United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, New York, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-0619 

Issued: September 28, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Anthony A. Lenza, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 24, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

December 19, 2013 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.

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

medical and wage-loss compensation benefits effective December 6, 2012, finding that she no 

longer had any residuals or disability causally related to her accepted April 15, 2012 

employment-related injuries; and (2) whether appellant established continuing employmentrelated residuals or disability after December 6, 2012 as a result of her accepted April 15, 2012 

employment injuries. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 15, 2012 appellant, then a 31-year-old nurse, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on April 15, 2012 she sustained a right shoulder and back injury when 

attempting to move a bed by pulling the handrail. By decision dated June 14, 2012, OWCP 

accepted the claim for sprain of neck, sprain of back thoracic region, right shoulder sprain and 

right upper arm sprain. Appellant sought medical treatment and stopped work. She received 

wage-loss compensation and was placed on periodic rolls beginning June 17, 2012. 

In a May 10, 2012 diagnostic report, Dr. Robert Schepp, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, reported that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right shoulder 

revealed a partial tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon. Appellant also underwent an x-ray of 

the cervical and thoracic spine on May 10, 2012 and an MRI scan of the cervical spine on 

July 5, 2012. 

By report dated June 24, 2012, Dr. John C. L’Insalata, a treating physician, diagnosed 

cervical strain with possible plexopathy verses radiculopathy and shoulder sprain with 

impingement and multidirectional instability. 

In a July 31, 2012 report, Dr. Dorothy Norwood, a treating physician, reviewed an MRI 

scan of the cervical spine and right shoulder, and an electromyography (EMG) study of both 

upper extremities. She noted that the MRI scan of the right shoulder revealed some rotator cuff 

tendinosis without a discrete tear. Dr. Norwood stated that appellant’s right shoulder sprain 

symptoms were not compatible with the clinical studies and findings. She recommended an MRI 

scan of the brachial plexus and found that appellant could return to light-duty work. 

A study dated August 9, 2012 from Dr. Robert Diamond, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, reported that an MRI scan of the brachial plexus revealed no abnormalities. 

In an August 15, 2012 report, Dr. Igor Stiler, a Board-certified neurologist, reported that 

appellant had decreased range of motion in her spine and shoulder compared to her July 12, 2012 

examination. He noted that she could return to work at limited duty, restricting use of her right 

upper extremity. 

By report dated August 15, 2012, Dr. Joseph Giovinazzo, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, reported that he reviewed the MRI scan of appellant’s right shoulder. He could not see 

a tear even though the report noted a partial rotator cuff tear. He opined that she was temporarily 

disabled and unable to work. 

On August 30, 2012 OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) and 

the case file to Dr. Jeffrey Lakin, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion 

medical examination to establish the nature and extent of disability. In a September 19, 2012 

report, Dr. Lakin provided findings on physical examination, a summary of appellant’s past 

medical reports, and a history of the April 15, 2012 employment injury. He reviewed her 

diagnostic studies and agreed with the findings of the radiologist with respect to the May 10, 

2012 MRI scan of the right shoulder which found a partial tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon. 

Dr. Lakin noted that appellant’s physical examination revealed minimal tenderness of the 

cervical spine and upper right arm. He opined that she was not suffering from any disabling 
3

injuries due to sprains of the upper right arm, right shoulder, neck and thoracic spine. Dr. Lakin 

stated that appellant’s accepted conditions had resolved and the claim should not be expanded to 

include other conditions. He found that she was able to return to full-duty work without 

restrictions and was not suffering from other conditions which would prevent her from working 

full time. 

On October 15, 2012 OWCP notified appellant of its proposal to terminate her 

compensation benefits based on Dr. Lakin’s opinion. It provided her 30 days to submit 

additional information if she disagreed. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical reports including notes from a 

physician assistant, treatment and disability notes from Dr. Walter F. Pizzi, a Board-certified 

surgeon, providing appellant with limited-duty restrictions, and the September 24, October 25 

and November 5, 2012 notes from Dr. Kenneth Chapman, a Board-certified anesthesiologist with 

a subspecialty in pain medicine, administering cervical epidural steroid injections for treatment 

of her cervical disc disorder and cervical radiculopathy. 

