United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Galvin, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0061 

Issued: October 27, 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 October 14, 2014 appellant filed a timely request for review of May 6 and June 24, 

2014 merit decisions 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 abused its discretion by denying appellant authorization for 

the rental of a motorized scooter.2

 

On appeal, appellant argues that she needs a scooter because she has a history of falling. 

She also contends that the medical evidence demonstrates her need for a scooter. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP’s June 24, 2014 merit decision, but the Board cannot 

consider such evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board on multiple occasions. The facts as set 

forth in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference.3

 The relevant facts are 

set forth below. On January 28, 1998 appellant, then a 47-year-old postmaster, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she injured her back and left leg while moving bulk mail 

and packages on December 2, 1997. OWCP accepted that her work activities of December 2, 

1997 resulted in a sprain of her back, lumbar region; degeneration of lumbar or lumbosacral 

intervertebral disc; prolonged depressive reaction; and other acquired deformities of the ankle 

and foot. 

Dr. Barbara E. Lazio, appellant’s treating Board-certified neurosurgeon, noted in a report 

of February 20, 2014 that appellant has had three back surgeries. She noted that the first surgery 

was in 1988 at L4-5. Dr. Lazio stated that appellant returned to work but reinjured herself on 

December 2, 1997 and thereafter underwent surgery again at L4-5 in 1998. She noted that 

appellant again returned to work but injured herself again in January 1999, and that in 

February 1999 she underwent laminotomies. Dr. Lazio noted that appellant contended that, after 

that surgery, she had left ankle dorsiflexion weakness and has been wearing a foot drop splint. 

She further reported that appellant noted left ankle dorsiflexion weakness and noted that her legs 

are weak especially when she stands in line at the store. Dr. Lazio listed appellant’s impressions 

as low back pain; status post lumbar discectomy and lumbar radiculopathy. She referred 

appellant for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. 

In a March 19, 2014 MRI scan report, Dr. Betsy Holland, a Board-certified radiologist, 

noted distal vertebral body at the lumbosacral junction designated L5 and L2 with previous 

report; interval midline laminotomy at L4-5; interval midline/left hemilaminotomy at L3-4; mild 

annular bulge of the L2-3 intervertebral disc; and internal development of a mild annular disc 

bulge of the L1-2 intervertebral disc. 

In a progress report dated March 27, 2014, appellant’s treating physician assistant, 

Gregory B. Reappana, noted that appellant stated that she does not get around much because she 

is afraid of falling. He noted that when she goes to Wal-Mart she tries to use a scooter and that if 

she cannot use a scooter she does not shop. Mr. Reappana noted that he prescribed physical 

therapy starting with pool therapy and a mobility scooter. In a prescription note dated March 27, 

2014, he prescribed a mobility scooter and noted appellant’s diagnosis as falls, impaired 

mobility, lumbar radiculopathy, and lumbar stenosis. Mr. Reappana circled the name of 

Dr. Lazio, but she did not sign the note. 

 3

 Docket No. 99-1590 (issued July 27, 2000) (the Board remanded the case for clarification of appellant’s pay 

rate); Docket No. 02-1258 (issued June 13, 2002) (the Board dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request); Docket 

No. 03-1460 (issued October 14, 2004) (the Board issued an Order granting OWCP’s request for a remand); Docket 

No. 05-1554 (issued January 3, 2006) (the Board remanded the case for proper assemblage of the record); Docket 

No. 06-1095 (issued April 5, 2007) (the Board found that appellant had not established that she sustained a new 

injury to her left leg on February 16, 1999 and failed to establish that she suffered sexual dysfunction causally 

related to her December 2, 1997 injury); Docket No. 07-1485 (issued May 29, 2008) (the Board dismissed the 

appeal as it determined that appellant had not meant to file an appeal); Docket No. 07-1498 (issued June 8, 2007) 

(the Board dismissed the appeal as it was duplicative). 
3

In a form dated March 31, 2014, Kirk’s Medical Services requested authorization for the 

purchase of a motorized scooter, noting “required for mobility.” 

In a statement dated April 3, 2014, appellant related that her doctor ordered her a scooter 

as she was unable to stand or move more than a few minutes. She noted that her most recent 

MRI scan showed that her back is worse and that she now has problems with both legs with 

falling and spasms and that a scooter was extremely necessary at this point. Appellant contended 

that she was not able to go shopping in the mall because most malls do not have scooters. 

In an April 28, 2014 neurosurgical follow-up visit, Mr. Reappana reiterated that he gave 

appellant a prescription for a mobility scooter. 

