United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRUBTION CENTER, Edison, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-572 

Issued: May 27, 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 H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 13, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 18, 

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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss 

compensation and authorization for medical benefits effective February 3, 2014 as he had no 

further residuals or disability causally related to his accepted employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 18, 2011 appellant, then a 38-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that he sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, a cervical condition, 

and a bilateral shoulder condition due to factors of his federal employment. He indicated that his 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

symptoms began on April 1, 2007. Appellant stopped work on April 15, 2011 and did not return. 

The employing establishment noted that he was off work under file number xxxxxx314, but that 

OWCP had found that he did not sustain a recurrence of disability so he was filing an 

occupational disease claim. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for brachial neuritis. It noted that he had a prior 2007 

accepted claim for left wrist sprain, assigned file number xxxxxx355 and another 2007 claim 

accepted for brachial neuritis, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, assigned file number 

xxxxxx314. 

In a form report dated September 7, 2011, Dr. Mark A.P. Filippone, an attending Boardcertified physiatrist, diagnosed cervical radiculopathy and found that appellant was totally 

disabled. 

On November 18, 2011 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Kenneth Heist, an osteopath, for 

a second opinion examination. In a report dated December 1, 2011, Dr. Heist reviewed the 

history of injury and diagnosed cervical sprain, preexisting degenerative cervical disease, and left 

shoulder sprain. He found that he had no current findings of brachial neuritis. Dr. Heist 

determined that appellant had sustained a temporary aggravation of preexisting degenerative 

disease of the spine. He opined that appellant could return to work without restrictions. 

On January 11, 2012 OWCP notified appellant of its proposed termination of his 

compensation and authorization for medical benefits. It found that based on Dr. Heist’s report he 

had also sustained a temporary aggravation of a preexisting cervical condition that had resolved. 

On January 26, 2012 Dr. Filippone reviewed Dr. Heist’s report and the notice of 

proposed termination of compensation. He found objective evidence of spasm and neurological 

deficits and noted that a January 10, 2011 electromyogram (EMG) showed bilateral cervical 

radiculopathy at C5 through C7 and carpal tunnel syndrome on the right side. Dr. Filippone 

further advised that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan study obtained January 13, 2011 

revealed right lateral osteophyte disc complexes at C3-4 and C4-5 with right neural foraminal 

narrowing, a disc herniation on the left at C6-7 with thecal sac compression and foraminal 

narrowing on the left, and a right posterolateral T1-2 disc herniation. He opined that appellant 

was totally disabled from employment. 

By decision dated February 14, 2012, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and authorization for medical treatment effective that date. It found that 

Dr. Heist’s report constituted the weight of the evidence and established that he had no further 

employment-related condition or disability. 

On February 22, 2012 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. Following a preliminary review, in a decision dated May 2, 2012 

the hearing representative reversed the February 14, 2012 decision. He noted that appellant had 

an accepted claim, assigned file number xxxxxx314, with continued work restrictions and an 

accepted condition of brachial neuritis. The hearing representative found that OWCP should 

double file number xxxxxx314 into the current file number and update the statement of accepted 

facts (SOAF) to include his work duties as mail handler. He also noted that it appeared that 

appellant had worked modified employment since 2009, and that the SOAF should therefore 
3

provide his actual work duties from February 3, 2009 until April 15, 2011. The hearing 

representative further instructed OWCP to obtain a supplemental report from Dr. Heist based on 

the updated statement of accepted facts and providing a rationalized opinion regarding whether 

appellant’s brachial neuritis had resolved. 

On May 22, 2012 Dr. Gregory J. Lawler, an osteopath, began providing pain 

management treatment. He submitted progress reports describing his treatment of appellant 

throughout 2012 and 2013. 

On May 30, 2012 OWCP doubled the current file number and file number xxxxxx314. It 

prepared an updated SOAF dated July 19, 2012 describing appellant’s job as a mail handler and 

indicating that it had accepted left wrist sprain under file number xxxxxx355 and brachial 

neuritis and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome under file number xxxxxx314. 

On July 19, 2012 the employing establishment advised that it had no record of appellant 

performing a modified assignment. In file number xxxxxx314, appellant accepted modified job 

offers on December 9, 2008 and January 22, 2009. 

In a report dated August 1, 2012, Dr. Filippone described appellant’s continued 

complaints of neck pain radiating into both shoulders more pronounced on the left side. In an 

accompanying form report dated August 1, 2012, the physician diagnosed cervical radiculopathy 

and found that appellant was totally disabled. 