Appellant also submitted a July 17, 2012 nerve conduction and EMG study from 

Dr. Stiler. He noted no evidence of cervical radiculopathy or peripheral neuropathy in the upper 

extremities. In medical reports dated October 3 and November 21, 2012, Dr. Stiler reported that 

she could return to light-duty work with restrictions. 

In September 26 and November 8, 2012 medical reports, Dr. Giovinazzo reported that an 

MRI scan /magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) scan revealed strain of the deltoid with no 

tears. He stated that appellant could return to light-duty work. 

By decision dated December 6, 2012, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and 

wage-loss compensation benefits effective that day. It found that the weight of the medical 

evidence rested with Dr. Lakin, who determined that she did not continue to have any residuals 

or disability due to her accepted work-related conditions. 

On February 13, 2013 appellant requested an oral hearing before the Branch of Hearings 

and Review. 

By decision dated March 20, 2013, the Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

appellant’s request for a hearing finding that it was not made within 30 days of the December 6, 

2012 OWCP decision. The Branch of Hearings and Review further determined that the issue in 

the case could equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration from OWCP and 

submitting evidence not previously considered which established that she continued to suffer 

from residuals of her April 15, 2012 injury. 

By letter dated March 27, 2013, counsel argued that the hearing request was timely filed 

because the decision with appeal rights was not mailed to his office or appellant until 

January 31, 2013. 

By letter dated April 1, 2013, appellant requested reconsideration of the 

December 6, 2012 decision. She argued that she had been misdiagnosed and that surgery on 
4

March 11, 2013 revealed a labral tear which did not appear on the previously obtained MRI scan 

or arthrogram. 

Appellant also submitted disability notes from Dr. Pizzi restricting her to limited duty and 

notes from Dr. Chapman documenting treatment of epidural steroid injections. A February 20, 

2013 vocational assessment evaluation reported that she was unemployable for the next several 

years. 

In a January 24, 2013 report, Dr. Irving Friedman, a Board-certified neurologist, 

examined appellant and noted that she injured her shoulder on April 15, 2012 when a bedside rail 

came off at work. He provided findings on physical examination, reviewed past medical reports 

and summarized the diagnostic studies. Dr. Friedman noted that a September 18, 2012 MRI scan 

of the right shoulder revealed anterior deltoid muscle belly grade 1 strain, no rotator cuff tear, 

minimal stretching of the intracapsular portion and mild flattening of the posterior/superior 

labrum without discrete tear. He diagnosed chronic post-traumatic right shoulder syndrome with 

partial tear supraspinatus and effusion, chronic post-traumatic right shoulder arthropathy with 

marked restricted range of motion, post-traumatic cervical myofascitis/spasm with right-sided 

radiculopathy and right deltoid grade 1 strain. Dr. Friedman opined that appellant’s conditions 

were directly related to the injuries sustained on April 15, 2012 when she became, and continued 

to be, acutely symptomatic. He further opined that she was partially disabled as a result of her 

right upper extremity, right shoulder and cervical spine conditions and could not return to work 

as a nurse due to extreme limited usefulness of the right upper extremity. 

In a March 5, 2013 report, Dr. Armin M. Tehrany, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

reported that appellant injured her right shoulder about 11 months prior and had been treated 

with epidural shots, cortisone injections and physical therapy with no improvement. His review 

of diagnostic testing revealed disc bulges in the cervical spine. An MRI scan of the right 

shoulder revealed small partial cuff tear and an MRI scan revealed potential changes in the 

labrum. Dr. Tehrany diagnosed missed right shoulder labral tear and subtle capsular redundancy. 

