United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

Y.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHESTER POST 

OFFICE, Chester, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1337 

Issued: March 27, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Aaron B. Aumiller, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 17, 20141 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal of a November 20, 

2013 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) terminating her 

compensation benefits. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

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

compensation and medical benefits effective March 25, 2013. 

 1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred eighty days from November 20, 2013, the date of OWCP’s last decision, was 

May 19, 2014. Since using May 21, 2014, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the 

U.S. Postal Service postmark is May 17, 2014, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

On appeal, counsel argued that there was an unresolved conflict of medical opinion 

evidence. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 25, 2010 appellant, then a 42-year-old mail carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that on February 24, 2010 as she picked up a parcel from a hamper of mail 

she pulled a muscle in her back resulting in pain shooting down her leg. She returned to lightduty work eight hours a day on February 25, 2010. 

Dr. James F. Bonner, a Board-certified physiatrist, noted appellant’s history of lifting a 

heavy box in the performance of duty and examined her on February 25, 2010 diagnosing 

lumbosacral (LS) strain/sprain with possibility of herniated disc. He reviewed a magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan dated March 10, 2010, which demonstrated multilevel 

degenerative changes and osteophyte complex as well as facet arthropathy at L3-4. Dr. Bonner 

also reported moderate hyperlordosis and increased pain with facet load. OWCP accepted 

appellant’s claim for sprain of LS joint and ligament on April 20, 2010. 

In a note dated August 18, 2010, Dr. Bonner stated that appellant’s electrodiagnostic 

studies were consistent with L5 radiculopathy. On physical examination, he reported palpable 

pain in her lumbar spine and discomfort on straight leg raising. 

Appellant filed a recurrence of disability on August 30, 2010 alleging on August 21, 2010 

that she stopped work due to her February 24, 2010 employment injury. She stated that the 

employing establishment informed her that there was only one hour of limited-duty work 

available. 

By decision dated September 16, 2010, OWCP informed appellant that she had not 

established a recurrence of disability but authorized compensation benefits for the hours that she 

had no work. 

In a report dated October 21, 2010, Dr. Hagop L. Der-Krikorian, a Board-certified 

neurosurgeon, examined appellant and diagnosed low back pain with bilateral radiation of pain 

into both buttocks and thighs. He stated that her neurological condition was within normal limits 

and found no sciatica and no motor, sensory, or reflex abnormalities. Dr. Der-Krikorian 

reviewed appellant’s March 10, 2010 MRI scan and found degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 

including disc osteophyte complex causing a mild degree of bilateral neural foraminal 

narrowing, touching but not compressing the exiting L5 nerve roots. He also found minimal 

facet arthropathy at L2, L3, and L4. Dr. Der-Krikorian stated that appellant’s electrodiagnostic 

studies were consistent with a left L5 radiculopathy. 

Appellant underwent an additional MRI scan on October 26, 2010, which found a mild 

disc bulge at L3-4 and L4-5 with facet arthropathy without significant central canal or foraminal 

narrowing. At L5-S1 the MRI scan demonstrated mild disc bulge with posterior annual tear and 

bilateral facet arthropathy resulting in a mild right lateral recess and foraminal narrowing. 

Dr. Der-Krikorian reviewed this study on November 23, 2010 and found mild degenerative 

changes from L3-4 through L5-S1 without disc herniation, cauda equine, or nerve root 
3

compression. He stated that appellant’s symptoms suggested an intermittent bilateral lumbar 

radicular involvement with no clear-cut evidence of acute lumbar radiculopathy or herniated 

disc. 

Dr. Bonner completed a note on February 3, 2011 and reduced appellant’s work hours to 

four per day due to increased back pain. He continued to support this schedule on 

March 2, 2011. On May 25, 2011 Dr. Bonner stated that appellant’s physical examination 

demonstrated extenuated lumbar lordosis with palpable pain in the lumbar spine with positive 

sitting root sign. He opined that her symptoms were the result of her February 24, 2010 

employment injury with degenerative disc disease exacerbated by a fall and documented lumbar 

radiculopathy. In a note dated February 1, 2012, Dr. Bonner stated that appellant had no change 

in her symptoms with good and bad days. He noted that she performed light duty with no heavy 

lifting or repetitive bending. Dr. Bonner made similar findings on March 28, 2012. Appellant 

had an exacerbation of her back pain on April 19, 2012 according to Dr. Bonner. 

