United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, Seattle, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-354 

Issued: September 2, 2014 

Appearances: Oral Argument June 11, 2014 

John Eiler Goodwin, Esq., for the appellant 

Ashkea Herron McAllister, Esq., for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 2, 2013 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from a 

June 5, 2013 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits on November 2, 2012. 

At oral argument, appellant’s attorney asserted that OWCP did not meet its burden of 

proof to terminate his wage-loss compensation because the opinion of Dr. Sanders Chai, an 

attending Board-certified occupational medicine physician, on which the termination was based, 

was not sufficiently rationalized. Counsel further asserted that a retear of a torn anterior cruciate 

ligament should have been accepted. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 30, 2006 appellant, then a 33-year-old medical records technician, submitted a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that on March 22, 2006 she injured her right knee when she rose 

up from her chair and tripped on another chair that was in her office. On September 12, 2005 

she had nonwork-related right knee surgery for a torn anterior cruciate ligament. OWCP 

accepted a tear of the right medial meniscus.2 Appellant was also in a nonwork-related motor 

vehicle accident in 2006. 

Appellant stopped work in January 2007 and did not return. On June 15, 2007 she 

underwent arthroscopic repair of the right medial meniscus. At that time, the right anterior 

cruciate ligament was also evaluated and sutures were removed. 

In a subsidiary claim, OWCP accepted major depressive episode, severe and 

post-traumatic stress disorder.3 

On June 11, 2009 Dr. David Butler, an attending Board-certified family practitioner, 

advised that appellant was seen in follow-up of the March 22, 2006 employment injury. He 

noted that she reported that the knee recently began swelling partway through a three-hour “for 

the cure” walk. A therapist also noted that appellant might be able to return to soccer with a 

sports brace. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Larry R. Pedegana, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation. In an October 21, 2009 report, Dr. Pedegana provided 

findings on examination. He diagnosed a right torn meniscus with repair, more probable than 

not related to the March 22, 2006 work injury and preexisting anterior cruciate ligament 

reconstruction and partial lateral meniscectomy unrelated to the employment injury. 

Dr. Pedegana advised that appellant was fully recovered from the effects of the March 22, 2006 

work injury and had no work restrictions regarding activity involving the right knee. Appellant 

had an ongoing psychiatric disability. 

In an April 28, 2010 treatment note, Sarah Minor, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, noted 

that appellant tore her Achilles tendon at home and had also been in another motor vehicle 

accident. 

Dr. Sanders Chai, Board-certified in occupational medicine, provided a treatment note on 

May 8, 2012. He noted that appellant was last seen on July 1, 2008 and had been lost to 

follow-up until that day. Appellant’s right knee was stable after a slight flare that occurred 

during a hike several years previously and she had injured her Achilles tendon. Dr. Chai noted 

that she had recently renovated her house, repaired a chimney and pulled carpeting on her own, 

 2

 A May 3, 2006 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right knee demonstrated a small tear of the 

medial meniscus and a suspected retear of the repaired anterior cruciate ligament. Drs. Joseph E. Noonan, Jr., and 

Richard E. Hall, Board-certified orthopedic surgeons, provided second opinion evaluations on September 11, 2006 

and September 17, 2007 respectively. 

3

 The knee claim was adjudicated by OWCP under file number xxxxxx650 and the stress claim under file 

number xxxxxx399. These claims were combined by OWCP. 
3

walked two miles three times a week, rode her bicycle five to 10 miles and took no pain 

medication. While appellant reported problems with repetitive kneeling and squatting, her squat, 

gait, neurological and vascular examinations were within normal limits. Dr. Chai noted a 

symmetric appearance of the right knee, upper or lower leg and ankle with no effusion or 

tenderness along the medial joint line. Range of motion was full. Patella tracking was 

symmetric and tendons were intact. Drop and McMurray’s tests were negative. Appellant had 

no instability. Dr. Chai concluded that she was at maximum medical improvement and had no 

work restrictions. On an attached work capacity evaluation, he advised that appellant could 

return to full duty at her usual job regarding her knee claim. In a May 9, 2012 report, Dr. Chai 

noted that in July 2008 he determined that, she was at maximum medical improvement as to her 

right knee and his examination the previous day affirmed this opinion. He concluded: 

