United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tampa, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1191 

Issued: September 2, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 29, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the November 20, 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. 

ISSUES 

The issue are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits effective June 1, 2012 on the grounds that she had no 

residuals of her December 21, 2011 work injury after that date; and (2) whether appellant met 

her burden of proof to establish that she had residuals of her December 21, 2011 work injury 

after June 1, 2012. 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 4, 2012 appellant, then a 71-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained injury on December 21, 2011 in a motor vehicle 

accident at work. She stopped work on December 21, 2011.2 Appellant’s claim form did not 

specify the nature of the injury sustained. 

In a January 6, 2012 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual and 

medical evidence in support of her claim. 

Appellant submitted a statement in which she noted that on December 21, 2011 her mail 

delivery vehicle was stopped at a mailbox when another motor vehicle struck her vehicle from 

behind. She was propelled forward due to the impact. 

In a February 10, 2012 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that she did 

not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that she sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty on December 21, 2011. 

In a February 8, 2012 report, Dr. Neil R. Schultz, an attending Board-certified physical 

medicine and rehabilitation physician, described the December 21, 2011 motor vehicle accident. 

He indicated that appellant sustained several conditions, including cervical sprain/strain, lumbar 

sprain/strain and left knee contusion, due to the work incident.3

 On range of cervical motion 

testing, appellant had 45 degrees of extension, 40 degrees of extension, 45 degrees of right 

rotation and 45 degrees of left rotation. On range of lumbar motion testing, she had 45 degrees 

of extension, 15 degrees of extension, 20 degrees of right lateral flexion and 15 degrees of left 

lateral flexion. Dr. Schultz noted that appellant exhibited tenderness/spasms in the right and left 

cervical facets, thoracic paraspinals and right and left lumbar facets and that testing for the 

cervical and lumbar facets on extension caused pain. In another February 8, 2012 report, he 

indicated that she had various work restrictions, including lifting no more than 15 pounds and 

intermittently sitting for no more than two hours.4

In an April 5, 2012 report, Dr. Schultz diagnosed cervical sprain/strain, lumbar strain and 

left knee contusion. On range of cervical motion testing, appellant had 45 degrees of extension, 

50 degrees of extension, 65 degrees of right rotation and 65 degrees of left rotation. On range of 

lumbar motion testing, she had 70 degrees of extension, 25 degrees of extension, 30 degrees of 

right lateral flexion and 30 degrees of left lateral flexion. Dr. Schultz advised that appellant 

exhibited tenderness/spasms in the right cervical and right lumbar facets and that testing for the 

cervical and lumbar facets on extension caused pain. He recommended work restrictions. 

 2

 Appellant returned to limited-duty work on January 3, 2012 but stopped work shortly thereafter. She received 

disability compensation on the daily rolls. 

3

 Appellant also submitted a brief report of emergency hospital treatment she received on December 21, 2011. 

4

 Appellant’s rural carrier position required her to lift up to 45 pounds and to intermittently sit for up to five 

hours. The record also contains a Form CA-16 (Authorization for Examination and/or Treatment) completed by 

Dr. Schultz on January 25, 2012. 
3

In an April 30, 2012 decision, OWCP vacated the February 13, 2012 decision. It 

accepted her claim for a neck sprain, lumbar sprain and left knee contusion due to the 

December 21, 2011 work incident. 

In a May 3, 2012 report, Dr. Schultz diagnosed several conditions, including cervical 

sprain/strain, lumbar strain and left knee contusion. He provided findings for range of cervical 

motion and range of lumbar motion testing and stated that appellant exhibited tenderness/spasms 

in the right cervical and right lumbar facets. Testing for the lumbar facet on extension caused 

pain. In another May 3, 2012 report, Dr. Schultz indicated that appellant had various work 

restrictions, including lifting no more than 15 pounds and intermittently sitting for no more than 

two hours. 

On May 23, 2012 OWCP assigned appellant a field nurse to help her achieve full 

recovery and a return to work. The nurse asked Dr. Schultz to provide information about 

appellant’s work-related condition and ability to work. She provided Dr. Schultz with a form 

that asked questions about such matters as appellant’s diagnosis, prognosis, treatment plans, date 

of maximum medical improvement, permanent impairment and anticipated date of return to full 

duty. 