He recommended diagnostic arthroscopy of the right shoulder. 

In a March 11, 2013 report, Dr. Tehrany provided a preoperative diagnosis of instability 

with labral tears of the right shoulder. He provided a postoperative diagnosis of instability with 

labral tears right shoulder plus superior labral tear from anterior to posterior (SLAP) lesion and 

bursitis. Appellant underwent right SLAP repair, capsular plication and bursectomy. The 

surgery was not approved by OWCP. 

OWCP found a conflict of medical opinion between Dr. Tehrany, Dr. Friedman, and 

Dr. Stiler, appellant’s treating physicians, and Dr. Lakin as the second opinion physician. It 

referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts, the case file, a medical conflict statement and a 

series of questions to Dr. Alan M. Crystal, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial 

referee medical examination to resolve the conflict. 

In a July 15, 2013 report, Dr. Crystal noted that appellant’s right shoulder sprain, sprain 

of the neck, and thoracic spine were accepted as a result of the April 15, 2012 employment 

incident of pulling a bed and breaking off a bedrail. He noted that clinical examination of the 

right shoulder revealed slightly decreased active range of motion, but was sufficient to be 

deemed functional for activities of daily living and work as appellant’s complaints were 
5

subjective. Dr. Crystal noted that due to the alleged SLAP Type 2 legion and surgery performed 

for alleged shoulder instability, a slight decrease in range of motion may persist. He stated that 

there were no objective findings related to the sprain of the neck and no objective findings or 

subjective complaints related to the thoracic sprain. Dr. Crystal found that the neck sprain and 

thoracic sprain had resolved. He stated that the right shoulder sprain waned due to corrective 

surgery. Dr. Crystal noted that the accepted condition of right shoulder sprain was a vague 

diagnosis and became a right shoulder SLAP Type 2 lesion with anterior and posterior shoulder 

instability after surgery. He noted that surgery corrected the SLAP Type 2 lesion and the alleged 

shoulder instability. Dr. Crystal noted that appellant had borderline diabetes which was 

secondary to her polycystic ovaries and could cause shoulder stiffness. He advised that she was 

capable of working full duty based on Dr. Lakin’s evaluation presurgery and was also currently 

capable of working full-duty after her right shoulder surgery. Dr. Crystal recommended no 

further medical treatment. 

By decision dated August 16, 2013, OWCP affirmed the December 6, 2012 decision. It 

found that the medical evidence failed to establish that appellant remained disabled as a result of 

the accepted April 15, 2012 work injury. 

On September 9, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration of the decision. She argued 

that her SLAP tear and brachial plexus injury were work related and that she required light-duty 

work. Appellant noted that she recently obtained a consult from Dr. Vincent G. Fietti, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, who had provided this opinion. By letter of the same date, counsel 

argued that appellant was entitled to an oral hearing as the request was timely filed. 

In a July 10, 2013 report, Dr. Fietti reviewed appellant’s prior medical reports and 

diagnostic studies and provided findings on physical examination. He provided a summary of 

the diagnostic studies and treatment obtained as a result of her April 15, 2012 work injury. 

Dr. Fietti noted that, despite treatment over the course of the prior year, appellant’s symptoms 

persisted warranting a surgical consultation with Dr. Tehrany on March 5, 2013. Appellant 

favored an arthroscopic evaluation of her right shoulder which was performed on 

March 11, 2013. The operative note indicated findings of micro tears of both anteroinferior and 

posteroinferior glenoid labrums, a SLAP Type 2 lesion, and bursitis. Capsular placations and 

labral repairs were performed and appellant continued with physical therapy postoperation. 

