United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1821 

Issued: January 23, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 19, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 23, 

2014 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) affirming the 

termination of her 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 1, 2013 on the ground that her accepted conditions had ceased without 

residuals. 

On appeal, counsel contends that OWCP’s decision is contrary to fact and law. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

In a decision dated October 16, 2006, OWCP accepted that appellant, then a 43-year-old 

letter carrier, sustained an aggravation of right sciatica, aggravation of a herniated disc at L5-S1, 

and aggravation of lumbar radiculopathy due to factors of her federal employment. It 

subsequently accepted right sciatica, displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc without 

myelopathy, and thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, and a recurrence on 

January 7, 2013. Appellant had also previously sustained a lumbosacral sprain, right hip 

contusion, and buttock contusion on January 6, 2005, which OWCP accepted under claim 

number xxxxxx665. 

In an August 20, 2013 report, Dr. Bradford Woelke, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

indicated that appellant fell on her right hip in January 2006 and continued to suffer residual pain 

in her low back, right buttock, and right leg. He opined that she was disabled for work and 

would likely never be able to return to full duty. 

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

extent of her employment-related conditions. In a June 28, 2013 report, Dr. Emmanuel 

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

of the injury, and the medical evidence of record, and conducted a physical examination. He 

indicated that appellant “exhibited excessive pain behavior” and “assumed an asymmetric 

posture with the entire trunk tilted to the left.” Appellant sat in an oblique manner, with the right 

buttocks hanging off her chair and when Dr. Obianwu asked her why, she stated that it was 

because of her pain. Regarding range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine, appellant had 

10 degrees of flexion, less than 5 degrees of extension, and lateral bending to either side of 

5 degrees. Dr. Obianwu indicated that her range of motion was so restricted that he informed her 

“that such severe impairment of spinal mobility was essentially nonphysiologic.” Appellant 

reported that this had been so for quite some time and Dr. Obianwu indicated that “if indeed she 

has had this asymmetric posture for any length of time, there would be a severe atrophy in the 

musculature of the right lower extremity.” Dr. Obianwu found inappropriate tenderness, 

simulated axial rotation, and the global loss of sensation in the entire right lower extremity 

constituted positive Waddell’s findings and clearly indicated the presence of overt symptom 

magnification. He further indicated that when appellant left the examining room she “exhibited 

such a severe, nonphysiologic limp that it could not be explained, regardless of pathology within 

the lower extremities or in the spine.” Dr. Obianwu diagnosed mild degenerative arthritis of the 

lumbar spine, mild disc bulge at L5-S1, and overt symptom magnification. He concluded that 

appellant’s employment-related conditions of aggravation of right sciatica, aggravation of 

herniated disc at L5-S1, aggravation of lumbar radiculopathy, lumbosacral sprain, right hip 

contusion, and buttock contusion had resolved. 

By letter dated October 1, 2013, OWCP notified appellant that it proposed to terminate 

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

Dr. Obianwu. It afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence or argument in disagreement 

with the proposed action. 

Appellant submitted an April 22, 2013 report from Dr. Sharon Minott, a Board-certified 

anesthesiologist and pain medicine specialist, who indicated that appellant was seen for pain in 
3

the right back and lower extremity. She had positive Yeoman’s testing and bilateral right greater 

than left sacroiliac joint tenderness. Dr. Minott found that appellant only sat on her left buttock 

and was hesitant to have her right buttock examined. There was no noticeable atrophy of the 

gluteal or posterior thigh or leg muscles when appellant was standing, and no atrophic changes 

visible on the skin. Dr. Minott found left pectoralis muscle tenderness, positive hip compression 

on the right, and a positive Patrick’s sign on the right. 

By decision dated November 1, 2013, OWCP terminated appellant’s compensation 

benefits effective that day finding that the weight of the evidence was represented by 

Dr. Obianwu. 

On November 6, 2013 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative and submitted an August 27, 2013 report from Dr. Minott, who 

diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, piriformis syndrome of the right side, and sacroiliac 

dysfunction. 

A telephonic hearing was held before an OWCP hearing representative on May 8, 2014. 

On May 22, 2014 Dr. Woelke indicated that appellant had persistent and permanent loss 

of function in the right leg and right buttock and opined that she was disabled for work due to her 

employment-related injury to the lower back and right sciatica. 