In a May 31, 2012 report, Dr. Schultz diagnosed cervical sprain/strain, lumbar strain and 

thoracic strain. On range of cervical motion testing, appellant had 55 degrees of extension, 55 

degrees of extension, 65 degrees of right rotation and 70 degrees of left rotation. On range of 

lumbar motion testing, she had 75 degrees of extension, 30 degrees of extension, 30 degrees of 

right lateral flexion and 30 degrees of left lateral flexion. Dr. Schultz noted that appellant 

exhibited tenderness/spasms in the right lumbar facet. 

On May 31, 2012 Dr. Schultz completed the form provided by the field nurse, noting that 

appellant’s diagnoses were cervical and lumbar strains, her prognosis was good, her treatment 

plans involved physical therapy and pain medication as needed, her date of maximum medical 

improvement was May 31, 2012 and her anticipated date of return to full duty was 

May 31, 2012.5

In a June 13, 2012 letter, OWCP requested that Dr. Schultz address whether appellant’s 

accepted conditions (neck sprain, lumbar sprain and left knee contusion) had resolved. On 

June 15, 2012 Dr. Schultz replied “yes” that appellant’s December 21, 2011 work injuries had 

resolved. He did not provide any further explanation for his statement. 

In a June 27, 2012 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits because she ceased to have residuals of her 

December 21, 2011 work injuries. The proposed termination action was based on the May 31 

and June 15, 2012 reports of Dr. Schultz. OWCP provided appellant 30 days to submit evidence 

and argument challenging the proposed termination action. 

Appellant submitted a June 29, 2012 statement in which she asserted that she had not 

fully recovered from her December 21, 2011 work injuries. She submitted physical therapy 

 5

 Dr. Schultz indicated that he did not anticipate that appellant would have a permanent impairment rating. 
4

reports and disability certificates signed by nurse practitioners for periods in early June and early 

July 2012. In an August 27, 2012 statement, appellant advised that she returned to her full-time 

regular work on July 25, 2012. She asserted that she had not been ready to return to work prior 

to that date. 

In an October 17, 2012 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits effective June 1, 2012. The termination action was based on the opinion of 

Dr. Schultz. OWCP noted that appellant did not submit evidence showing that she had workrelated residuals after June 1, 2012. 

Appellant requested a hearing with an OWCP hearing representative regarding the 

termination of her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits. During the February 13, 2013 

hearing, she testified that she continued to have residuals of her December 21, 2011 work 

injuries after June 1, 2012 and asserted that she should receive compensation up through the time 

that she returned to full duty on July 25, 2012. Appellant contended that she believed that 

Dr. Schultz prematurely ended the treatment for her work injuries. 

Appellant submitted a November 12, 2012 note from Dr. Jerry Williams, an attending 

family practitioner, who stated that she could only perform limited-duty work between June 9 

and July 24, 2012 and was released to full duty on July 24, 2012. In a November 14, 2012 

report, Dr. Williams listed dates in June and July 2012 when he treated appellant for ongoing 

cervical/lumbar strain that started December 2011 following a motor vehicle accident. He 

advised that appellant was referred for physical therapy to treat her condition and noted that she 

was released to full duty on August 28, 2012. When Dr. Williams’ office examined appellant on 

November 12, 2012, she exhibited no evidence of cervical or lumbar strain. 

In a decision dated May 1, 2013, the hearing representative affirmed the October 17, 

2012 termination decision. She found that the termination action was justified based on the 

reports of Dr. Schultz. Appellant did not submit medical evidence to establish that she had 

work-related residuals after June 1, 2012. 

In an August 15, 2013 letter, appellant requested reconsideration of her claim. She 

submitted a number of documents relating to her work requirements. 

In a November 20, 2013 decision, OWCP affirmed the May 1, 2013 decision. It found 

that Dr. Schultz supported the termination of wage-loss compensation and medical benefits as of 

June 1, 2013. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

 Under FECA, once OWCP has accepted a claim it has the burden of justifying 

termination or modification of compensation benefits.6

 OWCP may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability ceased or that it was no longer related to the employment.7 

 

 6 J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); Charles E. Minniss, 40 ECAB 708 (1989). 

7 Id.
5

Its’ burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence 

based on a proper factual and medical background.8 

OWCP procedures provide that a request for medical information from the attending 

physician may be the most efficient and expeditious means to obtain a medical status update and 

address any unresolved medical issues. Its’ claims examiner must ensure, however, that the 

attending physician’s reply is well reasoned and responsive to the questions asked. OWCP 

procedures further indicates that if reports from the attending physician lack needed details and 

opinion, or if the subjective complaints and time loss from work appear inconsistent with the 

objective findings and the claimant’s diagnosis, the claims examiner can write back to the 

physician, clearly state what is needed and request a supplemental report.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a neck sprain, lumbar sprain and left knee 

contusion due to a December 21, 2011 motor vehicle accident at work and paid her wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits. It terminated her wage-loss compensation and medical 

benefits effective June 1, 2012 based on the opinion of Dr. Schultz, an attending Board-certified 

physical medicine and rehabilitation physician. 