“There are no objective findings that support any need for further treatment under 

the claim. Thus there is no causal relationship to be established at this time with 

regard to any injury to the right knee. Claimant and I reviewed the above and she 

agrees there are no work restrictions that are necessary under this claim. I am 

submitting a Form CA-17 to reflect this.” 

By letter dated May 22, 2012, OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s compensation 

benefits on the grounds that she no longer had any disability or residuals due to the accepted 

right knee condition. Counsel disagreed with the proposed termination. He submitted a 

June 8, 2012 duty status report from Dr. Sukriti Singhal, Board-certified in occupational 

medicine, who provided restrictions on walking, limited to six hours daily and lifting limited to 

five pounds continuously and 25 pounds intermittently. 

In a decision dated July 2, 2012, OWCP finalized the proposed termination, effective 

July 1, 2012. 

On July 23, 2012 appellant requested a hearing. In a September 19, 2012 decision, 

OWCP’s hearing representative reversed the termination finding that counsel was not provided a 

copy of the July 2, 2012 decision. 

In a November 2, 2012 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and wage-loss 

compensation, effective that day. Appellant was paid compensation for the period July 1 

through November 2, 2012. 

Appellant requested a hearing on November 15, 2012. A December 5, 2012 MRI scan of 

the right knee demonstrated a posterior horn medial meniscal tear, probable chronic partialthickness tear of the mid anterior cruciate ligament graft with adjacent fibrotic changes, evolving 

degenerative changes and mild superficial chondromalacia of the patellar cartilage. In a 

January 11, 2013 report, Dr. Michael J. Franceschina, a Board-certified osteopath specializing in 

orthopedic surgery, noted a history that on March 22, 2006 appellant tripped over a chair at 

work, injuring her right knee and had right knee surgery in 2006 and 2007. He reported her 

complaint of continued pain and noted that she had not been able to play soccer for several years. 

Dr. Franceschina provided findings on physical examination, reviewed the MRI scan study and 

diagnosed right knee degenerative arthritis and post-traumatic arthritis, probable attenuation and 
4

mild degeneration of the anterior cruciate ligament graft, posterior horn medial meniscus tear and 

chondromalacia patella. 

In treatment notes dated November 13, 2012 to February 8, 2013, Dr. Michael S. 

McManus, Board-certified in occupational medicine, reported a history that appellant tripped on 

a chair at work when she was rushing to an emergency situation. He noted her complaints of 

constant pain and swelling of the right knee and provided physical examination findings. 

Dr. McManus diagnosed a right knee strain or sprain with tears of the medial and lateral menisci 

and partial tear of the anterior cruciate ligament, right saphenous neuropathy, chondromalacia of 

the right knee, compartment syndrome of the lower extremity, unstable knee, status-post 

arthroscopic repair of medial and lateral meniscectomies and chondroplasties, post-traumatic 

arthritis of the right knee and status-post-traumatic rupture of the right Achilles tendon. In duty 

status reports dated November 13, 2012 to February 8, 2013, he advised that appellant could 

return to work with restrictions of lifting 40 pounds intermittently for two hours a day. 

Climbing, bending and stooping were limited to two hours a day. 

A hearing was held on March 22, 2013. Appellant described her job duties and indicated 

that her knee still bothered her. Lisa Wabinga, an employing establishment human resource 

manager, testified regarding appellant’s job duties. 

