United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.K., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Minneapolis, MN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-496 

Issued: May 14, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 20, 20131 appellant filed a timely appeal of a July 2, 2013 merit decision of 

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

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

 1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, the 180-day time period for determining jurisdiction is computed 

beginning on the day following the date of OWCP’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2). OWCP’s merit decision 

was issued on July 2, 2013; the 180-day computation begins on July 3, 2013. One hundred and eighty days from 

July 3, 2013 was December 30, 2013. Since using December 31, 2013, the date the appeal was received by the 

Clerk of the Board, 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 December 20, 2013, which renders the appeal timely filed. See 20 

C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

compensation and medical benefits effective November 18, 2012. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 18, 2001 appellant, then a 46-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging a soft tissue injury to his left foot on June 14, 2001 when he crushed his foot 

between a chair’s floor bar and foot rest. OWCP accepted his claim for aggravation of a plantar 

fibroma on the left foot. 

Dr. Frank L. Bonello, a Board-certified family practitioner, completed a report on 

September 6, 2001. He stated that appellant had exhibited a lesion on the bottom of his foot 

since 1993. Dr. Bonello diagnosed a plantar fibroma and stated that appellant’s symptoms would 

not cease until the tissue was removed surgically. He stated that appellant preferred to keep the 

painful nodule in order to maintain light duty. Dr. Bonello provided work restrictions of 

minimal standing and walking. On May 18, 2002 he stated that he had no knowledge of the 

onset of appellant’s foot problem. Dr. Bonello diagnosed a fibrous nodule in the plantar fascia of 

the left foot and stated that it was located on the sole of the foot, and was injured every time 

appellant stood or walked on it. He stated that the fibroma was permanent until it was removed. 

Dr. Bonello noted that appellant did not want surgical removal and opined that appellant would 

be on light work for the rest of his employment. 

Appellant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan on June 30, 2006. It 

demonstrated a near complete interval resolution of the fibrotic-like mass. Dr. Bonello noted 

that appellant had thickening in the area and that the lesion appeared to be receding by itself. He 

supported work restrictions of minimal standing and walking. 

Appellant filed a recurrence of disability claim on May 12, 2010 alleging that his lightduty position was eliminated due to the National Reassessment Process (NRP). In a letter dated 

June 2, 2010, OWCP requested additional medical evidence in support of his claim for 

continuing partial disability. 

On June 16, 2010 Dr. Bonello noted appellant’s history of injury. Appellant reported 

pain when he walked on his left foot and Dr. Bonello provided him with work restrictions for a 

sedentary position. Dr. Bonello opined that appellant preferred to be disabled and would not 

follow advice to seek the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon. He reiterated that appellant did not 

want surgery. Dr. Bonello retired and could no longer treat appellant. 

Appellant sought treatment from Dr. John R. Raines, a Board-certified internist, on 

August 26, 2010. He listed a series of six foot injuries at the employing establishment beginning 

in 1993 and continuing through June 14, 2001. Dr. Raines noted that appellant had performed 

sedentary work with the restriction of one hour of walking daily. He diagnosed plantar fascial 

fibromatosis as well as anemia of an undetermined origin. OWCP placed appellant on the 

periodic rolls on November 9, 2010. 
3

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Stephen E. Barron, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who examined him on September 17, 2010. Dr. Barron 

reviewed Dr. Bonello’s records and the August 1, 2000 MRI scan diagnosing a plantar fibroma. 

He found that appellant walked without a limp with a full range of motion of his left ankle and 

foot. Appellant had normal sensory and motor strength examination in both lower extremities. 

He found that appellant’s left foot condition had resolved without any disability related to the 

June 14, 2001 employment aggravation. Dr. Barron stated, “I cannot palpate a fibroma and he 

has no objective findings on his examination.” He found that appellant had a resolved left foot 

fibroma. Based on the June 30, 2006 MRI scan, appellant’s employment-related aggravation had 

ceased by that date as there was resolution of the fibrotic-like mass involving the medical aspect 

of the plantar aponeurosis. There were no objective findings supporting appellant’s subjective 

complaints of left foot pain four days a week aggravated by standing in one place and more than 

one hour of walking. Dr. Barron concluded that appellant did not need any further medical 

treatment. He reviewed appellant’s date-of-injury position description and opined that appellant 

was capable of performing those duties without limitations or restrictions. 

