United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Powell, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-557 

Issued: May 8, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

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 12, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 23, 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 wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits, effective December 23, 2014, as she no longer had any residuals or disability 

causally related to her accepted employment injuries. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on November 25, 2013 appellant, then a 46-year-old rural mail 

carrier, sustained a right ankle and lumbosacral sprain, a contusion of the right thigh and 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

abdominal wall, and unspecified arthropathy of the pelvic region and thigh as a result of a motor 

vehicle accident. Appellant stopped work on the date of injury. OWCP paid temporary total 

disability compensation. 

In an October 27, 2014 narrative medical report, Dr. Matthew A. Bridger, an attending 

Board-certified family practitioner, noted the physical requirements of appellant’s job and 

provided a history of the November 25, 2013 employment injuries and medical treatment. On 

physical examination, he reported that she moved with mild difficulty, her gait continued to 

favor the left, and she felt unbalanced. On examination of the lumbar spine, Dr. Bridger found 

mild evidence of pain during a range of motion. No surgical scar nor scoliosis was present. 

There was tenderness to palpation. Faber testing remained positive, right greater than the left. 

An examination of the right foot and ankle revealed a normal Achilles tendon. Bruising, joint 

crepitus, joint effusion, and pes planus were absent. Movement of the ankle caused pain with 

rotation and compression. A dorsalis pedis and posterior tibialis pulses were present. Range of 

motion was normal. Swelling remained impressive in the bilateral lower legs. Palpation and 

touch to the lower legs was uncomfortable. No ulcers or lesions were seen. Appellant was able 

to bear weight and walk in flops. A vasculitic rash had improved, but remained present 

(nonblanchable). Dr. Bridger diagnosed right ankle sprain, lumbosacral joint sprain/strain, a 

contusion of the thigh, flank, and chest wall, and unspecified arthropathy of the pelvis and thigh. 

He restricted appellant from standing for periods of time. Dr. Bridger advised that the cause of 

this problem appeared to be, in part, related to her work activities which aggravated an 

underlying preexisting condition. He concluded that appellant’s recommended work status “is 

no work capacity” effective the date of his examination. 

In an October 27, 2014 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Bridger indicated 

November 25, 2013 as the date of injury. He released appellant to return to work without 

restrictions as of October 27, 2014. Dr. Bridger noted that she had been on disability for a 

nonoccupational condition. 

In an October 27, 2014 physician’s report of work ability form, Dr. Bridger reiterated his 

prior diagnoses of right ankle sprain, lumbosacral joint sprain/strain, a contusion of the thigh, 

flank, and chest wall, and unspecified arthropathy of the pelvis and thigh. He placed a 

checkmark in a box indicating that appellant is temporarily not released to return to any work, 

including the former position of employment, from the date of his report. Dr. Bridger advised 

that she had reached maximum medical improvement on the date of his report. 

By notice dated November 12, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to 

terminate her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits on the grounds that Dr. Bridger’s 

October 27, 2014 report found that the accepted employment injuries had resolved and that she 

was capable of returning to work without restrictions. It afforded her 30 days to submit 

additional evidence or argument regarding the proposed termination. 

In reports dated December 4, 2013 to December 8, 2014, Dr. Bridger provided 

examination findings. He reiterated his diagnoses of right ankle sprain, lumbosacral joint 

sprain/strain, a contusion of the thigh, flank, and chest wall, and unspecified arthropathy of the 

pelvis and thigh, and his opinion that it appeared the cause of appellant’s problems was her work 

activities which aggravated an underlying preexisting condition. Dr. Bridger also reiterated his 
3

recommendation that appellant’s work status “is no work capacity” and indicated with a 

checkmark that she “is temporarily not released to return to any work, including the former 

position of employment.” In the reports dated January 6, February 6, and April 8, 2014, he 

advised that appellant could perform restricted-duty work. 

In a December 23, 2014 decision, OWCP finalized the termination of appellant’s medical 

benefits effective that day. It found that the weight of the medical opinion evidence rested with 

Dr. Bridger’s October 27 and December 8, 2014 reports which stated that she no longer had any 

employment-related disability. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

termination or modification of an employee’s benefits.2

 It may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability ceased or that it was no longer related to the employment.3 

The burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence 

based on a proper factual and medical background.4

 The right to medical benefits for an 

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

 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.6

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a right ankle and lumbosacral sprain, a 

contusion of the right thigh and abdominal wall, and unspecified arthropathy of the pelvic region 

and thigh while in the performance of duty. Appellant received monetary compensation after she 

stopped work. OWCP terminated her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits based on the 

medical opinion of Dr. Bridger, appellant’s attending physician. 

Dr. Bridger’s reports provided examination findings and diagnosed the accepted 

employment-related conditions. His October 27, 2014 Form CA-17 report indicated a date of 

injury as November 25, 2013 and found that appellant could return to work with no restrictions. 

Dr. Bridger noted that she had been on disability due to a nonoccupational condition. In reports 

dated January 6, February 6, and April 8, 2014, he released appellant to return to restricted-duty 

work. In his remaining reports, Dr. Bridger either advised that appellant’s recommended work 

status “is no work capacity” or indicated with a checkmark that she “is temporarily not released 

to return to any work, including the former position of employment.” To be of probative value, a 

 2 S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003). 

3 Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); Vivien L. Minor, 37 

ECAB 541 (1986). 

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

5 T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Kathryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

6 A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August 5, 2009); James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003); Pamela K. 

Guesford, 53 ECAB 727 (2002). 
4

physician’s opinion should be one of reasonable medical certainty.7 Dr. Bridger’s opinion as to 

whether appellant had any continuing employment-related disability is equivocal in nature and 

not to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Moreover, he failed to provide any medical 

rationale to support his opinion that appellant could return to work with no restrictions. 

Dr. Bridger did not specifically identify appellant’s nonoccupational condition or explain how 

her disability was caused by this condition and not the accepted November 25, 2013 

employment-related conditions. The Board has consistently held that a medical opinion not 

fortified by rationale is of limited probative value.8 The Board finds that OWCP has failed to 

meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits 

effective December 23, 2014 based on Dr. Bridger’s reports of record. They do not establish that 

appellant’s employment-related disability had ceased. 

Accordingly, the Board will reverse the December 23, 2014 OWCP decision which 

terminated appellant’s compensation benefits as she no longer had any residuals or disability 

causally related to her November 25, 2013 employment-related injuries.9

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective December 23, 2014. 

 7 See Beverly R. Jones, 55 ECAB 411 (2004). 

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

9 P.J., Docket No. 13-1998 (issued April 14, 2014); D.H., Docket No. 12-1975 (issued June 5, 2013). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 23, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: May 8, 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