United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.E., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Renton, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1632 

Issued: November 25, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

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 July 14, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 21, 2014 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) affirming the termination 

of his compensation benefits. 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 compensation benefits 

effective November 8, 2013 on the grounds that his accepted bilateral wrist contusion, right knee 

contusion, bilateral shoulder sprains, chest wall contusion, lumbar sprain and cervical sprain had 

resolved without residuals. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that appellant, then a 77-year-old airway transportation systems 

specialist, sustained a bilateral wrist contusion, right knee contusion, bilateral shoulder sprains, 

chest wall contusion, lumbar sprain and cervical sprain as a result of being rear-ended in a motor 

vehicle accident on March 13, 2013. Appellant has not worked since the date of injury.2

Appellant submitted reports dated March 13 through July 29, 2013 from Dr. Usha 

Raghavan, a Board-certified internist, who diagnosed lumbar strain, neck strain, shoulder strain, 

knee contusion, wrist contusion, brain injury with concussion and contusion of sternum. 

Dr. Raghavan opined that appellant was temporarily totally disabled. 

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation to determine the nature and 

extent of his employment-related conditions. In a July 31, 2013 report, Dr. Steven M. Ma, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, reviewed a statement of accepted facts, history of the injury 

and medical treatment and conducted a physical examination. Upon examination of appellant’s 

neck, Dr. Ma found no asymmetry, no scars, no spasm and no tenderness to palpation. Appellant 

was able to bring his chin to his chest, as well as to his left and right shoulders. Examination of 

both shoulders and upper extremities revealed no obvious atrophy, no swelling, no scars and a 

negative impingement sign. There was no evidence of any subluxation or dislocation about his 

shoulders. There was a negative apprehension sign. Appellant had a negative Tinel’s sign over 

the elbows. He was able to go from full extension to making a full fist with all of his fingers. 

Appellant’s Tinel’s sign, Phalen’s test, Finkelstein’s test and Allen’s test were all negative. He 

was able to bend forward and come to within two feet of touching the ground with his fingertips. 

Appellant’s sciatic tension test was negative bilaterally. The right knee lacked 10 degrees of full 

extension and flexed to 110 degrees of flexion. Lachman’s and McMurray’s tests were negative. 

Dr. Ma concluded that appellant’s employment-related conditions had resolved without 

residuals. He opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement and released 

him to sedentary work with restrictions. Dr. Ma noted that the work restrictions were based on 

appellant’s underlying arthritic disease and not to the accepted motor vehicle accident. 

By letter dated August 20, 2013, OWCP notified appellant that it proposed to terminate 

his compensation benefits based on the weight of the medical evidence, as represented by 

Dr. Ma. It afforded him 30 days to submit additional evidence or argument in disagreement with 

the proposed action. 

Appellant submitted reports dated August 14 through October 2, 2013 from 

Dr. Raghavan who opined that appellant’s conditions were aggravated by the motor vehicle 

accident. 

By decision dated November 8, 2013, OWCP terminated appellant’s compensation 

benefits effective that day. It found the weight of the evidence was represented by Dr. Ma. 

 2

 Appellant also filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) on June 14, 2013. By letter dated 

June 17, 2013, OWCP notified him that it could not proceed with the claim because the form was incomplete. 
3

On November 15, 2013 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. He submitted a November 27, 2013 report from Dr. Raghavan 

who reiterated her opinion that appellant was temporarily totally disabled. 

In a February 4, 2014 report, Dr. David V. Anderson, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted a history that appellant was in a motor vehicle accident on March 13, 2013 and 

complained of bilateral shoulder pain. He diagnosed cervical disc disorder and bilateral shoulder 

joint pain. 

A telephonic hearing was held before an OWCP hearing representative on 

February 13, 2014. 

Appellant submitted a May 15, 2013 report from Dr. Michelle Levin, a clinical 

neuropsychology, who found that a psychiatric evaluation of appellant did not indicate any 

significant cognitive impairment. He also submitted work excuse notes from Dr. Raghavan 

dated August 14 through November 27, 2013. 