In a supplemental report dated August 6, 2012, Dr. Heist reviewed the updated SOAF 

and the reports from Dr. Filippone. He concluded that appellant’s left shoulder sprain, cervical 

sprain, and brachial neuritis had resolved and that his degenerative conditions and herniations 

demonstrated on MRI scan study did not result from his work duties. 

OWCP determined that a conflict existed between Dr. Filippone and Dr. Heist regarding 

whether appellant had any continuing employment-related disability. On September 20, 2012 it 

referred appellant to Dr. Edward Krisiloff, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial 

medical examination. OWCP requested that Dr. Krisiloff provide an opinion regarding whether 

appellant had current findings of brachial neuritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or cervical 

degenerative disc disease. It further asked that Dr. Krisiloff address whether appellant could 

perform his duties as a mail handler lifting up to 70 pounds. 

In a report dated October 9, 2012, Dr. Krisiloff discussed appellant’s history of arm 

problems beginning in 2007 and his history of bilateral carpal tunnel releases in 2008. He noted 

that he returned to his usual employment in February 2009 following his carpal tunnel releases. 

In December 2009, appellant began working light duty. He continued to experience symptoms 

of carpal tunnel syndrome. On examination Dr. Krisiloff found adequate range of motion of the 

cervical spine and full range of motion of the shoulders with no impingement, loss of strength, or 

“obvious atrophy in the upper extremities.” He noted that appellant experienced pain while 

trying to lift his arms overhead. Dr. Krisiloff related, “[Appellant] has apparently recovered 

from his carpal tunnel syndrome and subsequent nerve conduction studies revealed good 

conduction across the wrists. He continues to complain of significant discomfort in his neck, 
4

shoulders, and intermittent upper extremity numbness and tingling. [Appellant] feels that he 

cannot return to the type of work that he performed previously.” Dr. Krisiloff further stated: 

“It is my medical opinion, stated within a reasonable degree of medical 

probability, that [appellant] certainly has underlying cervical spondylosis. 

[Appellant’s] MRI [scan] studies reflect this quite clearly. Two separate studies 

were performed and there was no interval change between studies. [Appellant] 

did develop bilateral carpal tunnel troubles and for this, a surgical decompression 

was performed. [Appellant] has apparently done well and repeat nerve 

conduction studies performed well after his surgery showed normal conduction 

across the wrist joints. He has therefore recovered from his carpal tunnel troubles 

and this should no longer be an issue. As far as [appellant’s] neck is concerned, 

his studies certainly show evidence of cervical spondylosis. This is a 

degenerative condition that is not related to the work that he did for the 

[employing establishment]. It is my opinion that [appellant] developed an 

exacerbation of this underlying condition while at work. The question that now 

faces us is whether this exacerbation has resolved and whether [he] is capable of a 

return to work. 

“[Appellant] certainly complains of ongoing difficulties with his neck and upper 

extremities, but there is simply no corroborative evidence on his physical 

examination. [He] does have some slight restrictions in his cervical spine range 

of motion but he has absolutely no evidence of any loss of strength in his upper 

extremities. There is no muscular atrophy. [Appellant’s] sensory examination 

appears to be normal. There is simply no physical evidence of ongoing brachial 

neuritis, which is his accepted condition. [Appellant] does have evidence on 

EMG of bilateral partial denervation at C5, C6, and C7, but this is simply not 

reflected on his physical examination as far as weakness of his upper extremities. 

It is my medical opinion that [he] did suffer a temporary exacerbation of his 

underlying degenerative cervical disc disease and that condition has now 

resolved. I feel that [appellant] is capable of returning to work at this time. 

However, I do feel that certain restrictions might be necessary in returning him to 

work. I am primarily concerned about the 70-pound requirement in lifting in 

performing his duties as a mail handler. I think that it would be reasonable to 

schedule a Functional Capacity Evaluation [FCE] to determine exact lifting 

capabilities.” 

Dr. Krisiloff concluded that appellant had no findings of brachial neuritis and carpal 

tunnel syndrome, but had underlying cervical disc disease unrelated to his employment injury. 

He again recommended an FCE. Dr. Krisiloff advised that if appellant could not perform his 

regular employment it would be due to his underlying cervical disc disease rather than his work 

injury. 

On November 14, 2012 OWCP requested that Dr. Filippone refer appellant for a FCE to 

determine his work ability as requested by the impartial medical examiner. 

In a report dated December 5, 2012, Dr. Filippone related that appellant had abnormal 

electrodiagnostic studies and multiple levels of injury on MRI scan studies of the cervical and 
5

thoracic spine. He advised that an FCE “might inadvertently hurt [appellant]” and declined to 

provide a referral for a FCE. 