Dr. Jonathan Morgan, a Board-certified radiologist performed an MRI scan on April 24, 

2012, which demonstrated stable mild bilateral facet hypertrophy at L2-3 and L3-4 and a mildly 

degenerative disc at L5-S1 with mild degenerative loss of both height and signal. He interpreted 

his findings as unchanged. 

Appellant filed a recurrence of disability on April 23, 2012 and alleged that she sustained 

a recurrence of disability on April 19, 2012. She noted that she was working four hours a day. 

Appellant stated that her back “goes out” from everyday activities. OWCP authorized 

compensation benefits. 

In a note dated May 3, 2012, Dr. Bonner stated that appellant had experienced an 

exacerbation of her back condition and was totally disabled. He reviewed her April 24, 2012 

MRI scan and found progression of her degenerative changes in her lumbar spine with disc 

osteophyte causing narrowing in her neural foramina. Dr. Bonner also found palpable pain in the 

low back and weakness in the left lower extremity on physical examination. He found that 

appellant’s back pain had returned to the normal level on May 30, 2012 and recommended that 

she return to four hours of light-duty work. Dr. Bonner continued to support four hours of lightduty work through September 26, 2012. He completed a note on December 19, 2012 and found 

persistent back pain radiating into her lower extremities with lumbar radiculopathy. 

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation on January 14, 2013 with 

Dr. Robert Allen Smith, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In his February 1, 2013 report, 

Dr. Smith reviewed the statement of accepted facts and described her history of injury. He stated 

that appellant underwent MRI scans, which demonstrated a slight progression of the 

degenerative changes in the 2012 study. Dr. Smith performed a physical examination and found 

no spasm, atrophy, trigger points, or deformity. He stated, “Distracted straight leg raising 

maneuvers are negative bilaterally.” Dr. Smith concluded that appellant had no evidence of any 

focal neurological deficit in her legs. He opined that she had no ongoing objective clinical 

findings of a lumbar strain. Dr. Smith further stated that appellant had no residuals from her 

accepted condition. He agreed with Dr. Der-Krikorian that she had no clear-cut evidence of 

radiculopathy and stated that there was no evidence of any post-traumatic compressive lesion on 

the MRI scans that could be attributed to her work incident. Dr. Smith opined that the findings 
4

on MRI scan were related to appellant’s degenerative disease. He stated that she could return to 

regular-duty work without restrictions and required no additional treatment, testing, or activity 

modification. 

OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s medical benefits and compensation for wage 

loss on February 11, 2013. It found that Dr. Smith’s report was sufficiently detailed and wellreasoned to establish that her work-related disability and medical residuals had ended and to 

terminate her benefits. 

Dr. Bonner examined appellant on February 13, 2013 and described her ongoing pain 

symptoms. He attributed this condition to her February 24, 2010 employment injury. 

Dr. Bonner stated that appellant’s most recent MRI scan demonstrated progression of her 

degenerative disc disease. He found palpable pain in the lumbar spine and pain with facet load 

worse on the left than the right. Dr. Bonner stated that appellant should remain on light duty. 

In a report dated March 14, 2013, Dr. Bonner described appellant’s history of injury and 

again stated that the April 24, 2012 MRI scan revealed progression of her degenerative disc 

disease and osteophyte complexes involving her L5 and S1 nerve roots. He further stated that 

electrodiagnostic studies demonstrated L5 radiculopathy. Dr. Bonner stated that the functional 

capacity evaluation demonstrated that appellant was incapable of performing the physical 

demands of her job. He concluded, “It is my medical opinion, within a reasonable degree of 

medical certainty, that as a direct result of the work-related injury that [appellant] suffered an 

acute LS strain/sprain with an aggravation of a preexisting degenerative condition and 

development of acute lumbar radiculopathy.” Dr. Bonner stated that appellant continued to have 

significant limitations of physical activity and that she was unable to perform the functions of her 

normal job. 

