D.B. and U.S. Postal Service, Phoenix Post Office (Board decision, May 16, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's denial of wage-loss compensation beginning September 7, 2024. 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 customer service supervisor had an accepted lower-back strain after lifting a large package. He sought wage-loss benefits beginning September 7, 2024. The Board found his physician had released him to full-time modified work and later indicated he was not disabled from work. It affirmed OWCP's denial of the claimed disability period.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Wage-loss disability claim denial affirmed.
• Key point: The medical reports did not establish inability to work from the accepted strain after September 6, 2024.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
D.B., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0483
)
Issued: May 16, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, )
Phoenix, AZ, 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
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 14, 2025 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 27, 2025 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 appellant has met his burden of proof to establish disability from work, commencing September 7, 2024, causally related to the accepted July 29, 2024 employment injury.

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2
The Board notes that, following the February 27, 2025 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.
FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 6, 2024 appellant, then a 56-year-old supervisor of customer services, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 29, 2024 he sustained lower back pain when lifting and delivering an oversized package while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on July 29, 2024. OWCP accepted the claim for low back muscle strain.

In a September 3, 2024 note, Dr. Shivam Bhanvadia, a family practitioner, returned appellant to full-time modified-duty work on September 6, 2024. He completed an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) on September 10, 2024 diagnosing muscle strain of the lower back, attributing this condition to heavy lifting at work, and indicating that appellant had no disability from work. Dr. Bhanvadia advised that appellant could return to work with restrictions in a separate note of even date.

On October 23, 2024 Dr. Adubhav Jagadish, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, opined that appellant was totally disabled for one month beginning on that date.

On December 4, 2024 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work for the period commencing September 7, 2024. He continued to file claims for compensation for periods of disability thereafter.

In a development letter dated December 23, 2024, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his claim for compensation. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to respond.

On August 5, 2024 appellant sought treatment in a hospital emergency room. Dr. Grace Patel, a physician Board-certified in emergency medicine, related that appellant sustained sharp pain in his right low back on July 29, 2024 after lifting packages at work and diagnosed acute back pain and chest pain. OWCP also received notes from appellant’s August 5, 2024 emergency room visit signed by Mykenzie Chandler and Caitlin Harry, registered nurses.

On January 3, 2025 Dr. Bhanvadia opined that appellant was totally disabled beginning January 24, 2024 and that he needed to lie down flat for a majority of the day for pain relief.

In a development letter dated January 6, 2025, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his claim for compensation. It advised him of the type of medical evidence needed to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to respond.

OWCP continued to receive evidence. On September 30, 2024 Gregory Billings, a physician assistant, examined appellant due to chronic low back pain.

In a separate October 23, 2024 treatment note, Dr. Jagadish examined appellant and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. He reviewed electrodiagnostic studies and diagnosed a mass within the L1-2 foramen concerning for a disc herniation or schwannoma/meningioma. Dr. Jagadish explained that the mass in appellant’s spine was causing his leg pain. Appellant related that he had back strain, and Dr. Jagadish opined that back strain was likely concurrent if the mass was a disc herniation.

2
In a November 25, 2024 note, Dr. Venita Simpson, a neurosurgeon, diagnosed low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, and L1 peripheral nerve sheath tumor, a schwannoma, or benign neoplasm of the spinal cord. She scheduled appellant for surgery in January 2025 due to a lumbar spine mass.

On January 14, 2025 Dr. Bhanvadia again opined that appellant was totally disabled beginning January 24, 2024, and that he needed to lie down flat for a majority of the day for pain relief.

In January 15, 2025 treatment notes, Dr. Simpson reviewed a lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and diagnosed a mass within the L1-2 foramen. She further diagnosed an L1 peripheral nerve sheath tumor, bilateral neuroforaminal stenosis and moderate canal stenosis. Dr. Simpson explained that any pain on the right side of his body was currently from the tumor.

On January 23, 2025 Dr. Simpson performed an L1 laminectomy and right facectomy, L2 hemilaminectomy, L1 intradural tumor resection, and T12-L2 posterior instrumented fusion, and arthrodesis. She diagnosed low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, and L1 peripheral nerve sheath tumor. On January 29, 2025 appellant was discharged from the hospital. In a January 29, 2025 note, Dr. Simpson related that the final pathology was pending on appellant’s right L1 peripheral nerve sheath tumor and that his lumbar radiculopathy was improved. She provided restrictions of no lifting over 10 pounds, and avoid bending, twisting, or turning activities.

Dr. Matthew D. Skinner, Board-certified in geriatric and internal medicine, continued to provide treatment following surgery from January 25 through 29, 2025 diagnosing low back pain and right-sided dumbbell schwannoma status-post resection with fusion of the T12-L2. He instructed appellant to lie flat.