By letter dated January 10, 2013, OWCP requested that Dr. Krisiloff refer appellant for a 

FCE. 

In a report dated January 23, 2013, Dr. Filippone noted that Dr. Lawler had referred 

appellant to Dr. Marc Arginteanu, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, for evaluation. On 

January 28, 2013 Dr. Arginteanu noted that appellant began experiencing pain in his upper 

extremities and neck lifting and moving heavy objects at work. He found that an MRI scan study 

showed “multiple disc derangement with bulging discs, osteophyte formation, and foraminal 

stenosis” and recommended surgery. 

A March 14, 2013 cervical discography was positive at C3-4 and C6-7. A March 14, 

2013 cervical MRI scan study obtained after the discography showed a posterior disc bulge and 

bilateral uncovertebral hypertrophy at C3-4 and C4-5 with right more than left foraminal 

narrowing, a disc bulge at C5-6, and a midline disc herniation at C6-7 with effacement of the 

ventral thecal sac and moderate bilateral neural foraminal narrowing. 

On April 19, 2013 appellant’s counsel requested that OWCP authorize Dr. Lawler’s 

request to perform cervical spinal surgery. He also requested that OWCP postpone the FCE in 

view of Dr. Filippone’s finding that it might harm appellant. 

In a progress report dated May 17, 2013, Dr. Filippone reviewed the results of the MRI 

scan study obtained after the discogram. On July 19, 2013 he found that appellant had a positive 

Tinel’s sign and Phalen’s test and diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Filippone 

found that he was unable to work due to his problem with his neck, spine, and upper extremities 

and his use of pain medication. In a form report dated July 19, 2013, he diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy, checked “yes” that the condition was work related, and found that appellant was 

totally disabled.2

Appellant underwent an FCE on August 13, 2013. In a report dated August 14, 2013, the 

physical therapist noted that appellant took pain medication before the FCE. He stated, 

“[Appellant] did perform in the heavy demand level but secondary to the amount of medication 

taken prior to the evaluation and length of time since initial onset, [h]e is currently functioning 

safely in the medium work level at this time. He is capable of performing all work activities that 

fit the parameters tested during the FCE.” 

On August 28, 2013 Dr. Filippone challenged the FCE finding that appellant could 

perform full-time employment. 

In a supplemental report dated October 30, 2013, Dr. Krisiloff noted that the FCE showed 

that appellant could “occasionally lift 80 pounds in a lift and carry, 70 pounds from the floor and 

60 pounds to shoulder level. On a frequent basis the limits are 60 pounds, 50 pounds, and 

40 pounds. On a constant basis the limits are 40 pounds, 30 pounds, and 20 pounds.” 

Dr. Krisiloff opined that appellant could work as a mail handler and advised that the FCE 

 2

 Dr. Filippone submitted similar form reports throughout 2012 and 2013. 
6

established that his “temporary aggravation of his cervical spondylosis has ceased. [Appellant] 

was able to exert reasonable effort and perform reasonably well at a medium work level. If [he] 

were suffering from a significant degree of neck pain and upper extremity troubles he would not 

have been able to perform at this level.” 

On November 14, 2013 OWCP notified appellant of its proposed termination of his 

compensation and authorization for medical benefits. 

In a progress report dated November 27, 2013, Dr. Lawler indicated that appellant did not 

have weakness, but continued to experience pain. He recommended that appellant see a surgeon 

and obtain treatment before returning to work. 

In a December 2, 2013 response to the notice of proposed termination, appellant’s 

counsel argued that the FCE indicated that appellant could perform medium level work, but that 

the mail handler’s position was classified as heavy work. 

On December 2, 2013 Dr. Arginteanu reviewed the discogram and MRI scan study and 

indicated that the studies showed that a foraminotomy at C6-7 on the left “would be indicated.” 

He noted that appellant was interested in a nucleoplasty, which he found was reasonable. 

In a form report dated December 3, 2013, Dr. Filippone diagnosed cervical radiculopathy 

and found that appellant was totally disabled. 

By decision dated February 3, 2014, OWCP terminated appellant’s compensation and 

authorization for medical benefits effective that date. It found that Dr. Krisiloff’s opinion as the 

impartial medical examiner represented the weight of the medical evidence and established that 

appellant had no further disability or residuals of his accepted work injury. 

