D.H. and U.S. Postal Service, Saint Louis Post Office (Board decision, May 23, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's denial of the claimed wage-loss period. 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 tractor-trailer operator had an accepted left-knee injury and surgery. He sought wage-loss compensation for July 27 through August 9, 2024. The Board found the treating physician's reports described work restrictions and a return to full duty but did not adequately establish work-related disability for the claimed period. It affirmed OWCP's denial.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Wage-loss claim for July 27 through August 9, 2024 denied.
• Key point: The reports did not establish disability caused by the accepted knee injury during the specific dates claimed.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
D.H., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0463
)
Issued: May 23, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SAINT LOUIS POST )
OFFICE, St. Louis, MO, 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
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 7, 2025 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 27, 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. 3

1
In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3
The Board notes that, following the March 27, 2025 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.
ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish disability from work for the period July 27 through August 9, 2024, causally related to his accepted December 19, 2023 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 4, 2024 appellant, then a 39-year-old tractor trailer operator, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 19, 2023 he injured his left knee when he struck his knee on a wire basket while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on the date of injury. OWCP accepted the claim for contusion and chondral flap of the left knee.

Appellant underwent an OWCP-authorized surgery to the left knee on March 6, 2024 performed by Dr. Mahesh Bagwe, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. The procedure included left knee chondroplasty of the medial femoral condyle and excision of the left medial knee plica.

In a May 28, 2024 follow-up report, Dr. Bagwe released appellant to return to full-time modified-duty work with restrictions of sitting up to 50 percent of every hour, no climbing or squatting, and no lifting more than 10 pounds. On June 29, 2024 he accepted a full-time modified logistics clerk position with the employing establishment based upon the restrictions of Dr. Bagwe.4

In a July 5, 2024 medical report, Dr. Bagwe noted that appellant related complaints of significant discomfort in the anterior aspect of the left knee since returning to work. He performed a physical examination of the left knee and observed minimal joint effusion, full range of motion (ROM), stable varus and valgus stress tests, tenderness in the anteromedial and anterolateral knee joints, healed surgical scars, and a slightly antalgic gait avoiding full extension of the left knee with push-off. Dr. Bagwe diagnosed residual knee discomfort after left knee arthroscopy. He recommended work restrictions and estimated that appellant would be capable of full-duty work in one month.

On August 9, 2024 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work for the period July 27 through August 9, 2024.

In a development letter dated August 14, 2024, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his disability claim. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP thereafter received an August 9, 2024 follow-up report by Dr. Bagwe, who noted that appellant related that he had been doing great for the past few weeks. Dr. Bagwe performed a physical examination, which was normal except for a slightly antalgic gait. He released appellant to full-duty work without restrictions.

4
OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from February 3 through June 28, 2024.

2
By decision dated September 17, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation, finding that he had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish disability from work for the period July 27 through August 9, 2024 due to the accepted conditions.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In a September 6, 2024 follow-up report, Dr. Bagwe noted that appellant related complaints of aching and burning pain along the incision in his left knee, which he attributed to returning to work a few days prior. He documented physical examination findings, recommended an anti-inflammatory medication, and released him to return to work without restrictions.

On October 3, 2024 appellant, through counsel requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review with respect to the September 17, 2024 decision.

OWCP thereafter received a September 27, 2024 medical report, wherein Dr. Bagwe, noted that appellant related that he was “doing excellent” and had a normal physical examination. Dr. Bagwe released appellant to return to full-duty work and opined that he had reached maximum medical improvement. In an impairment rating evaluation report of even date, he found that appellant had three percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity due to loss of left knee cartilage with residual stiffness.

A hearing was held on January 17, 2025. Appellant testified that, during the period July 27 through August 9, 2024, he was unable to work because he experienced an increase in his knee pain after returning to work.

In a February 3, 2025 narrative report, Dr. Bagwe indicated that appellant’s restrictions as of July 5, 2024 were to avoid steps and to sit for 15 minutes every hour if needed. He opined that he was not completely disabled from work between July 27 and August 9, 2024, but did have restrictions. Dr. Bagwe explained that appellant reported increased symptoms when he tried to return to work, and it was possible that there were time periods where he had difficulty walking due to increased discomfort in his left knee.

In a February 25, 2025 medical report, Dr. Bagwe continued to release appellant to full- duty work without restrictions.

By decision dated March 27, 2025, OWCP’s hearing representative denied modification of OWCP’s September 17, 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 “disability” means the incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages that the

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 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 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 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 his burden of proof to establish disability from work for the period July 27 through August 9, 2024, causally related to his accepted December 19, 2023 employment injury.

In support of his claim for compensation, appellant submitted reports by Dr. Bagwe dated July 5, 2024 through February 25, 2025, releasing him to return to work with restrictions as of July 5, 2024, and to full-duty work as of August 6, 2024. In a February 3, 2025 narrative report, Dr. Bagwe opined that appellant was not completely disabled from work between July 27 and August 9, 2024. As he did not offer an opinion on whether appellant was disabled from work during the claimed period causally related to the accepted employment injury, Dr. Bagwe’s reports are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish his claim for compensation. 12

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
F.B., Docket No. 22-0679 (issued January 23, 2024); Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020).
11
J.B., Docket No. 19-0715 (issued September 12, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).
12
Supra notes 9 and 11; see also L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

4
As the medical evidence of record lacks rationalized medical evidence establishing that appellant was disabled from work for the period July 27 through August 9, 2024 causally related to the accepted December 19, 2023 employment injury, the Board finds that he has not met his 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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof establish disability from work for the period July 27 through August 9, 2024 causally related to his accepted December 19, 2023 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 27, 2025 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 23, 2025
Washington, DC

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

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

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

5