By decision dated May 21, 2014, the hearing representative affirmed the November 8, 

2013 termination decision. She found that Dr. Ma represented the weight of the medical 

evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

modification or termination of an employee’s 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

 OWCP’s burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing 

rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.5 The 

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

disability.6 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must establish that 

appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition, which would require 

further medical treatment.7

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claims for bilateral wrist contusion, right knee contusion, 

bilateral shoulder sprains, chest wall contusion, lumbar sprain and cervical sprain. It terminated 

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

4 See I.J., 59 ECAB 524 (2008); Elsie L. Price, 54 ECAB 734 (2003). 

5 See J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988). 

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

7 See James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003). 
4

his compensation benefits effective November 8, 2013 on the grounds that the accepted 

employment-related conditions had resolved without residuals based on the opinion of the 

second opinion examiner, Dr. Ma. The issue is whether OWCP met its burden to terminate 

appellant’s compensation benefits. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Ma for a second opinion evaluation to determine the 

nature and extent of his employment-related conditions. The Board finds that OWCP met its 

burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits based on the July 31, 2013 report 

of Dr. Ma who reviewed appellant’s history of injury and medical treatment, examined him and 

found no objective evidence of ongoing residuals or disability due to the accepted bilateral wrist, 

right knee, bilateral shoulder, chest, lumbar, and cervical conditions. Dr. Ma reviewed the 

statement of accepted facts and the medical record. Upon examination of appellant’s neck, 

found no asymmetry, no scars, no spasm, and no tenderness to palpation. Appellant was able to 

bring his chin to his chest, as well as to his left and right shoulders. Examination of both 

shoulders and upper extremities revealed no obvious atrophy, no swelling, no scars and a 

negative impingement sign. There was no evidence of any subluxation or dislocation about his 

shoulders. There was a negative apprehension sign. Appellant had a negative Tinel’s sign over 

the elbows. He was able to go from full extension to making a full fist with all of his fingers. 

Appellant’s Tinel’s sign, Phalen’s test, Finkelstein’s test and Allen’s test were all negative. He 

was able to bend forward and come to within two feet of touching the ground with his fingertips. 

Appellant’s sciatic tension test was negative bilaterally. The right knee lacked 10 degrees of full 

extension and flexed to 110 degrees of flexion. Lachman’s and McMurray’s tests were negative. 

Dr. Ma concluded that appellant’s employment-related conditions had resolved without 

residuals. He attributed appellant’s ongoing condition to degenerative arthritis that was not due 

to the accepted motor vehicle accident. Dr. Ma opined that appellant had reached maximum 

medical improvement and released him to sedentary work with restrictions. 

The Board finds that Dr. Ma’s report represented the weight of the medical evidence. 

OWCP terminated benefits and that OWCP properly relied on his report in terminating 

appellant’s compensation benefits. The Board finds that he had full and accurate knowledge of 

the relevant facts and evaluated the course of appellant’s condition. Dr. Ma is a specialist in the 

appropriate field. His opinion is based on proper factual and medical history and his report 

contained a detailed summary of appellant’s history. Dr. Ma addressed the medical records to 

make his own examination findings to reach a reasoned conclusion regarding appellant’s 

conditions.8

 He addressed appellant’s preexisting degenerative disease and found no basis on 

which to attribute any residuals or continued disability to appellant’s accepted conditions. 

Dr. Ma’s opinion as set forth in his July 31, 2013 report is found to be probative evidence and 

reliable. The Board finds that Dr. Ma’s opinion constitutes the weight of the medical evidence 

and is sufficient to justify OWCP’s termination of benefits for the accepted conditions. 

Dr. Raghavan diagnosed lumbar strain, neck strain, shoulder strain, knee contusion, wrist 

contusion, brain injury with concussion and contusion of sternum and opined that appellant was 

 8 See Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006) (the opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy 

and completeness of the physician’s knowledge of the facts and medical history, the care of analysis manifested and 

the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion are facts, which determine the weight to be 

given to each individual report). 
5

disabled for work. She provided insufficient medical rationale explaining how these conditions 

were causally related to appellant’s federal employment or why they rendered him totally 

disabled. Dr. Raghavan’s reports are of diminished probative value and insufficient to overcome 

the weight of Dr. Ma’s report or to create a medical conflict. 

In a February 4, 2014 report, Dr. Anderson noted that appellant was in a motor vehicle 

accident on March 13, 2013 and complained of bilateral shoulder pain. He diagnosed cervical 

disc disorder and bilateral shoulder joint pain; however, Dr. Anderson did not provide any 

medical rationale explaining how appellant’s condition was causally related to his federal 

employment or his accepted conditions on why they rendered him disabled. His report is of 

diminished probative value and insufficient to overcome the weight of Dr. Ma’s report or to 

create a medical conflict. 

The report from Dr. Levin contains no opinion as to whether appellant continues to have 

residuals from the accepted bilateral wrist, right knee, bilateral shoulder, chest, lumbar and 

cervical conditions. Thus, this report is insufficient to show that the termination was improper. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that Dr. Ma’s opinion constitutes the weight of the medical 

evidence and supports OWCP’s decision terminating appellant’s compensation benefits effective 

November 8, 2013. 

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 properly terminated appellant’s compensation benefits 

effective November 8, 2013. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 21, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 25, 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