United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

TC., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1406 

Issued: February 11, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 5, 2014 appellant, through his attorney, timely appealed the March 20, 2014 

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 the claim. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant’s claimed lumbar condition is causally related to 

his December 21, 2011 employment injury; and (2) whether OWCP properly terminated his 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective May 16, 2012. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board.2 Appellant, a 46-year-old registered nurse, 

has an accepted traumatic injury claim for left mild patellar tendinitis, which arose on 

December 21, 2011.3 He was using a foot pedal to manually raise a patient bed when he felt the 

bone in his left knee pop out of place. Appellant also claimed to have injured his lumbar spine 

on December 21, 2011. His lumbar-related diagnoses included left S1 radiculopathy, lumbar 

stenosis, and lower back and left leg paresthesia. With respect to appellant’s accepted left knee 

condition, Dr. Peter C. Vitanzo, Jr., a Board-certified family practitioner with a subspecialty in 

sports medicine, released him to resume his regular nursing duties as of April 5, 2012.4 

However, appellant did not return to work at that time because of his lumbar condition.5 He 

ultimately resumed his full-time, regular nursing duties on May 23, 2012. Approximately, one 

month later, appellant voluntarily resigned to pursue his education.6

 

When the case was last before the Board, OWCP had denied appellant’s claim for an 

employment-related lumbar condition and had terminated wage-loss compensation and medical 

benefits with respect to appellant’s accepted left knee condition. The Board set aside two 

decisions from the Branch of Hearings and Review dated September 26 and December 4, 2012. 

In both instances, the respective hearing representative overlooked December 2011 treatment 

notes from Dr. Sherita M. Latimore-Collier, an internist and appellant’s spouse.7 Because of this 

oversight, the Board found that the case was not in posture for decision.8

On remand, OWCP reviewed the record, including Dr. Latimore-Collier’s 

December 2011 treatment notes and issued two decisions, both dated August 13, 2013. In one 

decision, it declined to accept appellant’s lumbar condition as employment related. The other 

decision terminated wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective May 16, 2012. 

 2

 Docket No. 13-568 (issued July 12, 2013). 

3

 A December 22, 2011 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed, inter alia, left knee mild patellar 

tendinitis, a small interstitial tear, and early patellar chondromalacia. 

4

 Dr. Vitanzo initially examined appellant on February 16, 2012 and diagnosed left patellar tendinitis. He saw 

appellant for follow up on March 15, 2012, at which time he noted appellant’s knee was not too bad. In an April 5, 

2012 report, Dr. Vitanzo indicated that appellant was doing fine and was capable of resuming full-duty status with 

regard to his knee. Appellant had reached maximum medical improvement, and Dr. Vitanzo did not think any 

additional treatment was warranted for the knee. Dr. Vitanzo was aware that appellant was also being treated for a 

lumbar condition and deferred to appellant’s other physician(s) regarding any lumbar-related work limitations. 

5

 Appellant previously tried to resume work in a limited-duty capacity on February 21, 2012, but stopped work 

that same day. 

6

 Appellant resigned effective June 22, 2012. 

7

 Dr. Latimore-Collier examined appellant on December 21, 2011 for a work-related left knee injury, as well as 

complaints of radiating left leg pain and a burning sensation in his lower back. She also conducted a follow-up 

examination on December 27, 2011. In a report dated February 3, 2012, Dr. Latimore-Collier advised that the 

December 21, 2011 employment incident not only caused damage to appellant’s left knee, but also compressed his 

S1 nerve root resulting in lower back pain radiating down his left leg into his left foot. 

8

 The Board’s July 12, 2013 order remanding case is incorporated herein by reference. 
3

Appellant requested an oral hearing, which he later changed to a request for review of the 

written record. 

By decision dated March 20, 2014, the hearing representative affirmed both August 13, 

2013 decisions. She found that appellant failed to establish that he sustained a back injury on 

December 21, 2011. The hearing representative also found that OWCP met its burden to 

terminate wage-loss compensation and medical benefits with respect to appellant’s accepted left 

knee condition. 

