United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cherry Hill, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0023 

Issued: July 28, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 7, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 7, 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 this case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant established a cervical spine injury; and (2) whether 

he established a recurrence of disability on and after May 23, 2013 due to the cervical spine 

injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that, on March, 6, 2006 appellant, then a 51-year-old custodian, 

sustained a right shoulder and upper arm sprain with periosteitis of the right shoulder when he 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

tripped and fell on an uneven surface. Appellant stopped work on March 6, 2006. He later 

revised the history of injury, explaining that on March 6, 2006, he was sent to repair a mailbox in 

a brick column that was damaged by a postal vehicle. The column fell on appellant, striking his 

right arm and shoulder. Following the injury, he returned to light duty. 

Dr. Steven H. Kahn, an attending osteopath Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, in a 

March 10, 2006 report diagnosed right rotator cuff inflammation.2 Dr. Charles E. Wilkins, an 

attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed a biceps tendon rupture on 

April 26, 2006.3

 

A September 12, 2007 MRI scan of the cervical spine showed a left C4-5 disc herniation, 

and central disc protrusions at C3-4 and C6-7. A September 26, 2007 electromyogram (EMG) 

showed chronic C5-6 radiculitis, left C4 radiculitis, moderate bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, 

chronic C8 radiculitis, right worse than left, mild ulnar neuropathy of the left elbow, and a right 

biceps tendon rupture. 

On December 11, 2007 Dr. Kahn performed arthroscopic debridement of the right biceps 

anchor, partial bursectomy, and subacromial decompression of the right shoulder, authorized by 

OWCP. He prescribed physical therapy. 

In a March 5, 2008 letter, appellant asserted that he developed severe cervical spine pain 

due to his history of three herniated discs. He submitted a January 2, 2000 MRI scan of the 

cervical spine showing a mild central disc bulge at C7-T1 without disc herniation or canal 

stenosis. January 20, 2000 cervical spine x-rays showed minimal degenerative disc disease at 

C5-6. Appellant advised Dr. Kahn of his history, and noted the onset of left-sided neck pain on 

March 19, 2008 while undergoing physical therapy for his right shoulder. 

Dr. Robert Ponzio, an attending osteopath Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, 

followed appellant beginning on March 24, 2008. He related appellant’s complaints of left-sided 

neck pain and headache beginning the previous week. Dr. Ponzio opined that it was “odd that 

[appellant’s] complaints of neck pain began a year and a half after” the March 6, 2006 injury. 

He stated that he was “unable to relate his neck pain to this work injury.” Dr. Ponzio diagnosed 

multilevel cervical disc protrusions and cervical radiculitis. He reiterated that appellant’s 

cervical pathology was unrelated to the work injury. 

 

 2

 March 6, 2006 right shoulder x-rays were negative. 

3

 An August 13, 2007 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right humerus showed subscapular 

tendinosis and subacromial subdeltoid bursitis. An August 17, 2007 MRI scan of appellant’s right shoulder 

demonstrated a tear of the biceps tendon and rotator cuff impingement. 
3

Appellant returned to limited duty on March 26, 2008. He continued under medical 

treatment with Dr. Laura Ross, an attending osteopath Board-certified in orthopedic surgery. On 

June 2, 2008 Dr. Ross diagnosed multilevel cervical disc herniations with upper extremity 

radiculitis and radiculopathy. 

On June 3, 2008 OWCP obtained a second opinion from Dr. Zohar Stark, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, who opined that appellant’s cervical disco genic disease and C4-5 

disc herniation were unrelated to the March 6, 2006 right shoulder injury. It found a conflict of 

medical opinion between Dr. Stark, for the government, and Dr. Kahn, for appellant, regarding 

the nature and extent of appellant’s condition. To resolve the conflict, OWCP selected Dr. 

Howard Zeidman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In an October 23, 2008 report, Dr. 

Zeidman noted that appellant had a history of cervical spine problems dating to 2000, then had 

neck pain in March 2008 during physical therapy. He opined that appellant’s neck issues were 

unrelated to the accepted right shoulder injury. 

In a July 29, 2008 report, Dr. Peter F. Arino, an attending osteopath Board-certified in 

anesthesiology, provided a history of a right shoulder injury sustained when trying to prevent a 

brick mailbox from falling on him. He noted that appellant developed neck pain “at a later date,” 

becoming more intense on March 19, 2008 while lifting a two-pound weight in physical therapy. 