By decision dated March 25, 2013, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and wage-loss 

compensation benefits effective March 25, 2013 based on Dr. Smith’s report. 

Counsel requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative on 

April 1, 2013. He submitted a series of treatment notes from Dr. Bonner beginning March 12, 

2013 diagnosing persistent ongoing pain as a result of appellant’s employment injury. 

Dr. Bonner stated that she had guarding in her low back and decreased range of motion as well 

as a pain with facet load bilaterally. On April 3, 2013 he stated that appellant had a burning 

sensation down her left lower extremity with ongoing pain in the lumbar spine. Dr. Bonner 

stated that she could not perform heavy lifting, bending, or stooping. He repeated that appellant 

had palpable pain in the lumbar area and pain with facet load bilaterally with decreased range of 

motion. Dr. Bonner examined her on May 2, 2013 and stated that her examination was 

unchanged. In a note dated May 30, 2013, he reported palpable pain in the lumbar area and pain 

with facet load. Dr. Bonner found weakness in the left lower extremity and decreased range of 

motion. On July 1, 2013 he reported paresthesias and a burning sensation in appellant’s back 

and left lower extremity. Dr. Bonner repeated his previous physical findings and stated that she 

was capable of light-duty work. 

Dr. Bonner completed a report on July 18, 2013 and stated, “It does remain my opinion 

that [appellant] suffered a lumbar sprain/strain, as well as aggravation of a preexisting 
5

degenerative condition.” He stated that her degenerative condition was demonstrated on MRI 

scan and that this condition had “accelerated in the degree, which would not have been 

anticipated if not for the traumatic event of February 24, 2010.” Dr. Bonner further opined that 

appellant’s electrodiagnostic studies demonstrated active radiculopathy as a result of the 

aggravation of her degenerative process, which was consistent with her symptomatology of back 

pain, leg pain, and thigh pain. He stated that the aggravation was permanent based on the 

objective findings of her MRI scans. Dr. Bonner concluded, “In addition it is clear that this 

work-related injury has resulted in an injury that hastened the development of the underlying 

condition being degenerative changes of the lumbar spine and acceleration in relation to the 

ordinary course of the disease.” 

Appellant testified at the oral hearing on August 7, 2013. Counsel argued that there was 

a conflict of medical evidence between Dr. Bonner and Dr. Smith. Appellant stated that the 

employing establishment informed her that there was no light-duty work available for her on 

April 2, 2013 and that she was not currently working. She indicated that prior to the termination 

decision she worked light duty for four hours a day and received compensation benefits from 

OWCP for the other four hours. 

Dr. Bonner completed a note on August 1, 2013 and found palpable pain in the lumbar 

spine, pain with facet load bilaterally, and decreased range of motion. He also reported slight 

weakness in the left lower extremity. Appellant underwent an electromyogram on August 27, 

2013 which demonstrated chronic/active L5 radiculopathy. Dr. Bonner reviewed this study on 

September 26, 2013 and found that she was capable of light-duty work. 

By decision dated November 20, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative found that 

Dr. Smith’s report was entitled to the weight of the medical opinion evidence and established 

that appellant had no continuing disability or medical residuals due to her accepted condition of 

sprain of the LS joint. He found that Dr. Bonner’s opinion was not sufficient to create a conflict 

due to the lack of medical reasoning establishing how and why the workplace incident 

aggravated her preexisting degenerative disc disease. The hearing representative noted that 

Dr. Morgan found only a slight progression of mild degenerative disc disease and stable 

osteophyte complexes in contrast to Dr. Bonner’s conclusions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Once OWCP accepts a claim, it has the burden of proving that the disability has ceased or 

lessened in order to justify termination or modification of compensation benefits.3 After it has 

determined that an employee has disability causally related to his or her federal employment, 