As noted, Dr. Latimore-Collier examined appellant on December 21, 2011 for left knee, 

left leg, and lower back complaints following a work incident where he was “pumping bed with 

left foot.” Appellant had already been seen at the employing establishment’s occupational health 

unit.9

 A left knee x-ray was obtained, but the results were not yet available for Dr. LatimoreCollier’s review. Dr. Latimore-Collier ordered a left knee MRI scan, prescribed tramadol for 

pain, and recommended heat and rest. 

When appellant returned for follow up on December 27, 2011, Dr. Latimore-Collier 

noted that his pain had gotten worse. She also noted that an x-ray revealed a possible 

osteochondral lesion and a left knee MRI scan showed tendinitis and a possible meniscal tear. 

On physical examination, appellant’s left knee was still tender on palpation and there was 

numbness down the left leg to his toes. Dr. Latimore-Collier also reported lower back 

tenderness. Her assessment was left knee trauma with neuropathic/radicular pain causing 

numbness of toes. Appellant also experienced numbness in his penis. Dr. Latimore-Collier 

prescribed both tramadol and Percocet for pain, and referred him to an orthopedic surgeon for 

further evaluation. 

Dr. Michael F. Harrer, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, examined appellant on 

December 28, 2011. His initial impression was probable left lower back issue, creating left leg 

radiculopathy with minimal patella tendinitis of the left knee. Dr. Harrer explained that this all 

started when appellant was at work, manually pumping up a bed with a patient in it. He ordered 

a lumbar MRI scan to rule out left-side L4-5 herniated nucleus pulposus, and advised that 

appellant was unable to return to work until further notice. 

A December 29, 2011 lumbar MRI scan revealed developmental narrowing of the central 

canal at L3-4 through L5-S1 without evidence of nerve root compromise. There was also 

evidence of mild dorsal epidural lipomatosis. 

In a January 6, 2012 follow-up report, Dr. Harrer noted that appellant complained of 

penis numbness and voiding on himself after completing urination. Appellant was concerned he 

had neurologic issues. On physical examination, he continued to complain of extreme pain. 

Appellant was noted to have been ambulating with a cane. Dr. Harrer also noted that the recent 

lumbar MRI scan showed minimal congenital stenosis. There were no herniated discs or other 

issues of an acute nature. Dr. Harrer indicated appellant’s problems were no longer orthopedic, 

 9

 Sarah A. Foster-Chang, a nurse practitioner, examined appellant earlier that day. Her initial clinical impression 

was possible patellar subluxation and/or joint effusion. Ms. Foster-Chang excused appellant from work and advised 

against any weight bearing for two days. Appellant was to remain off duty until December 26, 2011. 
4

but maybe a neurologic dysfunction. As such, he referred appellant for a complete neurologic 

examination. Appellant was to remain off work until seen by a neurologist. 

Dr. Leila Hardware, a Board-certified family practitioner, examined appellant on 

January 9, 2012. She noted that he was maneuvering a manual patient bed at work on 

December 21, 2011 when his left knee gave out. Since then, appellant had been experiencing 

severe pain in the left knee, left lower extremity, and lower back. The pain was aggravated by 

walking and sitting/standing for short periods of time. Also, appellant’s pain made it 

uncomfortable to sleep. Dr. Hardware further noted that he had been experiencing numbness, 

tingling, and loss of sensation of his left lower extremity and penis. She stated that appellant 

essentially had neuropathy as a result of his work-related injury. Dr. Hardware also noted the 

results of his lumbar and left knee MRI scans. She indicated that in light of appellant’s 

neuropathic symptoms, he required further evaluation and treatment with a neurologist as soon as 

possible. Follow-up treatment notes from January 23, 2012 included diagnoses of left lower 

extremity radiculopathy/paresthesia, patellar tendinitis, chondromalacia, lumbar stenosis, and 

urinary incontinence. 