Dr. Arino noted an MRI scan and EMG findings showing cervical disc herniations.4

 He 

diagnosed “[a]cute/chronic neck pain with bilateral cervical radiculitis/radiculopathy secondary 

to multiple disc herniations and cervical facet syndrome.” Dr. Arino administered cervical 

epidural steroid injections and recommended a surgical consultation 

In an August 4, 2008 report, Dr. Ross diagnosed right shoulder impingement syndrome, 

multiple cervical disc herniations, radiculopathy into both arms, and bilateral cervical 

radiculitis.5 

In a February 2, 2009 report, Dr. Steven Mandel, an attending Board-certified 

neurologist, noted that EMG and nerve conduction velocity showed left-sided C4 changes, 

chronic C5-6 changes, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, unchanged from September 26, 

2007 studies. A February 2, 2009 MRI scan of the cervical spine showed a worsening C4-5 

left-sided disc herniation, smaller C3-4 and C6-7 herniations. 

In a March 1, 2009 report, Dr. Ross reviewed medical records. She opined that 

appellant’s cervical spine condition was causally related to the accepted March 6, 2006 right 

shoulder injury. Dr. Ross stated that on review of January 2, 2000 and September 12, 2007 

cervical MRI scans, the January 2, 2000 MRI scan showed a C6-7 disc bulge predating the 

injury. The September 12, 2007 scan after the injury showed a left-sided C4-5 herniation, and 

central disc herniation at C3-4 and C6-7. In March 2008, appellant was undergoing physical 

 4

 A July 15, 2008 MRI scan of the right shoulder showed postsurgical status, moderate to pronounced rotator cuff 

tendinitis, mild degenerative changes in the glenohumeral joint, a small spingoglenoid notch cyst, and a longitudinal 

biceps tendon tear. 

5

 In September 2009, OWCP had appointed Dr. Larry S. Rosenberg, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to 

resolve a conflict of medical opinion between Dr. Kahn, for appellant, and Dr. Stark, for the government. As it had 

not provided the complete medical record to Dr. Rosenberg, it did not rely on his opinion. 
4

therapy for his shoulder when his head went numb. Dr. Ross found that his injuries were 

“permanent in nature and directly related to the accident that occurred on March 6, 2006. 

[Appellant] most likely will require cervical spine surgery.” She recommended a neurosurgical 

consultation. Dr. Ross provided progress notes through 2011. 

In April 6, 2009, April 12, and August 25, 2010 letters, counsel requested that OWCP 

expand appellant’s claim to accept a cervical spine injury and authorize recommended surgery.6 

In a November 5, 2009 report, Dr. Scott A. Rushton, an attending Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted a “[w]ork injury in 2006 with continued complaints of neck pain.” He 

diagnosed a herniated C4-5 disc. 

On February 12, 2010 appellant’s postal vehicle was rear-ended by a car driven by 

another postal employee. He claimed a traumatic injury under File No. xxxxxx139.7 Dr. Ross 

noted on March 25, 2010 that appellant experienced increased neck pain due to the accident.8

 

OWCP accepted a recurrence of disability commencing July 13, 2010. Appellant 

remained off work through August 2011, then worked one to two hours a day limited duty. 

Dr. Joan F. O’Shea, an attending Board-certified neurosurgeon, submitted reports from 

September 28, 2010 to May 2012 noting a history of the March 2006 right shoulder injury, and 

the March 2010 motor vehicle accident. She diagnosed C4-5 and C6-7 disc herniations and 

recommended epidural injections. Dr. O’Shea opined that appellant injured his neck in 

March 2008 while in physical therapy. 

A January 25, 2011 MRI scan of the right shoulder showed that the spingoglenoid cyst 

had resolved and the rotator cuff tendinosis had greatly decreased. February 2, 2011 right 

shoulder x-rays showed widening of the acromioclavicular joint space, possibly due to 

postsurgical status. 

In a February 7, 2011 letter, counsel again requested that OWCP adjudicate the issue of 

whether appellant’s cervical spine condition was causally related to the accepted right shoulder 

injury. 

 6

 In an October 1, 2010 letter, OWCP advised counsel that it would issue a decision on whether to accept a 

cervical spine condition “within the next couple of weeks.” 