OWCP may not terminate compensation without establishing that the disability has ceased or 

that it is no longer related to the employment.4

 Furthermore, the right to medical benefits for an 

accepted condition is not limited to the period of entitlement for disability.5

 To terminate 

 3 Mohamed Yunis, 42 ECAB 325, 334 (1991). 

4 Id.

5 Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 361, 364 (1990). 
6

authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must establish that appellant no longer has residuals 

of an employment-related condition which require further medical treatment.6

 

A medical report is of limited probative value on a given medical question if it is 

unsupported by medical rationale.7

 Medical rationale includes a physician’s detailed opinion on 

the issue of whether these is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition 

and the implicated employment activity. The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claim, must be one of reasonable medical 

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

between the diagnosed condition and specific employment activity or factors identified by the 

claimant.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant’s February 24, 2010 employment injury resulted in sprain 

of LS joint and ligament on April 20, 2010. The Board finds that OWCP properly terminated her 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Smith for a second opinion medical evaluation. In his 

February 1, 2013 report, Dr. Smith reviewed the statement of accepted facts and described her 

history of injury. He performed a physical examination and found no spasm, atrophy, trigger 

points, or deformity. Dr. Smith noted that appellant’s distracted straight leg raising maneuvers 

were negative bilaterally. He found no evidence of any focal neurological deficit in her legs. 

Dr. Smith opined that appellant had no ongoing objective clinical findings of a lumbar strain. He 

further stated that she had no residuals from her accepted condition. Dr. Smith agreed with 

Dr. Der-Krikorian that appellant had no clear-cut evidence of radiculopathy and stated that there 

was no evidence of any post-traumatic compressive lesion on the MRI scans that could be 

attributed to her work injury. He opined that the findings on the MRI scan were related to her 

degenerative disease. Dr. Smith stated that appellant could return to regular-duty work without 

restrictions and required no additional treatment, testing, or activity modification. 

The Board finds that Dr. Smith’s report is entitled to the weight of the medical evidence. 

Dr. Smith’s report is based on the statement of accepted facts and includes detailed findings on 

physical examination. He noted that appellant had no clinical findings of a lumbar sprain, the 

accepted condition, and that she therefore had no residuals of this condition. Dr. Smith also 

examined the medical evidence of record and found that there was no evidence of any posttraumatic lesion on MRI scan that could be attributed to her work incident. He concluded that 

appellant’s MRI scan findings represented her degenerative disc disease. Dr. Smith concluded 

that she could return to her date-of-injury position without restrictions. He provided the basis for 

his conclusions by listing the negative clinical findings on examination. Dr. Smith also provided 

the basis for his opinion that appellant’s degenerative disc disease was neither caused, nor 

 6 Id.

7 T.F., 58 ECAB 128 (2006). 

8 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 
7

aggravated by her employment incident, noting that there was no evidence of post-traumatic 

lesion on MRI scan. As he addressed the issues of her continuing disability and medical 

residuals and provided a factual basis for his conclusions, the Board finds that this report is 

entitled to the weight of the medical evidence and establishes that her accepted condition has 

resolved with no disability or residuals and that OWCP properly terminated her wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits. 

Appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Bonner, continued to support appellant’s disability 

for work and need for medical treatment. He also opined that she had additional conditions 

resulting from this incident which required medical treatment and rendered her disabled. 

Dr. Bonner also diagnosed L5 radiculopathy as a result of the employment injury. On May 25, 

2011 he diagnosed degenerative disc disease exacerbated by a fall and lumbar radiculopathy. 

The May 25, 2011 note from Dr. Bonner does not support that appellant’s continuing 

disability or medical residuals are the result of her accepted February 24, 2010 lifting injury 

resulting in lumbar sprain, as he attributed her disability and medical residuals to degenerative 

disc disease and lumbar radiculopathy. He further indicated that her degenerative disc disease 

and radiculopathy were attributable to a fall. There is no indication that appellant has sustained a 

fall in the performance of duty and such a fall is not an accepted mechanism of injury in this 

claim. Any injury or condition resulting from a fall would not be compensable and would not 

establish continuing disability or medical residuals as a result of the February 24, 2010 

employment injury. 

