United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

North Metro, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1161 

Issued: September 12, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 23, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the March 5, 2014 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) terminating her compensation. 

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 met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation effective March 9, 2014 on the grounds that she had no disability due to her 

accepted work injuries after that date. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 28, 2010 OWCP accepted that appellant, then a 31-year-old letter carrier, 

sustained major depression (single episode) and generalized anxiety disorder due to her work. It 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

accepted that her conditions were caused by three wrongful disciplinary actions: a 

September 17, 2009 notice of disciplinary action for absence without leave; a November 9, 2009 

notice of disciplinary action for failing to follow instructions and unsatisfactory performance; 

and a November 19, 2009 notice of disciplinary action for failing to follow instructions and 

unsatisfactory performance. Appellant stopped work on November 19, 2009. She received 

disability compensation on the periodic rolls. 

Effective November 22, 2011, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits based on the opinion of an OWCP referral physician that she ceased to have 

work-related residuals as of that date. In a June 14, 2012 decision, an OWCP hearing 

representative reversed the termination determination on the grounds that the opinion of 

OWCP’s referral physician was not based on a complete and accurate statement of accepted 

facts. Appellant’s compensation was restored and she was placed on the periodic rolls. 

On January 23, 2012 appellant returned to limited-duty work at the employing 

establishment for four hours a day. She eventually worked her way up to six hours a day. 

Appellant received partial wage-loss compensation for the portion of each eight-hour day that 

she did not work. She stopped work on June 28, 2012 and received total disability 

compensation. 

In a June 28, 2012 report, David Aycock, Ph.D., an attending clinical psychologist, 

advised that he had treated appellant on a regular basis. He stated, “Due to the recent events at 

her workplace, her stress levels have elevated significantly and [appellant] is unable to discharge 

her work duties at present. It is undetermined when she will be capable of returning to her work 

responsibilities.” 

In June 2012, OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Kenneth E. Goolsby, a Board-certified 

second opinion psychiatrist, for an examination and opinion on her work-related residuals. In a 

June 19, 2012 report, Dr. Goolsby discussed appellant’s medical history, including the accepted 

conditions of major depression (single episode) and generalized anxiety disorder. He noted that 

the statement of accepted facts showed that these conditions were accepted as being caused by 

three wrongful disciplinary actions dated September 17, November 9 and 19, 2009. Dr. Goolsby 

reported the findings of his examination and diagnosed major depression (single episode without 

psychotic features) and generalized anxiety disorder. He found that there continued to be 

multiple objective findings to support the diagnosis of major depressive disorder, including 

depressed mood, decreased energy, prolonged depressed mood, decreased energy, decreased 

concentration, anhedonia, feeling of hopelessness and helplessness and fleeting suicidal 

thoughts. Dr. Goolsby noted that appellant also met many of the criteria for generalized anxiety 

disorder, including experiencing excessive anxiety, difficulty controlling worrying, restlessness, 

fatigue, difficulty concentration, irritability and sleep disturbance. He stated that it was his 

“impression that these conditions were caused by the compensable factors of employment as 

described in the statement of accepted facts” and that appellant’s “psychiatric condition has not 

resolved as evidenced by her continued diagnosis of major depressive disorder and generalized 

anxiety disorder.” Dr. Goolsby determined that appellant’s major depressive disorder and 

generalized anxiety disorder had not resolved due to a lack of an aggressive 

psychopharmaceutical management program for her depressive symptoms. He stated that 
3

appellant was currently unable to work in any capacity due to her recurrent major depressive 

disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. 

In an October 9, 2012 report, Dr. Aycock stated that appellant’s diagnoses were 

depressive disorder and anxiety disorder and noted that these conditions were still medically 

present, unresolved and disabling. He noted that these conditions were not aggravations of any 

preexisting conditions and that appellant’s functioning had not returned to her preinjury status. 

Appellant currently was disabled from all employment settings. He noted that she attempted to 

return to work from January to June 2012, but that her symptom complex returned in force. 

In treatment reports dated March 5 to November 19, 2013, Dr. Aycock reiterated that 

appellant’s diagnoses were depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. He noted that these 

conditions were still medically present, unresolved and disabling. 

In August 2013, OWCP again referred appellant to Dr. Goolsby, for an examination and 

opinion on her work-related residuals.2

 In an August 19, 2013 report, Dr. Goolsby provided 

findings that were similar to those in his June 19, 2012 report. He diagnosed major depression 

(single episode without psychotic features) and generalized anxiety disorder and stated the 

conditions were caused by the 2009 disciplinary actions mentioned in the statement of accepted 

facts. Dr. Goolsby again advised that the conditions had not resolved due to a lack of an 

aggressive psychopharmaceutical management program for appellant’s depressive symptoms. 

He stated that appellant was currently unable to work in any capacity due to her recurrent major 

depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. 