7

 The employing establishment controverted the claim, asserting that appellant did not ask permission to remove 

the vehicle from the premises. The record contains April 8, 2010 and February 19, 2013 OWCP decisions that 

pertains to File No. xxxxxx139, finding that the February 2010 motor vehicle accident did not occur in the 

performance of duty. In D.T., Docket No. 13-1376 (issued February 11, 2014), the Board affirmed OWCP’s denial 

of the claim, finding that the accident did not occur in the performance of duty as appellant was not authorized to 

have driven the vehicle off postal premises. 

8

 An April 28, 2010 cervical spine MRI scan showed disc bulging at C4-5 and C6-7 with thecal sac impingement. 

A June 28, 2012 report from Dr. Joseph Mormino, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, diagnosed herniated discs at 

C4-5, C6-7, and exacerbation of a preexisting cervical condition. Dr. Mormino attributed her condition to the 

February 12, 2010 automobile accident. 
5

On March 25, 2011 OWCP obtained a second opinion from Dr. Stanley Askin, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, who opined that the March 6, 2006 injury had no effect on 

appellant’s preexisting cervical spine condition.9

 

OWCP found a conflict of medical opinion between Dr. Ross, for appellant, and 

Dr. Askin, for the government. To resolve the conflict, it selected Dr. Thomas O’Dowd, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who provided a December 13, 2011 report finding that test 

results and a lack of clinical findings established that accepted right shoulder injury had resolved. 

Dr. O’Dowd stated that appellant’s cervical spine condition was unrelated to the March 2006 

injury. 

In a May 10, 2012 report, Dr. Ross continued to diagnose right shoulder impingement, a 

herniated cervical disc, and a history of left lateral epicondylitis beginning in March 2012. On 

July 17, 2012 she noted a new right shoulder injury, aggravated by a recent long distance drive. 

On April 18, 2013 OWCP obtained an updated second opinion from Dr. Kenneth Heist, 

an osteopath Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, who reviewed the medical record and 

statement of accepted facts. On examination, Dr. Heist observed a normal lordotic curvature of 

the cervical spine, full range of cervical motion without spasm, no evidence of cervical 

radiculopathy, full motion of the right shoulder, normal strength and muscle bulk in the right 

arm, negative impingement signs, and point tenderness over the right acromioclavicular joint. 

He diagnosed a healed right shoulder sprain, status-post right shoulder arthroscopy, and a healed 

cervical sprain “not work related.” Dr. Heist explained that appellant had mild age-related 

changes of the cervical spine, without radiculopathy. The bulging discs seen on MRI scan were 

normal for age and not indicative of pathology. Dr. Heist stated that based on his review of the 

medical record, there was “no reported cervical injury following the incident of March 6, 2006. 

[Dr. Heist did not] feel [appellant’s] neck complaints [were] related to the condition of right 

shoulder sprain.” He noted that it was “highly unlikely that [appellant] would have permanently 

injured his neck during a session of physical therapy” as appellant alleged. 

On May 23, 2013 Dr. O’Shea performed C4-5 and C5-6 cervical discectomies and fusion. 

Appellant was involved in a motor vehicle collision on June 27, 2013. He submitted emergency 

room discharge instructions and imaging study tracking forms. These documents did not contain 

a diagnosis. Dr. Susan I. Moreno, an attending Board-certified physiatrist, provided pain 

management through September 2013. 

On August 12, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of disability commencing 

May 23, 2013, the date of the cervical discectomy and fusion. He asserted that he sustained a 

traumatic cervical spine injury on March 6, 2006 when the brick column fell on his right 

shoulder and arm. 

By decision dated October 9, 2013, OWCP denied the claim for a recurrence as well as 

expansion of the claim for a cervical spine injury. It found that Dr. Heist provided a detailed 

 9

 In a January 30, 2012 addendum, Dr. Askin explained that he needed to review MRI scans to determine if 

appellant had residuals of the accepted right shoulder injury and biceps tendon rupture. Dr. O’Dowd did not address 

the cervical condition. 
6

explanation finding that appellant’s cervical spine complaints were not related to the accepted 

March 6, 2006 right shoulder sprain. 

In an October 15, 2013 letter, counsel requested an oral hearing, later changed to a 

request for review of the written record. He also submitted additional evidence. 