By decision dated July 23, 2014, the hearing representative affirmed the November 1, 

2013 termination decision, finding that Dr. Obianwu 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.2 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.3

 OWCP’s 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.5

 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.6

 

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

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

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

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

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

Section 8123(a) of FECA provides in pertinent part: 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.7 Where a case is 

referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving a conflict, the opinion of 

such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based on a proper factual and medical 

background must be given special weight.8

 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden to justify termination of benefits. 

On appeal, counsel contends that OWCP’s decision is contrary to fact and law. The 

Board finds that there is an unresolved conflict in medical opinion between Dr. Obianwu and 

Dr. Minott.9 For a conflict to arise the opposing physicians viewpoints must be of virtually equal 

weight and rationale.10 It is OWCP that bears the burden to justify modification or termination 

of benefits.11 

OWCP based its decision to terminate appellant’s benefits on a June 28, 2013 report by 

Dr. Obianwu, the second-opinion physician, who conducted a physical examination and 

reviewed her medical history. Dr. Obianwu concluded that appellant’s employment-related 

conditions of aggravation of right sciatica, aggravation of herniated disc at L5-S1, aggravation of 

lumbar radiculopathy, lumbosacral sprain, right hip contusion, and buttock contusion had 

resolved noting excessive pain behavior. 

In an April 22, 2013 report, Dr. Minott indicated that appellant had positive Yeoman’s 

testing and bilateral right greater than left sacroiliac joint tenderness. She found left pectoralis 

muscle tenderness, positive hip compression on the right, and a positive Patrick’s sign on the 

right. On August 27, 2013 Dr. Minott diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, piriformis syndrome of 

the right side, and sacroiliac dysfunction. 

Drs. Obianwu and Minott both reviewed appellant’s medical history and conducted 

physical examinations. However, their findings are significantly divergent. It is noted that the 

medical report of Dr. Obianwu is of greater length than the report of Dr. Minott. The Board, 

however, recognizes that the length of Dr. Obianwu’s report fails to equate to more rationalized 

medical opinion as his report is largely conclusory. Dr. Obianwu concluded that appellant’s 

employment-related conditions had resolved, whereas Dr. Minott diagnosed lumbar 

 7

 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). See R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006); Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006). 

8 See V.G., 59 ECAB 635 (2008); Sharyn D. Bannick, 54 ECAB 537 (2003); Gary R. Sieber, 46 ECAB 

215 (1994). 

9

 FECA provides that, if there is disagreement between the physician making the examination for OWCP and the 

employee’s physician, OWCP shall appoint a third physician who shall make an examination. See 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8123(a); Shirley L. Steib, 46 ECAB 309, 317 (1994). 

10 See Darlene R. Kennedy, supra note 7 at 416. 

11 See Curtis Hall, 45 ECAB 316 (1994). 
5

radiculopathy, piriformis syndrome of the right side, and sacroiliac dysfunction, of which one 

condition has been accepted by OWCP as employment related. Thus, the Board finds that 

OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits effective 

November 1, 2013. As of that date a conflict in medical opinion existed between Dr. Obianwu 

and Dr. Minott. Each physician had the opportunity to examine appellant and review the 

diagnostic studies of record. With respect to the existence and extent of any ongoing 

employment-related residuals, the Board finds that the relevant and probative medical evidence 

is in equipoise. 

It is well established that, where there exists opposing medical reports of virtually equal 

weight and rationale, the case should be referred to an impartial medical specialist for the 

purpose of resolving the conflict.12 The Board notes that the reports and treatment records of 

Dr. Minott were of record prior to the November 1, 2013 termination decision of OWCP and the 

hearing representative’s July 23, 2014 decision affirming the termination decision. The Board 

finds that once OWCP received Dr. Minott’s reports it should have submitted them to 

Dr. Obianwu and requested a supplemental report before issuing a final decision on appellant’s 

entitlement. As OWCP failed to base its decision on a resolution of the opinion evidence, the 

Board finds that it did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s benefits. Referral to 

an impartial medical specialist is warranted. Accordingly, OWCP’s decision to terminate 

appellant’s compensation and medical benefits is reversed. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

compensation benefits effective November 1, 2013. 

 12 H.S., Docket No. 10-1220 (issued May 24, 2011); see Darlene R. Kennedy, supra note 7. 
6

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed and the case remanded for further action 

consistent with this opinion of the Board. 

Issued: January 23, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board