On April 23, 2014 OWCP asked its medical adviser to give an opinion with regard to 

appellant’s need for a motorized scooter. In an April 28, 2014 opinion, the medical adviser 

recommended that appellant’s request for a motor scooter is denied. He noted that the use of a 

personal motorized scooter will not cure any condition that she had, either accepted under this 

claim or not. The medical adviser also concluded that the use of a motorized scooter will not 

improve any of her underlying conditions, and in fact, would decrease the amount of exercise she 

engages in. He noted appellant’s obesity and noted that the use of a motorized scooter when she 

is capable of walking on her own, albeit with a cane and/or foot drop brace, would be 

counterproductive. The medical adviser also opined that it was inconsistent for her provider to 

recommend physical therapy to increase her activity and at the same time recommend a scooter 

to decrease her activity. He also noted that the scooter will not lessen the amount of monthly 

compensation. The medical adviser concluded that the motorized scooter was not medically 

necessary and noted that appellant was able to walk and does not have a problem with chronic 

falls. He noted that she needed to walk more, not less, to improve her lumbar spine condition, 

her obesity, and her poor physical conditioning. 

By decision dated May 6, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s request for the rental of a 

motorized scooter. 

By letter dated May 20, 2014, appellant requested a second opinion examination so that 

she could be approved for a scooter. She contended that she was unable to stand more than a few 

minutes at a time and the average amount of walking she did was limited to walking to the mail 

box approximately 35 feet, three times a week. Appellant stated that, when just walking on flat 

floors in her home, she trips and falls, and that the last time she fell in her driveway she broke 

her foot. She contended that she was now having trouble with her good leg. 

In support of her request, appellant submitted a May 20, 2014 prescription note wherein 

Dr. Lazio prescribed a motorized scooter for status post lumbar discectomy. 

In a May 23, 2014 progress report, Mr. Reappana again noted that he gave appellant a 

prescription for a motorized scooter. 

On June 1, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of the May 6, 2014 decision for a 

scooter. She argued that her physicians indicated that she needed a scooter. Appellant also 

contended that her file did show problems with chronic falling. 
4

On June 10, 2014 appellant submitted an appeal request form requesting reconsideration. 

By decision dated June 24, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its May 6, 2014 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8103(a) of FECA provides that the United States shall furnish to an employee 

who is injured while in the performance of duty the services, appliances, and supplies prescribed 

or recommended by a qualified physician that the Secretary of Labor considers likely to cure, 

give relief, reduce the degree or the period of any disability, or aid in lessening the amount of 

any monthly compensation. While OWCP is obligated to pay for treatment of 

employment-related conditions, appellant has the burden of establishing that the expenditure is 

incurred for treatment of the effects of any employment-related injury or condition.4

 Proof of 

causal relationship in a case such as this must include supporting rationalized medical evidence.5 

OWCP must exercise discretion in determining whether the particular service, appliance, 

or supply is likely to affect the purposes specified in FECA.6

 The only limitation on OWCP’s 

authority is that of reasonableness.7

 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP acted within its discretion when it denied appellant’s request 

for a motorized scooter. 

Appellant has not submitted medical evidence sufficient to establish her need for a 

motorized scooter. The Board notes that she submitted reports from Dr. Lazio, her treating 

neurosurgeon, detailing appellant’s medical history, her treatment of appellant, and diagnoses. 

Dr. Lazio noted that appellant complained of weak legs, especially when standing in line at the 

store. However, she did not give an opinion in her February 20, 2014 medical report with regard 

to appellant’s need for a scooter. Dr. Lazio did write a prescription note for a scooter on May 20, 

2014, but she did not provide a rationalized medical opinion explaining why appellant needed 

the scooter. Mr. Reappana, Dr. Lazio’s physician assistant, opined that appellant needed a 

scooter due to falls, impaired mobility, lumbar radiculopathy, and lumbar stenosis. However, the 

Board notes that Dr. Lazio did not sign Mr. Reappana’s report. Therefore, Mr. Reappana’s 

report is insufficient to establish appellant’s need for a motor scooter as physician assistants are 

 4 See Kennett O. Collins, Jr., 55 ECAB 648 (2004); Debra S. King, 44 ECAB 203, 209 (1992). 

5 K.H., Docket No. 15-148 (issued February 24, 2015); see also M.B., 58 ECAB 588 (2007); Bertha L. Arnold, 38 

ECAB 282 (1986). 

6

 OWCP has broad discretionary authority in the administration of FECA and must exercise its discretion to 

achieve the objectives of section 8103. Marjorie S. Greer, 39 ECAB 1099 (1988); see also L.M., Docket 

No 15-0818 (August 4, 2015). 

7 Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214 (1990); see also D.M., Docket No. 15-0814 (issued July 16, 2015). 
5

not considered physicians under FECA.8

 Dr. Holland merely reported her findings with regard 

to appellant’s MRI scan. She never addressed appellant’s need for a motorized scooter and its 

relationship to her accepted injury. 

Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion 

by denying appellant’s request for a scooter. As noted above, the only restriction on OWCP’s 

authority to authorize medical treatment is one of reasonableness. The Board finds that OWCP 

acted reasonably in denying this request.9

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of 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 did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant 

authorization for the rental of a motorized scooter. 

 8

 The term physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, 

and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); see 

Lyle E. Dayberry, 49 ECAB 369 (1998) (the reports of a physician assistant are entitled to no weight as a physician 

assistant is not a physician as defined by section 8102(2) of FECA. 

9 W.T., Docket No. 14-1729 (issued June 9, 2015). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 24 and May 6, 2014 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: October 27, 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