Dr. Raines examined appellant on December 3, 2010 and found palpable thickening in 

the plantar fascia medially, proximal to the first metatarsal head. He continued to provide work 

restrictions. On March 8 and June 10, 2011 Dr. Raines noted that appellant reported foot pain 

with standing and that he was not interested in a podiatry consultation. He completed a work 

restriction evaluation on September 21, 2011 and opined that appellant could sit for eight hours a 

day with a quarter of an hour each standing and walking. Dr. Raines advised that the restrictions 

were permanent. In a narrative report of the same dated, he diagnosed plantar fascial 

fibromatosis based on an August 1, 2000 MRI scan. Dr. Raines correlated this finding with a 

palpable lump in the plantar fascia on the sole of the left foot. He noted that appellant had pain 

with walking or standing more than 20 minutes a day. Dr. Raines indicated that appellant had 

work injuries in December 1993, September 1995 and December 1997. He stated that appellant 

was unable to walk more than 20 minutes a day and that this was a permanent disability. On 

December 27, 2011 Dr. Raines examined appellant and found that the fibroma is still palpable in 

his foot. He stated that appellant’s pain increased when he was on his feet more than 20 minutes. 

In a note dated June 21, 2012, Dr. Raines stated that appellant complained of pain and swelling 

on the soles of both feet. He did not find edema on examination but stated, “I still think I can 

palpate a small fibroma in the plantar fascia.” 

OWCP found that there was a conflict of medical opinion between Dr. Raines and 

Dr. Barron regarding appellant’s ongoing condition and disability. On July 30, 2012 

Dr. Jonathan Biebl, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed an impartial medical 

examination. He reviewed a history of six injuries to appellant’s left foot, including the June 14, 

2001 incident in which he caught his foot between a steel chair and footrest. Appellant informed 

Dr. Biebl that he did not feel that this injury was significant. On physical examination, Dr. Biebl 

found that appellant’s routine walking pattern was normal. He found no real local palpatory 

tenderness with good pulses. Dr. Biebl noted that appellant demonstrated tenderness at the third 

metatarsal head and that there was a small area of fibromatous change in the medial border of his 

plantar fascia. He determined that appellant had no residuals of his June 14, 2001 employment 

injury. Dr. Biebl stated that appellant’s temporary aggravation ceased on July 31, 2001. He 

stated, “Objectively, other than his metatarsal pain, there is very little objective evidence of 
4

injury to his foot at any level.” Dr. Biebl found that appellant had no residuals from the June 14, 

2001 employment injury. 

OWCP asked Dr. Biebl to provide additional reasoning for his determination that 

appellant’s temporary aggravation of his left foot plantar fibroma ceased on July 31, 2001. 

Dr. Biebl responded on September 21, 2012 and stated that he based his conclusion on 

Dr. Bonello’s notes which found that appellant’s left foot condition improved spontaneously. 

In a letter dated October 10, 2012, OWCP proposed to termination appellant’s 

compensation and medical benefits. It allowed him 30 days for a response. On October 15, 

2012 Dr. Raines stated that appellant currently had a palpable swelling in the plantar fascia of his 

left foot. He diagnosed plantar fascia fibromatosis due to repeated work injuries. Dr. Raines 

stated that the condition had not resolved. In a note dated November 2, 2012, he repeated his 

findings and conclusions. Appellant underwent an MRI scan on October 29, 2012 which 

demonstrated a focal area of fusiform thickening of the plantar aponeurosis in keeping with a 

plantar fibroma. 

By decision dated November 20, 2012, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits effective November 18, 2012. It found that the weight of the 

medical evidence was represented by Dr. Biebl, the impartial medical referee. 

Appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative on 

December 17, 2012. He submitted a statement alleging that between 1993 and 1999 he had four 

injuries to his left foot. Appellant sustained an injury on April 21, 2000 which resulted in limited 

standing restrictions. He testified at the oral hearing on April 18, 2013, noting that his current 

condition began after his ankle sprain in 2000. Appellant alleged that the plantar fibroma 

appeared after his ankle sprain. He alleged that his plantar fibroma was not a preexisting 

condition, but an employment-related condition caused by his prior employment injuries to his 

left heel and ankle. Appellant noted that the April 21, 2000 claim was accepted by OWCP as an 

employment-related ankle sprain. 