In a January 24, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her 

wage-loss compensation on the grounds that she ceased to have disability due to the accepted 

work conditions.3 It stated that the proposed termination action was supported by the June 28, 

2012 report of Dr. Aycock and the June 19, 2012 report of Dr. Goolsby. OWCP suggested that 

appellant sustained a new work-related emotional condition by indicating that “the events 

leading up to the [June 28, 2012] work stoppage were associated with her new work factors not 

associated with the [November 9, 2009] work events.” It provided her 30 days to submit 

evidence or argument challenging the proposed termination action.4

In a March 5, 2014 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s compensation effective 

March 9, 2014. It found that she had no disability due to her accepted work injuries after that 

date. It indicated that the June 28, 2012 report of Dr. Aycock and the June 19, 2012 report of 

Dr. Goolsby supported this action. 

 2

 It is unclear why OWCP undertook a second referral to Dr. Goolsby without asking him to clarify his June 19, 

2012 report. 

3

 OWCP did not provide any indication that it would terminate appellant’s medical benefits. 

4

 OWCP stated that a formal wage-earning capacity determination was issued on July 25, 2012. However, there 

is no indication that such a determination has been made. The record contains a July 25, 2012 instructional letter 

explaining appellant’s compensation rate, but this does not constitute a formal wage-earning capacity determination. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

 Under FECA, once OWCP has accepted a claim it has the burden of justifying 

termination or modification of compensation benefits.5

 OWCP may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability ceased or that it was no longer related to the employment.6

 

OWCP’s burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion 

evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.7

ANALYSIS 

On May 28, 2010 OWCP accepted that appellant sustained major depression (single 

episode) and generalized anxiety disorder due to her work due to three wrongful disciplinary 

actions dated September 17, November 9 and 19, 2009. Appellant stopped work on 

November 19, 2009 and received disability compensation on the periodic rolls. On January 23, 

2012 appellant returned to limited-duty work for the employing establishment for four hours per 

day and she eventually worked her way up to six hours per day. She stopped work on June 28, 

2013 and began to receive total disability compensation. 

OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation effective March 9, 2014 on the 

grounds that she had no disability due to her accepted work injuries after that date. It based its 

termination action on a June 28, 2012 report of Dr. David Aycock, an attending clinical 

psychologist, and a June 19, 2012 report of Dr. Goolsby, a Board-certified psychiatrist serving as 

an OWCP referral physician. 

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation effective March 9, 2014. The June 28, 2012 report of Dr. Aycock and 

the June 19, 2012 report of Dr. Goolsby do not establish that appellant’s accepted work 

conditions no longer caused disability. 

In a June 28, 2012 report, Dr. Aycock stated, “Due to the recent events at her workplace, 

her stress levels have elevated significantly and [appellant] is unable to discharge her work duties 

at present. It is undetermined when she will be capable of returning to her work 

responsibilities.” The Board finds that this report does not support the termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation. Dr. Aycock did not provide an opinion that appellant’s accepted 

conditions of major depression (single episode) and generalized anxiety disorder were no longer 

causing disability. OWCP suggested that the June 28, 2012 report established that appellant 

sustained a new emotional condition due to work factors encountered when she returned to parttime work in early 2012. However, Dr. Aycock’s did not provide a clear opinion on this matter. 

Moreover, he explicitly stated in numerous treatment reports of record that appellant continued 

to have disability due to her accepted work conditions. In an October 9, 2012 report, Dr. Aycock 

stated that appellant’s diagnoses were depressive disorder and anxiety disorder and noted that the 

 5 V.C., 59 ECAB 490 (2008); Charles E. Minniss, 40 ECAB 708, 716 (1989). 

6 Id.

7 See Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988). 
5

conditions were still medically present, unresolved and disabling. He stated that appellant’s 

functioning had not returned to preinjury status and she currently was disabled from all 

employment settings. 

OWCP also determined that Dr. Goolsby’s June 19, 2012 report supported its termination 

action. The Board notes that the physician provided an opinion that appellant’s accepted work 

conditions had not resolved. Dr. Goolsby discussed the accepted conditions of major depression 

(single episode) and generalized anxiety disorder and noted that the statement of accepted facts 

provided that the conditions were accepted as being caused by three wrongful disciplinary 

actions from 2009. He diagnosed major depression (single episode without psychotic features) 

and generalized anxiety disorder and posited that these conditions had not resolved due to a lack 

of an aggressive psychopharmaceutical management program for appellant’s depressive 

symptoms.8

 Dr. Goolsby stated that appellant was currently unable to work in any capacity due 

to her recurrent major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. 

For these reasons, the Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to 

terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation effective March 9, 2014. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation effective March 9, 2014 on the grounds that she had no disability due to 

her accepted work injuries after that date. 

 8

 Dr. Goolsby stated that it was his “impression that these conditions were caused by the compensable factors of 

employment as described in the statement of accepted facts” and that appellant’s “psychiatric condition has not 

resolved as evidenced by her continued diagnosis of major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.” 

He also produced an August 19, 2013 report in which he provided findings that were similar to those contained in 

his June 19, 2012 report. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 5, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: September 12, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board