Dr. Edward J. Gallagher, a Board-certified physiatrist, examined appellant on February 1, 

2012 and administered an electromyography (EMG). He noted that appellant was employed as a 

registered nurse and while at work on December 21, 2011, he was pumping up a stretcher with 

his left lower extremity and fairly acutely developed knee pain. Later that same day, appellant 

was seen by an occupational medicine nurse who manipulated his left knee, which resulted in the 

worse pain of his life. He also reported having developed pain in the left buttock on 

December 21, 2011, which spread to his left heel. Dr. Gallagher noted that appellant had not 

been able to work since the December 21, 2011 incident. He further noted that appellant 

currently had paresthesias, particularly in the lateral toes on the left, but also to an extent in the 

ball of the foot, and also some paresthesias in the right toes. Dr. Gallagher indicated that 

walking increased appellant’s symptoms in the left lower extremity. However, appellant was 

able to ambulate independently without an assistive device. Dr. Gallagher also noted that 

appellant had seen an orthopedic surgeon, but had not yet undergone physical therapy. Appellant 

was currently being maintained on various pain medications. Most days his pain was a 6-7/10. 

Dr. Gallagher also noted that appellant’s left knee and lumbar MRI scans were essentially 

unremarkable. He described appellant as mildly overweight, but an otherwise healthy appearing 

male in mild discomfort. Examination of the left knee revealed good range of motion and no 

effusion. Tinel’s sign was negative over the bilateral tarsal tunnels and straight leg raising test 

was weakly positive on the left. Deep tendon reflexes were trace at both knees, trace at the right 

ankle, and absent at the left ankle. 

Dr. Gallagher noted that appellant’s EMG was not consistent with polyneuropathy or 

tarsal tunnel syndrome. There was also no evidence of radiculopathy in the right lower 

extremity. However, Dr. Gallagher noted the EMG had suggested, but was not diagnostic 

evidence of left L5 and/or S1 radiculopathy. He commented that despite the unimpressive nature 

of the observed abnormalities, they were acute and probably clinically significant to appellant’s 

pain, which radiated from his back ending up as paresthesias in the toes. Dr. Gallagher’s overall 

diagnostic impression was “[p]robable acute left L5 and/or S1 radiculopathy.” He recommended 

conservative treatment involving either physical therapy or referral for pain management 

injections. 
5

Dr. Dahlia J. Irby, a neurologist, examined appellant on February 2, 2012 and reviewed 

his December 29, 2011 lumbar MRI scan and recent EMG results. Appellant reported having 

injured himself at work on December 21, 2011. His chief complaints included lower back pain, 

left leg pain, foot pain, numbness, tingling, and decreased penis sensation. Dr. Irby noted 

appellant had been diagnosed with patellar tendinitis. She also noted that his lumbar MRI scan 

showed developmental narrowing of the central canal at L3-4 through L5-S1 without evidence of 

nerve root compromise, as well as mild dorsal epidural lipomatosis. Additionally, Dr. Irby noted 

Dr. Gallagher’s diagnostic impression of probable acute left L5 and/or S1 radiculopathy. She 

concluded that appellant had signs and symptoms of left S1 radiculopathy. Although there was 

no significant impingement on the left at his L5-S1 nerve root region, Dr. Irby found that he 

exhibited signs and symptoms of the condition. She recommended physical therapy. 

In a report dated February 3, 2012, Dr. Latimore-Collier described appellant’s treatment 

and various diagnostic studies administered since December 21, 2011. She indicated that the 

December 21, 2011 employment incident not only caused damage to his left knee, but also 

compressed his S1 nerve root resulting in lower back pain radiating down the left leg into his 

foot. Dr. Latimore-Collier explained that appellant was manually pumping a bed and because of 

his standing position, his left foot, knee, spine, and shoulders were unaligned and he was 

unprepared for the pain or pressure that he exerted on his knee and spine. She further explained 

that the unexpected pain and pressure caused damage to his left knee and compression to the S1 

nerve, resulting in radicular pain from his lower back down his left leg to his foot. 