Dr. Fietti reported that appellant sustained an injury to her right upper extremity and neck 

in April 2012 which caused a right brachial plexopathy and right shoulder injury. Orthopedic 

evaluation showed a deformity to the glenoid labrum which, on arthroscopic examination, 

proved to be tears in the anterior and posterior aspects of the labrum, both of which were 

repaired. In addition, the shoulder capsule was felt to be enlarged resulting in instability and a 

capsular placation was performed. Dr. Fietti opined that appellant’s tears of the right shoulder 

labrum, instability of the right shoulder and traction neuropathy to her brachial plexus were a 

direct consequence of her April 15, 2012 employment accident. He concluded that she was 

totally disabled from her previous employment but could perform light-duty work. 

In a September 25, 2013 report, Dr. Norwood stated that appellant suffered from 

persistent right upper extremity weakness after surgical repair of the labral tears. She opined that 

appellant was capable of returning to work on a light-duty status. Appellant also submitted 
6

treatment notes from Dr. Tehrany previously of record, as well as physician assistant notes 

documenting her treatment postsurgery. 

By decision dated December 19, 2013, OWCP affirmed the August 16, 2013 decision 

finding that the medical evidence failed to establish continuing disability as a result of the 

April 15, 2012 employment incident. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Once OWCP has accepted a claim and pays compensation, it bears the burden to justify 

modification or termination of benefits.2

 Having determined that an employee has a disability 

causally related to his or her 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 for disability compensation.4

 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.5 OWCP’s burden of proof includes the necessity of 

furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical 

background.6

For conditions not accepted by OWCP as being employment related, it is the employee’s 

burden to provide rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relation, not 

OWCP’s burden to disprove such relationship.7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a sprain of neck, sprain of back thoracic region, 

right shoulder sprain, and right upper arm sprain as a result of the April 15, 2012 employment 

incident. The issue is whether OWCP properly terminated her medical and wage-loss 

compensation benefits effective December 6, 2012 as she was not experiencing any residuals or 

disability of the April 15, 2012 injuries. The Board finds that OWCP properly terminated 

appellant’s medical and wage-loss benefits. 

In its termination decision, OWCP determined that the weight of the medical evidence 

rested with Dr. Lakin, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon serving as the second opinion 

 2 Bernadine P. Taylor, 54 ECAB 342 (2003). 

3 Id. 

4 Roger G. Payne, 55 ECAB 535 (2004). 

5 Pamela K. Guesford, 53 ECAB 726 (2002). 

6 T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 351 (1975). 

7 G.A., Docket No. 09-2153 (issued June 10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Alice J. Tysinger, 51 

ECAB 638 (2000). 
7

physician. The Board finds that Dr. Lakin’s well-rationalized report, which was based upon a 

proper factual and medical background, represents the weight of the medical evidence and 

establishes that appellant’s right shoulder sprain, sprain of neck, and thoracic sprain ceased and 

she was no longer experiencing residuals or disability related to the April 15, 2012 employment 

incident.8

In his September 19, 2012 medical report, Dr. Lakin reviewed past medical reports, 

summarized diagnostic findings, and provided findings on physical examination. He stated that 

the sprains to the right shoulder and upper arm, neck, and thoracic back had resolved and 

appellant was no longer suffering from the disabling April 15, 2012 work-related injuries. 

The Board has carefully reviewed the opinion of Dr. Lakin and finds that it has 

reliability, probative value, and convincing quality with respect to its conclusions regarding the 

relevant issue in the present case.9

 Dr. Lakin’s opinion is based on a proper factual and medical 

history and he thoroughly reviewed the SOAF and medical records.10 He provided medical 

rationale for his opinion by explaining that appellant’s sprains had resolved as evidenced by her 

clinical examination and radiograph studies. Dr. Lakin further explained that appellant was 

neurologically intact with no evidence of peripheral nerve entrapment. He provided a thorough 

explanation that appellant’s disability had ceased explaining that she did not sustain any 

additional injuries as a result of the April 15, 2012 employment incident which would warrant 

expanding the claim and thus, could resume full-duty work without restrictions. Dr. Lakin’s 