On February 10, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing.3

 At the 

hearing, held on June 10, 2014, counsel discussed appellant’s history of injuries and work duties 

argued that a new job appellant performed in December 2010 aggravated his condition. He 

argued that OWCP should amend the SOAF to include appellant’s other claim and expand 

acceptance of the claim to include an aggravation of previously accepted cervical radiculopathy 

and neck condition and an aggravation of carpal tunnel syndrome. Counsel asserted that 

Dr. Krisiloff did not discuss his herniated discs and failed to provide rationale for his finding that 

appellant has no residuals of his carpal tunnel syndrome, especially given the findings on a 

January 10, 2011 EMG study. He also argued that the FCE demonstrated that appellant could 

perform medium rather than heavy work and thus Dr. Krisiloff’s finding that appellant could 

work as a mail handler was not supported by the FCE. Counsel notes that the SOAF did not 

describe his job duties from 2009 to 2011. 

In a letter dated June 24, 2014, appellant’s counsel noted that Dr. Lawler and 

Dr. Arginteanu recommended surgery and resubmitted their December 2013 reports. 

 3

 Appellant returned to work on February 4, 2014. 
7

By decision dated August 18, 2014, the hearing representative affirmed the February 3, 

2014 decision. She found Dr. Krisiloff’s opinion as the impartial medical examiner was entitled 

to the special weight of the evidence. 

On appeal, appellant’s counsel argues that the SOAF did not include information about 

the accepted left wrist sprain and advises that the accepted conditions should include bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome and an aggravation of cervical radiculopathy. He contends that appellant 

is not able to perform the work duties of a mail handler. Counsel argues that Dr. Krisiloff did 

not discuss the results of objective testing, that his reports are speculative, and that his opinion 

regarding disability is inconsistent, and that the FCE did not show that appellant could work as a 

mail handler. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

modification or termination of an employee’s benefits.4

 It may not terminate compensation 

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

 

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

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

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

entitlement for disability compensation.7

 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, 

OWCP must establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition 

which require further medical treatment.8

Section 8123(a) provides that, if there is disagreement between the physician making the 

examination for the United States and the physician of the employee, the Secretary shall appoint 

a third physician who shall make an examination.9 The implementing regulations state that, if a 

conflict exists between the medical opinion of the employee’s physician and the medical opinion 

of either a second opinion physician or an OWCP medical adviser, OWCP shall appoint a third 

physician to make an examination. This is called a referee examination and OWCP will select a 

physician who is qualified in the appropriate specialty and who has no prior connection with the 

case.10 In situations where there exist opposing medical reports of virtually equal weight and 

rationale and the case is referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving 

 4 Elaine Sneed, 56 ECAB 373 (2005). 

5 Fred Reese, 56 ECAB 568 (2005); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 

6 Gewin C. Hawkins, 52 ECAB 242 (2001). 

7 T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Pamela K. Guesford, 53 ECAB 727 (2002). 

8 Id. 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.321. 
8

the conflict, the opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based upon a 

proper factual background, must be given special weight.11

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained brachial neuritis causally related to work factors 

under the current file number. It previously accepted that he sustained left wrist sprain under file 

number xxxxxx355 and brachial neuritis and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome under file number 

xxxxxx314. OWCP further noted that, based on the opinion of Dr. Heist, appellant sustained a 

temporary aggravation of preexisting cervical degenerative disc disease due to his work injury. 

It determined that, a conflict in medical opinion existed between Dr. Heist, OWCP referral 

physician, and Dr. Filippone, appellant’s attending physician, regarding whether appellant had 

any current findings of brachial neuritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or cervical degenerative disc 

disease, and whether he had any employment-related disability. OWCP referred him to 

Dr. Krisiloff for an impartial medical examination. 

Where there exist opposing medical reports of virtually equal weight and rationale and 

the case is referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving the conflict, the 

opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based upon a proper factual 

background, must be given special weight.12 The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Krisiloff, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon selected to resolve the conflict in opinion, is well rationalized 

and based on a proper factual and medical history. Dr. Krisiloff accurately summarized the 

relevant medical evidence, provided detailed findings on examination, and reached conclusions 

about appellant’s condition which comported with his findings.13 In his October 9, 2012 report, 

he reviewed the medical evidence of record, including the results of MRI scan studies performed 