By decision dated July 2, 2013, the hearing representative affirmed the termination of 

appellant’s compensation and medical benefits. She found that Dr. Biebl’s reports were entitled 

to the special weight of medical opinion and established that appellant had no continuing 

residuals or restrictions as a result of his June 14, 2001 employment injury. 

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 After it has 

determined that an employee has disability causally related to his or her federal employment, 

OWCP may not terminate compensation without establishing that the disability has ceased or 

that it is no longer related to the employment.4

 Furthermore, the right to medical benefits for an 

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

4 Id.
5

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

 

When there are opposing reports of virtually equal weight and rationale, the case will be 

referred to an impartial medical specialist pursuant to section 8123(a) of FECA which 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 and resolve the conflict of medical evidence.7 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.8 In situations where there are 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 on a proper factual background, must be given special weight.9

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that on June 14, 2001 he crushed his foot 

between a chair’s floor bar and footrest. OWCP accepted his claim for aggravation of plantar 

fibroma on the left foot. The medical evidence establishes that appellant had complaints of 

plantar fibroma prior to this claim and it was accepted for an aggravation of the underlying 

condition. 

Dr. Raines, appellant’s physician, supported ongoing medical residuals and disability for 

work, specifically limiting appellant’s standing due to the accepted condition. OWCP referred 

appellant for a second opinion examination to Dr. Barron, who found that appellant had no 

medical residuals and no disability due to the aggravation of plantar fibroma. Due to the 

disagreement between appellant’s physician and OWCP’s referral physician, it properly found a 

conflict of medical opinion evidence and referred appellant to Dr. Biebl for an impartial medical 

examination pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). 

Dr. Biebl provided a detailed history of injury and reviewed the medical records. He 

performed a physical examination and found that appellant’s routine walking pattern was 

normal. Dr. Biebl noted that appellant demonstrated tenderness at the third metatarsal head and 

that there was a small area of fibromatous change in the medial border of his plantar fascia. He 

opined that appellant had no residuals of his June 14, 2001 employment injury. Dr. Biebl stated 

that he believed that appellant’s temporary aggravation ceased on July 31, 2001. He stated, 

“Objectively, other than his metatarsal pain, there is very little objective evidence of injury to his 

 5 Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 361, 364 (1990). 

6 Id.

7

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193, 8123; B.C., 58 ECAB 111 (2006); M.S., 58 ECAB 328 (2007). 

8 R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006). 

9 Nathan L. Harrell, 41 ECAB 401, 407 (1990). 
6

foot at any level.” Dr. Biebl found that appellant had no residuals from the June 14, 2001 

employment injury. In his supplemental report, he stated that he relied on Dr. Bonello’s notes in 

reaching the conclusions that the aggravation of appellant’s plantar fibroma was temporary and 

ceased by July 31, 2001. 

Dr. Biebl based his report on a proper history of injury and provided physical findings in 

support of his conclusion that the aggravation of appellant’s plantar fibroma was temporary and 

had ceased by July 31, 2001. He agreed that the plantar fibroma had not completely disappeared, 

but asserted that the employment-related aggravation had ceased as appellant had returned to his 

baseline status by July 31, 2001 which was aggravated on other occasions by appellant’s 

additional activities. The Board finds that Dr. Biebl’s report is entitled to the special weight of 

the medical evidence accorded an impartial medical specialist and established that appellant’s 

aggravation of his underlying condition had ceased with no residuals or disability due to the 

June 14, 2001 employment injury. 

Following Dr. Biebl’s reports, Dr. Raines continued to support the existence of a plantar 

fibroma and continued to support appellant’s disability and residuals as a result of this condition. 

He did not address the specific factual situation in this case, whether the aggravation of 

appellant’s plantar fibroma by his 2001 employment injury continued or whether as found by 

Dr. Biebl this was a temporary aggravation which ended resulting in any ongoing disability or 

residuals as a result of the underlying condition rather than the aggravation. Furthermore, as 

Dr. Raines was on one side of the conflict that Dr. Biebl resolved, the additional report from 

Dr. Raines is insufficient to overcome the special weight accorded Dr. Biebl’s report as the 

impartial medical specialist or to create a new conflict.10 

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. 

CONCLUSION 

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

compensation and medical benefits effective November 18, 2012. 

 10 Dorothy Sidwell, 41 ECAB 857, 874 (1990). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 2, 2013 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 14, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board