opinion is entitled to special weight and establishes that appellant was no longer experiencing 

residuals or disability related to the April 15, 2012 employment incident.11

The Board notes that the most recent reports contemporaneous with the termination of 

appellant’s benefits were provided by Dr. Giovinazzo, dated September 26 and 

November 8, 2012. Dr. Giovinazzo reported that an MRI/MRA scan revealed strain of the 

deltoid with no tears and released appellant to light-duty work. The Board has held that medical 

evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of 

limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.12 While these reports provided a 

diagnosis of deltoid strain, the physician failed to provide any opinion that appellant was 

experiencing residuals or disability as a result of her accepted April 15, 2012 injuries.13 

The remaining medical evidence of record is also insufficient to establish employmentrelated disability. Dr. Pizzi’s disability notes provided appellant with limited-duty restrictions 

yet failed to discuss a diagnoses and cause of ongoing disability. Dr. Chapman’s reports dated 

September 24 through November 5, 2012 only noted treatment for cervical disc disorder and 

 8 Y.M., Docket No. 14-1050, 14-1193 (issued December 24, 2014). 

9 See R.W., Docket No. 12-375 (issued October 28, 2013). 

10 See Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443 (1987). 

11 A.H., Docket No. 13-266 (issued October 24, 2013). 

12 S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010).

13 J.H., Docket No. 12-1848 (issued May 15, 2013). 
8

cervical radiculopathy with no discussion of the cause of these conditions. The diagnostic 

reports interpreted imaging studies with no further explanation establishing a firm medical 

diagnosis and causal relationship. The opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship 

must rest on a complete factual and medical background supported by affirmative evidence, 

address the specific factual and medical evidence of record, and provide medical rationale 

explaining the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or 

factor of employment.14 The physicians failed to provide sufficient medical rationale explaining 

how appellant remained disabled as a result of the April 15, 2012 employment injuries.15

The Board further notes that the initial medical reports of record do not discuss 

appellant’s disability as of December 6, 2012. The May 12, 2012 report from Dr. Schepp, the 

June 24, 2012 report from Dr. Insalata, the July 31, 2012 report from Dr. Norwood, the August 9, 

2012 report from Dr. Diamond, and the August 15, 2012 report from Dr. Stiler, provide 

diagnostic impressions but did not address appellant’s disability status as of December 6, 2012. 

For this reason, the Board finds that these reports are of limited probative value regarding the 

current issue. 

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

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

Board also notes that there are no reports from appellant’s treating physicians establishing 

employment-related disability or supporting any continuing residuals of the accepted conditions. 

Because appellant no longer has residuals or disability related to her accepted employment 

conditions, OWCP properly terminated entitlement to compensation and medical benefits 

effective December 6, 2012.16 Accordingly, OWCP met its burden of proof and its decision to 

terminate her compensation and medical benefits shall be affirmed.17

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

After termination or modification of compensation benefits, clearly warranted on the 

basis of the evidence, the burden of reinstating compensation shifts to the claimant. To prevail, 

the claimant must establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that 

she had an employment-related disability, which continued after the termination of benefits.18

Under FECA,19 the term disability is defined as incapacity, because of employment 

injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.20 Whether a 

particular injury causes an employee to be disabled and the duration of that disability are medical 

 14 See Lee R. Haywood, 48 ECAB 145 (1996). 

15 W.F., Docket No. 12-479 (issued November 27, 2012); Dean E. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989). 

16 G.I., Docket No. 13-19 (issued April 2, 2013). 

17 L.C., Docket No. 12-1177 (issued August 19, 2013). 

18 See E.J., 59 ECAB 695 (2008). 

19 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

20 See Prince E. Wallace, 52 ECAB 357 (2001). 
9

issues which must be proved by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

medical evidence.21 

Section 8123(a) of FECA 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. When 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.22 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The Board finds that appellant has not established continuing residuals or disability after 

December 6, 2012 as a result of her accepted April 15, 2012 employment injuries. 