By decision dated June 5, 2013, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

November 15, 2012 decision. She found that the medical evidence from Dr. Chai was sufficient 

to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits for the accepted right knee condition.4

 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of justifying 

modification or termination of an employee’s benefits. It may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability ceased or that it was no longer related to the employment.5 

OWCP’s burden of proof in terminating compensation includes the necessity of furnishing 

rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.6 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

compensation benefits on November 2, 2012. OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a tear of 

the right medial meniscus due to a March 22, 2006 traumatic injury. Appellant stopped work in 

January 2007 and was placed on the periodic compensation rolls. 

The medical evidence relevant to the November 2, 2012 termination includes the 

May 8, 2012 report by Dr. Chai, an attending physician, who noted that appellant, was last seen 

 4

 The hearing representative also noted that appellant had filed a claim for wage-loss compensation under claim 

file number xxxxxx399 that was under development by OWCP. 

5 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 

6 Id.
5

on July 1, 2008 and that her right knee condition was stable after a slight flare that occurred 

during a hike several years previously. Dr. Chai noted that she had renovated her house, repaired 

a chimney and pulled carpeting on her own, that she walked two miles three times a week, rode 

her bicycle five to 10 miles and took no pain medication. He noted that appellant reported 

difficulty with repetitive kneeling and squatting, but that her squat, gait, neurological and 

vascular examinations were normal. Dr. Chai noted a symmetric appearance of the right knee, 

upper and lower leg and ankle with no effusion and tenderness along the medial joint line. 

Appellant had full knee range of motion, symmetric patella tracking, intact tendons and negative 

drop and McMurray’s tests. She had no instability. Dr. Chai concluded that appellant was at 

maximum medical improvement and could return to full duty at her usual job with no restrictions 

regarding her knee. On May 9, 2012 he noted that he concluded in July 2008 that she was at 

maximum medical improvement regarding her knee and that his examination on May 8, 2012 

confirmed this opinion, stating, that there were no objective findings that supported any need for 

further treatment with regards to any injury to the right knee. 

Appellant submitted a June 8, 2012 report from Dr. Singhal who provided physical 

restrictions. In a January 11, 2013 report, Dr. Franceschina noted her report that she tripped over 

a chair at work and injured her right knee and that she complained of continued right knee pain. 

He diagnosed degenerative and post-traumatic arthritis of the right knee and mild degeneration 

of the graft, posterior horn medial meniscus tear and chondromalacia patella. In reports from 

November 13, 2012 to February 8, 2013, Dr. McManus also reported a history that appellant 

injured her right knee at work and had complaints of constant pain and swelling. He diagnosed 

right knee strain or sprain with tears of the medial and lateral menisci and partial tear of the 

anterior cruciate ligament, right saphenous neuropathy, chondromalacia of the right knee, 

compartment syndrome of the lower extremity, unstable knee, status-post arthroscopic repair of 

medial and lateral meniscectomies and chondroplasties, post-traumatic arthritis of the right knee 

and status-post traumatic rupture of the right Achilles tendon. Dr. McManus advised that 

appellant could return to restricted duty. None of these physicians, however, related their 

physical findings or diagnoses to the March 22, 2006 employment injury. 

In assessing medical evidence, the weight of such evidence is determined by its 

reliability, its probative value and its convincing quality. The opportunity for and thoroughness 

of examination, the accuracy and completeness of the physician’s knowledge of the facts and 

medical history, the care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale expressed in support of 

the physician’s opinion are facts, which determine the weight to be given to each individual 

report.7

 The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that the weight of the medical opinion 

evidence rested with the opinion of Dr. Chai, who fully discussed appellant’s physical findings 

with regards to her right knee, noted that she performed activities such as renovating her home, 

bicycling and walking and that she took no pain medicine. Dr. Chai concluded that appellant 

could return to work with no restrictions. As he provided a rationalized explanation for his 

opinion that she had no residuals of the March 22, 2006 employment injury, OWCP met its 

burden of proof to terminate her compensation benefits on November 2, 2012. 

 7 Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006). 
6

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 OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits on November 2, 2012. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 5, 2013 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 2, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board