Dr. Ross provided progress notes from September 18, 2012 to March 4, 2014, diagnosing 

multilevel cervical and lumbar disc protrusions, cervical facet arthropathy from C2-4, 

radiculopathy into the right arm, a labral tear of the right shoulder, a possible right biceps tendon 

tear, right shoulder impingement, and bilateral elbow pain. 

Dr. Moreno provided pain management from June 2013 to May 2014. 

A January 8, 2014 functional capacity evaluation demonstrated that appellant could 

perform full-time work at the medium physical demand level. 

By decision dated July 7, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the October 9, 

2013 decision, finding that appellant had not established that the March 6, 2006 incident caused 

a cervical spine injury. She found that the additional reports from Dr. Ross and Dr. Moreno 

submitted after the October 9, 2013 decision did not address causal relationship. The hearing 

representative further found that as the cervical spine condition remained denied, he had not 

established continuing disability on and after May 23, 2013 due to the claimed neck condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Where an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due 

to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is 

causally related to the employment injury.10

Causal relationship is a medical issue that must be established by rationalized medical 

opinion evidence.11 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the 

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. 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 diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.12 The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its 

probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale 

expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.13 

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

11 Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005). 

12 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 

13 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are 

entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 
7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

Appellant has cervical spine problems dating back to January 2000, and imaging studies 

which show a C7-T1 disc bulge and degenerative disc disease at C5-6. He claimed that he 

sustained a traumatic cervical spine injury on March 6, 2006 in the same incident which caused 

the accepted right shoulder injury. September 2007 imaging studies showed cervical disc 

protrusions from C3 to C7 that were not present on the January 2000 studies. Alternatively, 

appellant alleged that physical therapy on March 24, 2008 caused an onset of neck pain. He thus 

provided an inconsistent history of injury, attributing his symptoms to a preexisting condition, 

the March 6, 2006 incident, and a March 2008 physical therapy session. These conflicting 

accounts cast doubt on the veracity of appellant’s claim.14

Appellant’s physicians attributed appellant’s cervical spine conditions to a variety of 

causes. Dr. Ponzio, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, stated that he was “unable 

to relate his neck pain to” the accepted March 6, 2006 right shoulder injury, as his cervical 

complaints did not begin until March 2008. Dr. Arino, an attending Board-certified 

anesthesiologist, noted that appellant did not experience neck pain until March 19, 2008 while 

lifting a weight in physical therapy. Dr. O’Shea, an attending Board-certified neurosurgeon, also 

attributed appellant’s cervical presentation to the March 2008 physical therapy session. As the 

physical therapy was for an accepted injury, a consequential injury could be compensable under 

FECA.15 However, none of these physicians provided medical rationale explaining how and 

why lifting a two-pound weight as part of physical therapy would cause any of appellant’s neck 

injuries or conditions. Therefore, their opinions are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.16

Dr. Ross, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, opined on March 1, 2009 that 

appellant’s cervical injuries were “directly related” to the March 6, 2006 accident, because 2007 

imaging studies showed additional disc herniations from September 2000 studies. However, the 

Board has held repeatedly that a temporal relationship alone is insufficient to establish causal 

relationship.17 

Dr. Rushton, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted that appellant had 

neck pain beginning with the 2006 work injury. However, he did not opine that the incident 

caused any medical condition. Dr. Mormino, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, attributed 

appellant’s cervical disc herniations to a February 12, 2010 motor vehicle accident, which was 

not accepted as employment related. 

OWCP accorded the weight of the medical evidence to Dr. Heist, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, who submitted an April 18, 2013 report, based on a statement of accepted 

facts, the medical record, and a thorough clinical examination. Dr. Heist explained that appellant 

 14 Tia L. Love, 40 ECAB 586, 590 (1989); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988). 

15 See Carlos A. Marrero, 50 ECAB 117 (1998). 

16 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003). 

17 Louis R. Blair, Jr., 54 ECAB 348 (2003). 
8

had typical age-related changes of the cervical spine which were unrelated to the March 6, 2006 

accident or other aspects of his federal employment. He noted that the imaging studies 

documented idiopathic degeneration and not a traumatic pathology. The Board finds that 

Dr. Heist’s opinion is sufficiently rationalized to represent the weight of the medical evidence in 

this case. OWCP’s July 7, 2014 decision denying appellant’s cervical spine injury claim is 

proper under the law and facts of this case. 

