United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT 

& TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, 

Clearfield, UT, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1485 

Issued: October 7, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a May 14, 2015 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 met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

benefits as of May 14, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 23, 2013 appellant, an 18-year-old training apprentice with the Job Corps 

program, sustained a broken jaw when a fellow training apprentice punched him. He filed a 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

claim for benefits on July 24, 2013, which OWCP accepted for fractured jaw. Appellant stopped 

work on July 23, 2013 and OWCP commenced payment for wage-loss compensation on the 

periodic rolls. 

On August 1, 2013 Dr. Armando A. Gama, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, reported 

that appellant underwent surgery on that date. The procedure was to repair moderately displaced 

fractures of the left angle and right parasymphysis of the mandible. It required an open reduction 

and internal fixation of the left angle and right parasymphysis of the mandible, placement of 

Erich arch bars and intermaxillary fixation. 

Dr. Gama reported in a progress note dated November 25, 2013 that he had examined 

appellant on that date and he recommended another procedure for debridement of the fracture 

and the removal of hardware. He noted that appellant was apprehensive about undergoing a 

second surgery. In another progress note dated February 19, 2014, Dr. Gama related that 

appellant had returned for treatment on that date. At that visit they discussed the need to achieve 

a bony union of the fracture, but that appellant desired to delay further treatment. 

To determine appellant’s current condition and whether he continued to suffer with 

residuals from his accepted fractured jaw, OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion 

examination by Dr. Charles W. Mason, a specialist in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 

In an October 21, 2014 report, Dr. Mason reviewed the medical history and the statement of 

accepted facts. He noted findings on examination, and advised that appellant continued to 

experience pain. Dr. Mason stated that orthodontic treatment would not address appellant’s chief 

complaint, noting that his pain was related to a dental or skeletal issue which could be related to 

his previous mandibular fracture. He advised that an x-ray taken on October 21, 2014, revealed 

a mild radiolucency at the apex of tooth number 17; this appeared to communicate with a thin 

radiolucency running all the way to the mandibular border. Dr. Mason determined that these 

findings indicated that the area of the fracture might not be fully healed and were consistent with 

the pain appellant was experiencing. 

Dr. Mason opined that appellant needed to undergo further diagnostic tests by a dentist 

and an oral surgeon to evaluate his continuing pain. He noted that the full differential diagnosis 

of tooth number 27 was outside the scope of his specialty and that it was possible that the jaw 

had not fully healed, although it was functional. Dr. Mason repeated his recommendation that 

appellant be evaluated further by an oral surgeon. He concluded that appellant did not appear to 

be limited in working in his previous job. Appellant’s chief complaint and his condition did not 

prevent him from doing his employment duties. 

On April 8, 2015 OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of compensation to 

appellant. It found that the weight of the medical evidence, as represented by the opinion of 

Dr. Mason, the second opinion physician, established that he could perform his date-of-injury job 

without limitations. OWCP allowed appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence or legal 

argument in opposition to the proposed termination. 

Appellant submitted an April 21, 2015 form report from Dr. Jeanne H. Williams, a family 

practitioner, indicating that he had been examined in an emergency department on that date for 
3

jaw pain and tooth decay. Also submitted was an April 25, 2015 letter from an oral surgeon’s 

office advising that he had been examined on that date by Dr. Gama. 

By decision dated May 14, 2015, OWCP terminated appellant’s compensation for wage 

loss. It found Dr. Mason’s referral opinion represented the weight of the medical evidence. 

OWCP stated that this decision did not terminate appellant’s medical benefits, which remained 

open. 

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.2 Having 

determined that an employee has a disability causally related to his federal employment, OWCP 

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

it is no longer related to the employment.3 The right to medical benefits for an accepted 

condition is not limited to the period of entitlement to compensation for disability.4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP based its decision to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation on the opinion 

of Dr. Mason, an OWCP referral physician. It did not terminate appellant’s medical benefits, 

and appellant remains entitled to medical treatment for the accepted condition. The Board finds 

that OWCP correctly terminated appellant’s wage-loss benefits. 

OWCP in its May 14, 2015 decision relied on the October report of Dr. Mason, the 

referral examiner, to find that appellant’s accepted jaw condition no longer disabled him. 

Dr. Mason found that appellant still had pain related to a dental or skeletal issue which might be 

related to his previous mandibular fracture. An October 21, 2014 radiograph showed that the 

area of the fracture might not be fully healed. Dr. Mason recommended that appellant undergo 

further diagnostic tests by a dentist and an oral surgeon. He opined, however, that appellant 

appeared not to have any limitations on working in his previous job.

The Board finds that Dr. Mason’s referral opinion established that appellant was no 

longer disabled by the effects of his accepted fractured jaw. Dr. Mason’s opinion is sufficiently 

probative, rationalized, and based upon a proper factual background. 

Dr. Gama, appellant’s treating physician, did not provide an opinion regarding 

appellant’s disability status as of May 14, 2015, nor did Dr. Williams address appellant’s 

disability status in her April 21, 2015 report. Their reports are therefore of little probative value 

regarding appellant’s disability status.5

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

3 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008). 

4 Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 361 (1990). 

5 See L.W., Docket No. 14-0559 (issued July 24, 2015). 
4

The Board affirms OWCP’s May 14, 2015 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

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

benefits as of May 14, 2015. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 14, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs be affirmed. 

Issued: October 7, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board