On February 22, 2012 Dr. Hardware excused appellant from work until March 23, 2012. 

She explained that he had been diagnosed with left S1 radiculopathy, which caused back pain 

and paresthesia. Dr. Hardware also noted that appellant would be undergoing physical therapy 

for the next four weeks. Her February 22, 2012 treatment notes also reflected a diagnosis of left 

patellar tendinitis/chondromalacia. 

When appellant returned on March 22, 2012, Dr. Hardware diagnosed S1 radiculopathy, 

lower back pain, obesity, patellar tendinitis, anxiety, stress, lower back paresthesia, and left leg 

paresthesia. She recommended a functional capacity evaluation, continued physical therapy, and 

advised appellant to follow up with an orthopedist and/or neurologist regarding his left leg pain. 

Dr. Hardware indicated that he could return to work in two months, May 23, 2012. 

Dr. Hardware provided additional reports dated April 6 and August 30, 2012. Both 

reports summarized the treatment she provided appellant beginning January 9, 2012. 

Dr. Hardware noted that he initially presented with lower back pain radiating to his left lower 

extremity, burning, and numbness, gait dysfunction, difficulty sleeping, left knee pain, 

paresthesia in foot and toes, and urinary incontinence. Walking aggravated appellant’s 

complaints and caused significant pain. Dr. Hardware stated that his complaints were all 

secondary to a December 21, 2011 work-related injury. At the time, she had referred appellant 

to a neurologist and recommended he follow up with an orthopedist. When appellant returned on 

January 23, 2012, his symptoms were unchanged, but his pain was reduced with medications. 

Dr. Hardware also noted that he returned to work on February 21, 2012, but continued to 

experience left lower extremity pain with numbness. During a March 22, 2012 follow up, she 

reported that appellant had better pain control and improvement with urinary issues, but minimal 

relief with respect to his left lower left extremity complaints. Despite a reduction in pain, 
6

Dr. Hardware observed his inability to sit or stand for prolonged periods without having to 

change positions. She indicated that she saw appellant on two more occasions; April 12 and 

May 17, 2012. Dr. Hardware noted that by May 17, 2012 his symptoms improved, and he was 

cleared to return to work on May 23, 2012. 

On appeal, counsel argues that appellant suffered a low back injury on December 21, 

2011, and continues to suffer from the residuals of the work injury. In his May 29, 2014 brief, 

counsel noted that the claims examiner found Dr. Latimore-Collier’s opinion irrelevant because 

of her personal relationship with appellant. Counsel also argued that the hearing representative 

failed to discuss in any detail the reports of Dr. Latimore-Collier. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT ISSUE 1 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, 

including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any specific 

condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP has only accepted left knee mild patellar tendinitis as employment related. 

Appellant claims to have also injured his lower back as a result of the December 21, 2011 

employment incident. Where an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by 

OWCP was due to an employment injury, he bears the burden of proof to establish that the 

condition is causally related to the employment injury.11

Dr. Harrer, an orthopedic surgeon, examined appellant on December 28, 2011. At the 

time, appellant reported left knee pain and left lower back pain radiating down his left buttock 

into the left side of his knee. Dr. Harrer’s initial impression was probable left lower back issue, 

creating left leg radiculopathy with minimal patella tendinitis of the left knee. He explained that 

it all started when appellant was at work manually pumping up a bed with a patient in it. 

Dr. Harrer ordered a lumbar MRI scan to rule out left-side L4-5 herniated nucleus pulposus. 

After obtaining an MRI scan on December 29, 2011, appellant returned to him for follow up on 

January 6, 2012. He continued to complain of extreme pain and was noted to be ambulating with 

a cane. Dr. Harrer noted that appellant’s recent lumbar MRI scan showed minimal congenital 

stenosis, but no herniated discs or other issues of an acute nature. He determined that the 

problems were not orthopedic. Because of the possibility of neurologic dysfunction, Dr. Harrer 

referred appellant for a complete neurologic examination. 