The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Schultz is not sufficiently well rationalized to 

justify the termination of appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective 

June 1, 2012. 

On May 31, 2012 Dr. Schultz completed a form provided by a field nurse who was 

assigned to the case by OWCP noting that appellant’s diagnoses were cervical and lumbar 

strains, her prognosis was good, her treatment plans involved physical therapy and pain 

medication as needed, her date of maximum medical improvement was May 31, 2012 and her 

anticipated date of return to full duty was May 31, 2012.10 In a June 13, 2012 letter, OWCP 

requested that Dr. Schultz further addressed whether appellant’s accepted conditions (neck 

sprain, lumbar sprain and left knee contusion) had resolved. On June 15, 2012 Dr. Schultz 

replied “yes” to indicate that appellant’s December 21, 2011 work injuries had resolved. 

The Board notes that despite providing an opinion that appellant’s December 21, 2011 

work injuries had resolved and that she could return to full duty on May 31, 2012, Dr. Schultz 

did not provide any explanation for his opinion. The Board has held that a medical opinion 

which is not fortified by medical rationale is of limited probative value on a given medical 

 8 See Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988). After termination or modification of compensation benefits, 

clearly warranted on the basis of the evidence, the burden for reinstating compensation benefits shifts to appellant. 

In order to prevail, appellant must establish by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence that he 

or she had an employment-related disability which continued after termination of compensation benefits. 

Wentworth M. Murray, 7 ECAB 570, 572 (1955). 

9

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Developing and Evaluating Medical Evidence, Chapter 

2.810.7 (September 2010). 

10 Dr. Schultz indicated that he did not anticipate that appellant would have a permanent impairment rating. 
6

issue.11 In a May 31, 2012 report, Dr. Schultz diagnosed cervical sprain/strain, lumbar strain and 

thoracic strain. He indicated that, on examination, appellant exhibited tenderness/spasms in the 

right lumbar facet. In his May 31, 2012 response to the field nurse, Dr. Schultz noted that 

appellant’s diagnoses were cervical and lumbar strains and that her treatment plans involved 

physical therapy and pain medication. These reports do not fully support Dr. Schultz’ statement 

that appellant’s December 21, 2011 work injuries had resolved. He did not adequately explain 

his opinion that appellant ceased to have residuals of his December 21, 2011 work injuries, 

which included a neck sprain and lumbar sprain. Moreover, these is no indication that OWCP 

attempted to obtain clarification of Dr. Schultz’ opinion on continuing work-related residuals 

after receiving his May 31 and June 15, 2012 reports.12

For these reasons, OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits effective June 1, 2012.13

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective June 1, 2012 on the grounds that she had 

no residuals of her December 21, 2011 work injury after that date. 

 

 11 See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986 (1954) (finding that a medical opinion not fortified by medical 

rationale is of little probative value). 

12 See supra note 9 with respect to OWCP procedure for obtaining supplemental information from attending 

physicians. In addition, the record contains reports of Dr. Williams, an attending family practitioner, which suggest 

that appellant had residuals of her December 21, 2011 injuries for a period after June 1, 2012. 

 13 Given the Board’s disposition of the first issue of this case, it is not necessary for it to consider the second 

issue. The Board notes that the record contains a Form CA-16 (Authorization for Examination and/or Treatment) 

completed by Dr. Schultz on January 25, 2012. The Board notes that where an employing establishment properly 

executes a Form CA-16 which authorizes medical treatment as a result of an employee’s claim for an employmentrelated injury, the Form CA-16 form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, 

to pay for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See Tracy P. 

Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003). The period for which treatment is authorized by a Form CA-16 is limited to 60 days 

from the date of issuance, unless terminated earlier by OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c). The record is silent as to 

whether OWCP paid for the cost of appellant’s examination or treatment for the period noted on the form. 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 20, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: September 2, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board