Subsequent to OWCP’s December 6, 2012 termination of benefits decision, appellant 

submitted additional medical evidence in support of her claim for continued disability 

compensation as a result of residuals or disability causally related to the accepted April 15, 2012 

injury. While OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right shoulder sprain, sprain of neck and 

thoracic sprain, her additional right shoulder conditions, including right shoulder labral tears, 

were discovered only upon a March 11, 2013 arthroscopic evaluation, performed by 

Dr. Tehrany, despite having previously undergone numerous medical evaluations and various 

diagnostic testing since the onset of her initial April 15, 2012 injury. 

Based on the evidence submitted, OWCP found a conflict of medical opinion between 

Drs. Tehrany, Friedman, and Stiler, appellant’s treating physicians, and Dr. Lakin, the second 

opinion physician. It referred appellant to Dr. Alan M. Crystal, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, for an impartial referee medical examination to resolve the conflict. 

In a July 15, 2013 report, Dr. Crystal noted that appellant’s right shoulder sprain, sprain 

of the neck, and thoracic spine were accepted as a result of the April 15, 2012 employment 

incident of pulling a bed and breaking off a bedrail. He noted that clinical examination of the 

right shoulder revealed slightly decreased active range of motion, but was sufficient to be 

deemed functional for activities of daily living and work as appellant’s complaints were 

subjective. Dr. Crystal noted that, due to the alleged SLAP Type 2 legion and surgery performed 

for alleged shoulder instability, a slight decrease in range of motion may persist. He stated that 

there were no objective findings related to the sprain of the neck and no objective findings or 

subjective complaints related to the thoracic sprain. Dr. Crystal found that the neck sprain and 

thoracic sprain had resolved. He stated that the right shoulder sprain waned due to corrective 

surgery. Dr. Crystal noted that the accepted condition of right shoulder sprain was a vague 

diagnosis and became a right shoulder SLAP Type 2 lesion with anterior and posterior shoulder 

instability after surgery. He noted that surgery corrected the SLAP Type 2 lesion and the alleged 

shoulder instability. Dr. Crystal noted that appellant had borderline diabetes which was 

secondary to her polycystic ovaries and could cause shoulder stiffness. He advised that she was 

 21 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001); Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301, 303 (1989). 

22 See Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001). 
10

capable of working full duty based on Dr. Lakin’s evaluation presurgery and was also currently 

capable of working full duty after her right shoulder surgery. Dr. Crystal recommended no 

further medical treatment. 

The Board finds that, under the circumstances of this case, the opinion of Dr. Crystal is 

well rationalized and based upon a proper factual background such that it is entitled to special 

weight and establishes that appellant’s work-related condition has ceased.23 

On reconsideration, appellant submitted a report of Dr. Fietti dated July 10, 2013, in 

which he opined that appellant was disabled from her previous employment, but could perform 

light-duty work. Appellant also submitted a September 25, 2013 report of Dr. Norwood in which 

she opined that appellant was capable of returning to work on a light-duty status. However, 

these reports of Drs. Fietti and Norwood are repetitive relative to their prior reports and are 

insufficient to overcome the opinion of Dr. Crystal or to create a new medical conflict.24 

Appellant, therefore, has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing residuals or 

disability after December 6, 2012. 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 benefits effective December 6, 2012. The Board further finds that appellant has 

not established that she continues to suffer from employment-related residuals or disability as a 

result of her accepted April 15, 2012 employment injuries. 

 23 Aubrey Belnavis, 37 ECAB 206 (1985). 

24 See Howard Y. Miyashiro, 43 ECAB 1101, 1115 (1992); Dorothy Sidwell, 41 ECAB 857 (1990). 
11

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 19, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.25

Issued: September 28, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 25 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge, participated in the preparation of the decision but was no longer a member 

of the Board effective December 27, 2014.