United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Little Silver, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0887 

Issued: July 15, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Jason S. Lomax, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 10, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) decision dated September 11, 2014.1

 Pursuant to 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (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 met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s medical and 

wage-loss compensation benefits as of December 15, 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 and eighty days from September 11, 2014, the date of OWCP’s last decision was 

March 10, 2015. Since using March 13, 2015, 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 March 10, 2015, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 24, 2005 appellant, a 50-year-old postmaster, injured her back, upper 

shoulders, and neck when she slipped and fell on a patch of ice. She filed a claim for benefits, 

which OWCP accepted for lumbar strain/sprain. OWCP commenced payment for wage-loss 

compensation on the periodic rolls as of March 14, 2005. 

The record substantiates that appellant continued to treat with Dr. Gordon D. Donald, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for the cervical and lumbar conditions. Dr. Donald 

continued to relate that appellant remained temporarily disabled. 

In a June 15, 2012 report, Dr. Donald noted that appellant continued to have debilitating 

discogenic neck pain and cervical radiculitis secondary to disc herniation and chronic low back 

pain and secondary to chronic lumbosacral strain. He advised that she recently had experienced 

severe worsening of her right cervical radiculitis and was referred for a cervical epidural block. 

The epidural block significantly improved appellant’s more acute symptoms, but she continued 

to have residual debilitating axial neck pain and some residual muscle weakness of her right arm. 

Dr. Donald opined that she remained permanently disabled from work due to her chronic 

cervical radiculitis and discogenic neck pain, secondary to a herniated disc causally related to her 

work injury. 

In order to determine appellant’s current condition and ascertain whether she still 

suffered residuals from her accepted conditions, OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion 

examination with Dr. Kenneth Heist, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In an August 30, 

2012 report, Dr. Heist stated that the accepted condition of lumbar sprain had resolved. He 

stated that on examination there were no positive objective findings related to the January 24, 

2005 work injury. Dr. Heist opined that the claim should not be expanded to include other 

conditions. He stated that appellant had a current disability of degenerative spinal disease that 

was not due to the January 24, 2005 fall. Dr. Heist asserted that she was capable of performing 

her job as a postmaster full time, with light restrictions which included exerting up to 20 pounds 

of force occasionally or up to 10 pounds of force frequently to lift, carry, push, pull, or otherwise 

move objects; she also had some restrictions on walking or standing to a significant degree. He 

stated that these restrictions were related to appellant’s preexisting spinal disease and not to the 

January 24, 2005 work injury. Dr. Heist advised that she had reached maximum medical 

improvement and did not require additional orthopedic treatment, surgical intervention, or 

diagnostic testing. 

In a report dated April 19, 2013, Dr. Donald stated that appellant had experienced severe 

flare ups which were disabling to her and commonly resulted in treatments which gave her 

temporary relief. He advised, however, that her symptoms tended to recur over time. 

Dr. Donald asserted that appellant had significant occipital cervical and bilateral neck upper 

shoulder pain which radiated to the right proximal arm. He diagnosed cervical herniated disc 

with radiculitis and chronic lumbosacral strain and advised that appellant had chronic recurrent 

and persistent symptoms due to pathology causally related to trauma from her accepted 2005 

work injury. Dr. Donald stated that she was not able to tolerate any prolonged or persistent 

general activities and remained permanently disabled from gainful employment. 
3

OWCP found on August 16, 2013 that there was a conflict in the medical evidence 

between Dr. Donald and Dr. Heist, the second opinion physician, as to whether appellant still 

had residuals from her accepted lumbar sprain/strain. It referred her to Dr. Robert Dennis, 

Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, for an impartial medical examination. 

In a report dated September 9, 2013, Dr. Dennis stated findings on examination, reviewed 

the statement of accepted facts, and reviewed appellant’s medical history. He concluded that she 

had no residuals from her January 24, 2005 employment injury, as her accepted condition was 

lumbar strain/sprain, which had resolved. Dr. Dennis noted that appellant had been actively 

treated with regard to cervical spine and upper extremity symptomatology, which pertained to an 

unaccepted condition unrelated to her January 24, 2005 work injury. He advised that while she 

may have sustained a temporary aggravation of her preexisting condition as a result of the 

January 24, 2005 fall, this was attributable to the degenerative nature of her condition and not to 

a fall that occurred eight and one half years ago. 