On appeal, counsel asserts that the medical evidence, in particular Dr. Ross’ March 1, 

2009 report, supports a causal relationship between the claimed cervical spine injury and the 

accepted right shoulder injury. He asserts that OWCP has not obtained a rationalized opinion on 

the causal relationship of the claimed cervical spine injury to the accepted right shoulder injury. 

Counsel contends that Dr. Heist’s opinion was insufficiently rationalized to represent the weight 

of the medical evidence. He asserts that OWCP erred in failing to identify a conflict in the 

medical evidence between Drs. Heist and Ross and referral of the matter to a referee” specialist. 

Counsel requests that the Board vacate OWCP’s July 7, 2014 decision. As stated above, 

however, Dr. Ross did not explain how and why the March 6, 2006 incident or sequelae of the 

accepted right shoulder injury would cause the claimed cervical spine injury. Appellant’s 

physicians submitted insufficient rationale to establish a causal relationship between work 

factors and the claimed cervical spine injury. Their opinions are of insufficient weight to create 

a conflict with that of Dr. Heist. 

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 

OWCP’s implementing regulations define a “recurrence of disability” as an inability to 

work after an employee has returned to work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical 

condition which has resulted from a previous injury or illness without an intervening injury or 

new exposure to the work environment that caused the illness.18 This term also means an 

inability to work that takes place when a light-duty assignment made specifically to 

accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to his or her work-related injury is 

withdrawn or when the physical requirements of such an assignment are altered such that they 

exceed the employee’s physical limitations.19 Appellant has the burden of establishing that there 

was no medically appropriate light duty available for the claimed period.20 

When an employee, who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account 

of employment-related residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the medical evidence 

establishes that the employee can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden to 

 18 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.2(b) 

(June 2013). See also Philip L. Barnes, 55 ECAB 426 (2004). 

19 J.F., 58 ECAB 124 (2006). 

20 Id. 
9

establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, a recurrence of total 

disability and to show that he or she cannot perform such light duty. As part of this burden, the 

employee must show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a change 

in the nature and extent of the light-duty job requirements.21 This includes the necessity of 

furnishing medical evidence from a physician who, on the basis of a complete and accurate 

factual and medical history, concludes that the disabling condition is causally related to 

employment factors and supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.22 An award of 

compensation may not be made on the basis of surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on 

appellant’s unsupported belief of causal relation.23

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

Appellant claimed a recurrence of disability commencing May 23, 2013, the date of the 

cervical spine fusion. As set forth above, OWCP did not accept that he sustained a cervical spine 

injury in the performance of duty. The surgery performed to address that nonoccupational injury 

is also unrelated to appellant’s federal employment. Therefore, any period of disability related to 

the cervical fusion was not compensable. Appellant has not established a recurrence of disability 

in this regard. 

The Board notes that none of appellant’s physicians opined that the accepted right 

shoulder injury spontaneously worsened on and after May 23, 2013.24 Rather, appellant 

submitted June 27, 2013 emergency room forms indicating he was injured in a motor vehicle 

accident. This implicates an intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation from the 

accepted right shoulder injury.25 Under these circumstances, OWCP properly denied appellant’s 

claim for recurrence of disability. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a cervical spine injury in the 

performance of duty. The Board further finds that he has not established a recurrence of 

disability on and after May 23, 2011 due to a cervical spine injury. 

 21 Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); see also Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 

22 Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001); see Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138, 1140 (1982). 

23 Patricia J. Glenn, 53 ECAB 159 (2001); Ausberto Guzman, 25 ECAB 362 (1974). 

24 Ronald A. Eldridge, supra note 23. 

25 See Carlos A. Marrero, 50 ECAB 117 (1998) (the Board found that the claimant’s use of an exercise machine 

constituted an intervening cause of appellant’s disability and thus OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for 

recurrence of disability); Clement Jay After Buffalo, 45 ECAB 707 (1994) (the Board found that the claimant’s knee 

injury sustained while playing basketball broke the legal chain of causation from an accepted knee injury sustained 

in the performance of his duties as a firefighter). 
10

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated July 7, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: July 28, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board