 10 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 

11 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004). Causal relationship is a medical question, which generally 

requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). A 

physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated 

employment factors must be based on a complete factual and medical background. Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345, 352 (1989). Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the 

diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific employment factors. Id.
7

Although he ruled out an orthopedic condition, Dr. Harrer did not provide a definitive 

diagnosis. Also, apart from noting a temporal relationship, he did not explain how the lower 

back and left lower extremity complaints were causally related to the above-described 

employment incident. A physician’s opinion on causal relationship must be supported by 

medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

appellant’s specific employment factors.12

Dr. Gallagher examined appellant on February 1, 2012 and administered an EMG. He 

noted that on December 21, 2011 appellant was at work pumping up a stretcher with his left 

lower extremity when he fairly acutely developed knee pain. Also that same day, appellant 

reported developing pain in the left buttock, which spread to his left heel. Based on his 

evaluation, Dr. Gallagher’s diagnostic impression was probable acute left L5 and/or S1 

radiculopathy. Other than noting the reported December 21, 2011 onset of left buttock and left 

heel pain, he did not specifically address the etiology of appellant’s radiculopathy. 

Dr. Irby, who examined appellant on February 2, 2012, noted “[appellant] stated that he 

injured himself at work on [December 21, 2011].” However, her report did not include a 

description of the December 21, 2011 employment incident. Also, Dr. Irby did not specifically 

attribute appellant’s “signs and symptoms of left S1 radiculopathy” to his employment injury. 

Dr. Vitanzo saw appellant on February 16, March 15, and April 5, 2012. He diagnosed 

left patellar tendinitis. By April 5, 2012, appellant reached maximum medical improvement, and 

Dr. Vitanzo did not think any additional treatment was warranted for his knee. Dr. Vitanzo 

released appellant to return to work at that time. Although Dr. Vitanzo was aware of appellant’s 

back complaints and left-side radicular symptoms, he did not offer an opinion regarding the 

cause of appellant’s lumbar condition. Additionally, Dr. Vitanzo deferred to appellant’s other 

health care providers regarding any lumbar-related work limitations. Because his treatment was 

limited to appellant’s left knee condition, his various reports do not establish an 

employment-related lumbar condition. 

In her April 6 and August 30, 2012 reports, Dr. Hardware stated that appellant’s 

complaints were all secondary to a December 21, 2011 work-related injury. When she initially 

examined appellant on January 9, 2012, she noted that he was maneuvering a manual patient bed 

at work on December 21, 2011 when his left knee gave out. This is not entirely consistent with 

appellant’s description of the December 21, 2011 employment incident. The February 21, 2011 

Form CA-1 indicates that he was “trying to manually raise a bed containing a patient by using a 

foot pedal” when the bone in his left knee popped out of place. In addition to an incomplete 

history of injury, Dr. Hardware never fully explained how appellant’s complaints were secondary 

to a work-related injury on December 21, 2011. A physician’s opinion on causal relationship 

must be based on a complete factual and medical background and must be supported by medical 

rationale.13

 12 Victor J. Woodhams, id. 

13 Id.
8

Dr. Latimore-Collier, appellant’s spouse, addressed causal relationship in her February 3, 

2012 report. After describing appellant’s treatment, including the various diagnostic studies 

administered since December 21, 2011, she indicated the accepted employment incident not only 

damaged the left knee, but also compressed appellant’s S1 nerve root resulting in lower back 

pain radiating down the left leg into his foot. Dr. Latimore-Collier explained that appellant was 

manually pumping a bed and because of his standing position, appellant’s left foot, knee, spine, 

and shoulders were unaligned and he was unprepared for the pain or pressure that he exerted on 

his knee and spine. 

