the latter serving as the master file. By decision dated April 18, 2024, OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include concussion without loss of consciousness and post-concussional syndrome. 6 Supra note 3.

4 height; six hours of pulling/pushing and simple grasping; and no driving or operating machinery. 7 On October 31, 2024 Dr. Randolph indicated that appellant had returned to work.

On January 22, 2025 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. 8

By decision dated February 6, 2025, OWCP denied modification of its May 1, 2023 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. 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. 10 Disability is, thus, not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wages. 11 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. 12 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.13

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed period of disability and an 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

7
During several other visits, Dr. Randolph referenced having completed a Form CA-17 or “workmen comp form.” However, the record contains only the July 12, 2023 Form CA-17 by Dr. Randolph during the period June 8, 2023 through December 2, 2024. 8 Appellant specifically requested reconsideration of the Board’s February 13, 2024 decision. However, OWCP has no jurisdiction to review a Board decision. The decisions and orders of the Board are final as to the subject matter appealed and such decisions and orders are not subject to review, except by the Board. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d). The proper subject of review was OWCP’s May 1, 2023 merit decision. 9 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). 10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).
11
See H.B., Docket No. 20-0587 (issued June 28, 2021); L.W., Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).
12
See H.B., id.; K.H., Docket No. 19-1635 (issued March 5, 2020).
13
See D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).

5 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. 14

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. 15

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish disability from work commencing April 10, 2021, causally related to her accepted February 22, 2021 employment injury.

Preliminarily, the Board notes that it is unnecessary to consider the evidence appellant submitted prior to the issuance of the May 1, 2023 decision because the Board considered that evidence its February 13, 2024 decision. Findings made in prior Board decisions are res judicata absent any further review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA. 16

In support of her claim for compensation, appellant submitted reports, and a Form CA-17 dated June 8, 2023 through December 2, 2024 by Dr. Randolph. He noted her ongoing complaints and examination findings and diagnosed post-concussional syndrome, PTSD, cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy, contusion of the right elbow, migraine, other amnesia, frontal lobe and executive function deficit, and attention and concentration deficit. However, Dr. Randolph did not offer an opinion as to whether appellant was disabled from work due to the accepted conditions during the claimed period. 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. 17 Therefore, these reports are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish her claim for compensation.

As the medical evidence of record lacks rationalized medical evidence establishing that appellant was disabled from work commencing April 10, 2021, due to the accepted February 22, 2021 employment injury, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof.

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

14
F.B., Docket No. 22-0679 (issued January 23, 2024); Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020).
15
J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).
16
M.V., Docket No. 24-0092 (issued March 28, 2024); R.P., Docket No. 23-0638 (issued November 30, 2023);
A.D., Docket No. 20-0553 (issued April 19, 2021); M.D., Docket No. 19-0510 (issued August 6, 2019); Clinton E. Anthony, Jr., 49 ECAB 476, 479 (1998). 17 See S.M., Docket No. 22-1209 (issued February 27, 2024); A.S., Docket No. 21-1263 (issued July 24, 2023); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

6
CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof establish disability from work commencing April 10, 2021, causally related to her accepted February 22, 2021 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 6, 2025 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 20, 2025
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