On July 18, 2013 Dr. Bonner continued to opine that appellant’s accepted LS sprain was 

due to the February 24, 2010 employment injury. He also stated that she had sustained an 

aggravation of a degenerative back condition as well as lumbar radiculopathy as a result of this 

lifting incident. Dr. Bonner based his opinion on appellant’s MRI scans finding that her 

degenerative disc disease “accelerated in the degree, which would not have been anticipated if 

not for the traumatic event of February 24, 2010.” He further opined that her electrodiagnostic 

studies demonstrated active radiculopathy as a result of the aggravation of her degenerative 

process which was consistent with her symptomatology of back pain, leg pain, and thigh pain. 

Dr. Bonner stated that the aggravation was permanent based on the objective findings of 

appellant’s MRI scans. He concluded, “In addition it is clear that this work-related injury has 

resulted in an injury that hastened the development of the underlying condition being 

degenerative changes of the lumbar spine and acceleration in relation to the ordinary course of 

the disease.” While these reports offer medical opinion evidence that appellant’s accepted 

employment injury on February 24, 2010 resulted in additional conditions, the reports are not 

sufficiently well reasoned to establish that additional conditions resulted from the employment 

injury. Dr. Bonner did not explain how and why he believed that the lifting incident resulted in a 

permanent aggravation of her preexisting condition of degenerative disc disease and the resulting 

lumbar radiculopathy. These reports also fail to support appellant’s claim for continued 

disability or medical residuals a result of her accepted lumbar sprain. Dr. Bonner did not 

attribute her current disability for work or her medical residuals to her accepted condition. 

Dr. Morgan performed an MRI scan on April 24, 2012 which demonstrated stable mild 

bilateral facet hypertrophy at L2-3 and L3-4 and a mildly degenerative disc at L5-S1 with mild 

degenerative loss of both height and signal. He interpreted his findings as unchanged. This 
8

report does not support Dr. Bonner’s conclusions that appellant’s employment incident 

aggravated her underlying degenerative disc disease. Dr. Morgan found no change in her 

degenerative condition following the employment incident. This report does not support 

appellant’s continuing disability due to her accepted employment injury or Dr. Bonner’s 

asserting that she sustained additional conditions as a result of her employment injury. 

Dr. Der-Krikorian examined appellant and found that her neurological condition with 

within normal limits with no sciatica and no motor, sensory, or reflex abnormalities. He 

reviewed her March 10, 2010 MRI scan and found degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 consistent 

with a left L5 radiculopathy. Appellant underwent an additional MRI scan on October 26, 2010 

and Dr. Der-Krikorian reviewed this study on November 23, 2010. Dr. Der-Krikorian found that 

her symptoms suggested an intermittent bilateral lumbar radicular involvement with no clear-cut 

evidence of acute lumbar radiculopathy or herniated disc. This report does not support 

appellant’s claim as he did not diagnose lumbar sprain and did not opine that an additional 

condition resulted from her accepted employment injury. Dr. Der-Krikorian did not opine that 

her degenerative disc disease or radiculopathy were due to her accepted employment injury. 

Without medical opinion to evidence establish a causal relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the employment incident, this report does not establish continuing disability or 

medical residuals resulting from either the accepted condition or from an additional employmentrelated condition. 

On appeal, counsel argued that there was a conflict of medical opinion evidence between 

Drs. Smith and Bonner. The Board finds that Dr. Bonner did not address any continuing 

disability or residuals from the accepted condition of lumbar sprain/strain such that there is a 

conflict of medical opinion on this issue. The Board further finds that he did not provide 

sufficient medical opinion evidence to raise a conflict regarding any additional alleged condition 

resulting from appellant’s accepted employment injury. 

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 has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss and medical benefits due to her February 24, 2010 employment injury. 
9

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board