Dr. Dennis opined that appellant had no current disability and stated that her subjective 

complaints and findings on clinical examination, as well as results of objective studies, were 

reflective of age-related degenerative pathology. He further found that the physical requirements 

of the postmaster position did not exceed her capabilities; she was capable of working full time, 

eight hours per day, with one restriction of no heavy lifting exceeding 25 pounds. Dr. Dennis 

reiterated that appellant’s current complaints pertained to the cervical spine, which was not an 

accepted condition. 

On October 7, 2013 OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of compensation to 

appellant. It found that the weight of the medical evidence, as represented by Dr. Dennis’ 

impartial opinion, established that her accepted lumbar strain/sprain condition had ceased and 

that she had no work-related residuals stemming from this condition. 

By decision dated December 12, 2013, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and wageloss compensation benefits as of December 15, 2013, finding that Dr. Dennis’ impartial opinion 

represented the weight of the medical evidence. 

On December 27, 2013 appellant requested an oral hearing, which was held on 

July 9, 2014. 

In reports dated September 19 and November 18, 2013, Dr. Donald essentially reiterated 

his previous findings and conclusions. 

By decision dated September 11, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

December 12, 2013 termination decision. 

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

 

 3 Mohamed Yunis, 42 ECAB 325, 334 (1991). 
4

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

of entitlement for disability. To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must 

establish that a claimant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition that require 

further medical treatment.4

Section 8123(a) provides that, if there is a 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.5

 It is well established that, when a 

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

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

medical background, must be given special weight.6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant sustained a lumbar sprain/strain as a result of a fall on January 24, 2005. 

OWCP properly determined on August 16, 2013 that a conflict existed in the medical opinion 

evidence between appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Gordon, and OWCP’s second opinion 

physician, Dr. Heist, as to whether appellant continued to have residuals from the accepted 

condition. OWCP selected Dr. Dennis to provide an impartial medical evaluation. 

In his September 9, 2013 report, Dr. Dennis, the impartial medical specialist, opined that 

appellant’s accepted condition of lumbar strain/sprain had resolved and that she had no residuals 

from her January 24, 2005 employment injury. He stated that her current complaints and 

treatment involved her cervical spine and upper extremities, which were not accepted conditions 

and were not related to her January 24, 2005 employment injury. Dr. Dennis reported that 

appellant might have sustained a temporary aggravation of a preexisting condition as a result of 

her January 24, 2005 fall. He advised that she had no current disability and opined that her 

subjective complaints and the findings on clinical examination, as well as results of objective 

studies, were reflective of age-related degenerative pathology. Dr. Dennis opined that appellant 

was capable of working full time, eight hours per day, with a restriction on lifting more than 25 

pounds. OWCP relied on Dr. Dennis’ opinion in its December 12, 2013 decision, to find that 

appellant had no accident related continuing disability or impairment. 

The Board finds that Dr. Dennis’ impartial opinion negates a causal relationship between 

appellant’s continuing condition and disability related to her employment. The medical evidence 

establishes that appellant no longer has any residuals from her accepted lumbar sprain/strain 

condition. Dr. Dennis’ opinion is sufficiently probative, rationalized, and based upon a proper 

factual background. Therefore, OWCP properly accorded Dr. Dennis’ opinion the special 

weight of an impartial medical examiner.7

 The Board therefore finds that Dr. Dennis’ opinion 

 4 See T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007). 

5 Regina T. Pellecchia, 53 ECAB 155 (2001). 

6 Jacqueline Brasch (Ronald Brasch), 52 ECAB 252 (2001). 

7 Gary R. Seiber, 46 ECAB 215 (1994). 
5

constituted the weight of medical opinion and supports OWCP’s December 12, 2013 decision to 

deny any entitlement to continuing compensation based on her accepted condition. 

Appellant subsequently requested an oral hearing and submitted the September 19 and 

November 18, 2013 reports from Dr. Donald. However, these reports merely restate one side of 

the conflict in medical evidence which was resolved by Dr. Dennis’ opinion. Dr. Donald did not 

provide a well-reasoned and sufficiently supported opinion that would outweigh OWCP’s 

December 12, 2013 determination that appellant no longer had an employment-related disability 

or residuals stemming from her accepted lumbar strain/sprain condition. Thus the Board will 

affirm OWCP hearing representative’s September 11, 2014 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP met it burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation 

benefits as of December 15, 2013. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 11, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 15, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board