January and September 2011 and electrodiagnostic studies from January 2011. Dr. Krisiloff 

noted that appellant worked in his usual employment following his 2009 carpal tunnel releases 

until December 2009, when he began performing limited duty. He determined that he had no 

objective findings of brachial neuritis. Dr. Krisiloff further found that appellant had recovered 

from his carpal tunnel syndrome, noting that he did well after his decompression surgeries and as 

studies showed normal wrist conduction. He opined that appellant sustained an employmentrelated aggravation of underlying cervical spondylosis which had resolved. Dr. Krisiloff 

provided rationale for his opinion by noting that physical examination did not support the 

objective complaints as there was no evidence of reduced strength, muscle atrophy, or loss of 

sensation on examination. He further noted that an EMG study showed partial denervation at C5 

through C7 that was not supported by weakness on physical examination. Dr. Krisiloff 

concluded that appellant had no further evidence of brachial neuritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or 

an employment-related aggravation of cervical disc disease. He asserted that appellant might not 

be able to lift 70 pounds as required as a mail handler due to his underlying cervical degenerative 

condition and recommended an FCE. Dr. Krisiloff explained, however, that any inability to 

perform regular work duties would result from appellant’s underlying cervical degenerative disc 

disease rather than his work injury. 

 11 R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006); Barry Neutuch, 54 ECAB 313 (2003); David W. Pickett, 54 ECAB 272 (2002). 

12 J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006). 

13 Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001). 
9

On October 30, 2013 Dr. Krisiloff reviewed the results of an August 2013 FCE and found 

that appellant had no residuals of his temporary aggravation of cervical spondylosis based on the 

results of the FCE. He further determined that appellant could perform his duties as a mail 

handler. As Dr. Krisiloff’s opinion is detailed, well rationalized and based on a proper factual 

background, it is entitled to the special weight accorded an impartial medical examiner.14 

Appellant’s remaining medical evidence is insufficient to overcome the weight afforded 

to Dr. Krisiloff. Dr. Filippone submitted numerous progress reports and form reports throughout 

2012 and 2013 finding that appellant was disabled from employment. On December 5, 2012 he 

reviewed the results of diagnostic studies and recommended against an FCE as it might hurt 

appellant. In a form report dated December 3, 2013, Dr. Filippone diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy and found that appellant was totally disabled. He, however, was on one side of the 

conflict resolved by Dr. Krisiloff. A medical report from a physician on one side of a conflict 

resolved by an impartial medical examiner is generally insufficient to overcome the weight 

accorded the report of an impartial medical examiner or create a new conflict.15

Dr. Lawler provided reports in 2012 and 2013 describing his treatment of appellant with 

pain management. In a report dated November 27, 2013, he discussed appellant’s complaints of 

pain and recommended that he obtain additional treatment and consult with a surgeon prior to 

returning to work. Dr. Lawler noted that appellant did not have weakness. He did not address 

causation or attribute the need for further treatment to appellant’s employment and thus his 

opinion is of diminished probative value.16

On January 23, 2013 Dr. Arginteanu noted that appellant experienced pain in his neck 

and upper extremities moving heavy objects at work. He reviewed the findings on MRI scan 

study and recommended surgery. On December 2, 2013 Dr. Arginteanu recommended a left 

foraminotomy and decompression at C6-7 based on appellant’s discogram but indicated that it 

was also reasonable to try a nucleoplasty. He did not, however, specifically address causation 

and thus his reports are of little probative value.17

On appeal, appellant’s counsel contends that the SOAF did not include the accepted 

condition of left wrist sprain. However, the July 19, 2012 SOAF indicated that OWCP had 

accepted left wrist sprain under file number xxxxxx355. The SOAF did not describe appellant’s 

modified work duties from 2009 to 2011, however, Dr. Krisiloff noted in his report that he had 

performed modified work beginning December 2009. 

Counsel also argues that appellant is unable to work as a mail handler based on the FCE 

and Dr. Krisiloff’s report. Dr. Krisiloff, however, specifically found that he had no residuals or 

disability from his accepted conditions and that any limitations resulted from nonemploymentrelated cervical degenerative disc disease. 

 14 See J.M., supra note 12; Katheryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

15 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Michael Hughes, 52 ECAB 387 (2001). 

16 S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); Conard Hightower, 54 ECAB 796 (2003). 

17 Id. 
10

Appellant’s counsel additionally asserts that Dr. Krisiloff’s opinion is speculative, 

inconsistent, and not based on a review of objective testing. As discussed, however, Dr. Krisiloff 

provided a comprehensive and well-rationalized report and thus his opinion is entitled to the 

special weight accorded an impartial examiner and constitutes the weight of the evidence.18 

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 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss 

compensation and authorization for medical benefits effective February 3, 2014 as he had no 

further residuals of his accepted employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 18, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 18 See R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006); Bryan O. Crane, 56 ECAB 713 (2005).