By decision dated February 27, 2025, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability from work, commencing September 7, 2024, causally related to the accepted July 29, 2024 employment injury.

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. 3

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. 4 Disability is thus not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wages.5 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal

3
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). 4 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).
5
See L.W., Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).

3 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. 6 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. 7

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.8

For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled from work causally related to the accepted employment injury. 9 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. Doing so would essentially allow an employee to self -certify their disability and entitlement to compensation. 10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish disability from work, commencing September 7, 2024, causally related to the accepted July 29, 2024 employment injury.

In support of his claim for compensation, appellant submitted September 3 and 10, 2024 notes, wherein Dr. Bhanvadia opined that appellant could return to modified-duty work with restrictions. He returned to full-time modified-duty work on September 6, 2024. Dr. Bhanvadia also completed a Form CA-20 on September 10, 2024 indicating that appellant was not disabled from work. In November 25, 2024 and January 15, 2025 treatment notes, Dr. Simpson reviewed a lumbar MRI scan and diagnosed a mass within the L1-2 foramen. She further diagnosed an L1 peripheral nerve sheath tumor, bilateral neuroforaminal stenosis and moderate canal stenosis. Dr. Simpson explained that any pain on the right side of his body was currently from the tumor. The Board has held that evidence which negates disability during the claimed period, is of no probative value. 11 As such, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

6
See K.H., Docket No. 19-1635 (issued March 5, 2020).
7
See D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).
8
S.J., Docket No. 17-0828 (issued December 20, 2017); Kathryn E. DeMarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).
9
See B.D., Docket No. 18-0426 (issued July 17, 2019); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001). 10 Id.
11
See A.T., Docket No. 25-0224 (issued March 7, 2025); M.B., Docket No. 24-0466 (issued June 20, 2024); S.H., Docket No. 21-0987 (issued September 1, 2023).

4
On August 5, 2024 Dr. Patel diagnosed acute back pain and chest pain but did not address any period of disability from work. Dr. Jagadish, in his initial October 23, 2024 report, diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and opined that appellant was totally disabled from work for one month beginning on that date. On January 3 and 14, 2025 Dr. Bhanvadia augmented his opinion that appellant was totally disabled beginning January 24, 2024 and that he needed to lie down flat for much of the day for pain relief. In notes dated January 25 through 29, 2025, Dr. Skinner also indicated that appellant needed to lie down for pain relief following surgery. However, none of these physicians provided an opinion on whether appellant’s disability from work was causally related to the accepted July 29, 2024 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. 12 As such, this report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In the October 23, 2024 report, Dr. Jagadish examined appellant and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. He reviewed electrodiagnostic studies and diagnosed a mass within the L1-2 foramen concerning disc herniation or schwannoma/meningioma. Dr. Jagadish explained that that the mass in appellant’s spine was causing his leg pain. Appellant related that he had back strain. Dr. Jagadish opined this was likely concurrent if the mass was a disc herniation. The Board has explained that to establish a period of disability a medical report must provide sufficient medical rationale, based on objective findings, supporting disability from work during the claimed period causally related to the accepted employment injury. 13 The Board has held that a mere conclusion without the necessary rationale as to whether a medical condition or disability is due to an accepted employment condition is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.14 As Dr. Jagadish did not provide a rationalized medical opinion, based on objective medical findings, to support a finding of disability due to the accepted employment injury, the Board finds that his report is not sufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Appellant also submitted emergency room treatment notes signed by Ms. Chandler and Ms. Harry, registered nurses, and a treatment note from Mr. Billings, a physician assistant. However, certain healthcare providers such as nurses are not considered physicians as defined under FECA, and their reports do not constitute competent medical evidence. 15 Consequently, these findings or opinions are insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

12
A.T., id.; J.W., Docket No. 25-0011 (issued November 19, 2024); C.V., Docket No. 18-1106 (issued March 20, 2019); M.E., Docket No. 18-0330 (issued September 14, 2018); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 13 T.E., Docket No. 24-0629 (issued September 3, 2024); S.G., Docket No. 23-1181 (issued March 28, 2024);
B.L., Docket No. 23-0551 (issued September 21, 2023).
14
T.E., id.; J.M., Docket No. 21-1261 (issued September 11, 2023).
15
Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: “(2) 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. § 8102(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); J.J., Docket No. 25-0109 (issued January 14, 2025) (registered nurses are not considered physicians as defined under FECA); see also L.W., Docket No. 24-0947 (issued January 31, 2025) (physician assistants are not considered physicians under FECA). David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA).

5
As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish disability from work for the period commencing September 7, 2024, causally related to the accepted July 29, 2024 employment injury, the Board finds that appellant 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 to establish disability from work, commencing September 7, 2024, causally related to the accepted July 29, 2024 employment injury.

ORDER

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

Issued: May 16, 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

6