Counsel noted that the claims examiner found Dr. Latimore-Collier’s opinion irrelevant 

because she was appellant’s wife. Although he is correct regarding the claims examiner’s 

assessment, the hearing representative did not similarly dismiss Dr. Latimore-Collier’s opinion 

based on a perceived conflict of interest. Instead, she found that Dr. Latimore-Collier’s 

February 3, 2012 report lacked probative value because she did not provide a specific diagnosis 

for appellant’s back symptoms and because she failed to explain her opinion regarding S1 nerve 

compression in light of contrary diagnostic evidence. 

In her February 3, 2012 report, Dr. Latimore-Collier noted that appellant had been 

referred for a lumbar MRI scan, but she did not specifically comment on the results of the 

December 29, 2011 MRI scan. The study revealed mild dorsal epidural lipomatosis and 

developmental narrowing of the central canal at L3-4 through L5-S1, without evidence of nerve 

root compromise. Also, Dr. Latimore-Collier’s report indicated that appellant’s EMG “noted S1 

radiculopathy.” Her characterization of the results is not entirely accurate. Dr. Gallagher, who 

administered the February 1, 2012 EMG, and Dr. Irby, the neurologist who reviewed the study, 

did not find definitive evidence of S1 radiculopathy. Dr. Gallagher noted that the study was 

“suggestive,” but not complete diagnostic evidence supporting left L5 and/or S1 radiculopathy. 

He characterized both the lumbar MRI scan and lower extremity EMG results as “unimpressive.” 

Also, Dr. Irby noted that there was “no significant impingement on the left at [appellant’s] L5-S1 

nerve root region.” 

Dr. Latimore-Collier’s February 3, 2012 finding of employment-related S1 nerve root 

compression does not adequately address the underlying diagnostic studies, which at least one 

physician characterized as “unimpressive.” As noted, a physician’s opinion on causal 

relationship must be based on a complete factual and medical background and must be supported 

by medical rationale.14

Based on the above-noted medical evidence, OWCP properly found that appellant did not 

establish a causal relationship between his claimed lumbar condition and the December 21, 2011 

employment incident. Accordingly, the decision of OWCP denying his alleged lumbar condition 

is affirmed. 

 14 Id.
9

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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it bears the burden to justify 

modification or termination of benefits.15 Having determined that an employee has a disability 

causally related to his or her federal employment, OWCP may not terminate compensation 

without establishing either that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related to the 

employment.16 After termination or modification of compensation benefits, clearly warranted on 

the basis of the evidence, the burden for reinstating compensation shifts to the employee.17

The right to medical benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of 

entitlement to compensation for disability.18 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, 

OWCP must establish that the employee no longer has residuals of an employment-related 

condition that require further medical treatment.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

Neither appellant nor counsel specifically challenges OWCP’s finding with respect to 

entitlement to compensation and medical benefits regarding the accepted left knee condition. 

When Dr. Vitanzo last examined appellant, he released him to return to full duty effective 

April 5, 2012. Appellant’s left knee was noted to be “doing fine,” with good range of motion, no 

significant pain over the patellar tendon, and a relatively normal gait. Dr. Vitanzo advised that 

appellant reached maximum medical improvement, and he did not believe additional treatment 

for the left knee was warranted. The Board finds that OWCP properly relied on Dr. Vitanzo’s 

April 5, 2012 opinion as a basis for terminating compensation and medical benefits with respect 

to appellant’s accepted left knee condition. 

CONCLUSION 

Appellant failed to establish that his claimed lumbar condition is causally related to his 

December 21, 2011 employment injury. The Board further finds that OWCP met its burden in 

terminating compensation and medical benefits effective May 16, 2012. 

 15 Curtis Hall, 45 ECAB 316 (1994). 

16 Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989). 

17 I.J., 59 ECAB 408, 415 (2008). To prevail, the employee must establish by the weight of the reliable, 

probative and substantial evidence that he had an employment-related disability that continued after termination of 

compensation. Id.

18 Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 361, 364 (1990); Thomas Olivarez, Jr., 32 ECAB 1019 (1981). 

19 Calvin S. Mays, 39 ECAB 993 (1988). 
10

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 20, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 11, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board