United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

H.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DOWNTOWN 

DELIVERY ANNEX, Baltimore, MD, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1191 

Issued: November 25, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 13, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal of an April 11, 2016 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established that he has continuing employment-related 

residuals or disability commencing September 16, 2009 causally related to the May 19, 2006 

employment injury. 

On appeal appellant, through counsel, argues that OWCP’s decision is contrary to fact 

and law. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. The relevant facts are as follows. 

On May 20, 2006 appellant, then a 57-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 19, 2006 he suffered from head and neck pain after a 

vehicle door hit his head. He stopped work on May 19, 2006 and did not return. On August 1, 

2006 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for cervical and lumbar sprain.3 

OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss and medical benefits on September 16, 2009, 

finding that the opinion of the impartial medical examiner, Dr. Olumuyia Paul, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, constituted the weight of the medical opinion. On September 15, 2010 

appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence. OWCP denied 

modification of the prior decision on October 20, 2011. Appellant appealed to the Board on 

November 22, 2011. In a decision dated September 10, 2012, the Board affirmed OWCP’s 

termination of appellant’s benefits effective September 16, 2009, as the report of Dr. Paul found 

that appellant had no residuals from his accepted employment-related neck and lumbar strain 

after that date. The Board further found that the medical evidence was insufficient to overcome 

the special weight accorded to Dr. Paul and thus, appellant did not establish any continuing 

employment residuals or disability after September 16, 2009.4 Following appellant’s July 9, 

2013 request for reconsideration, on October 24, 2013 OWCP found that appellant had not 

established continuing disability after September 16, 2009. On June 16, 2014 the Board affirmed 

OWCP’s October 24, 2013 decision finding that the new evidence submitted by appellant on 

reconsideration was not sufficient to establish continuing employment-related residuals on or 

after September 16, 2009.5

 

Appellant again requested that OWCP reconsider his claim on March 26, 2015. In 

support of this request for reconsideration he submitted a report from Dr. Leonid Selya, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, dated February 11, 2015. On April 9, 2015 OWCP denied the 

request for reconsideration as untimely filed and failing to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

 3

 In Docket No. 09-88 (issued June 3, 2009) (the Board found that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to 

terminate appellant’s compensation benefits due to a conflict in evidence, and remanded the case for referral of 

appellant to an appropriate medical specialist to resolve the conflict. The Board further found that appellant was not 

entitled to a schedule award for permanent impairment to his back). 

4

 Docket No. 12-230 (issued September 10, 2012). 

5

 Docket No. 14-401 (issued June 16, 2014). 
3

Appellant filed another appeal to the Board on May 7, 2015. By decision dated October 8, 2015, 

the Board found that appellant’s request for reconsideration was timely filed. The Board 

remanded the case for OWCP to apply the proper standard for reviewing a timely reconsideration 

request.6

 The facts and circumstances as set forth in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated 

herein by reference. 

Since the last merit review by this Board on June 16, 2014, OWCP received the 

February 11, 2015 report from Dr. Selya. Dr. Selya noted that appellant continued to complain 

of pain in his neck, bilateral upper extremities, and had difficulty maintaining balance. He 

related appellant’s allegations that his symptoms started in 2006 when a large door of a truck fell 

onto his head and he developed progressive pains and neurological symptoms arising from his 

neck trauma. Dr. Selya diagnosed cervical stenosis, degenerative disc disease at C4-C5, disc 

syndrome at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and radiculopathies within C5 distribution with impairment of 

balance. He concluded that appellant was totally disabled. Dr. Selya noted that appellant had no 

interest in surgery, and that pain management and physical therapy should be considered by 

appellant. 

By decision dated April 11, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision, 

finding that the new medical evidence was insufficient to establish continuing disability after 

September 16, 2009 causally related to the May 19, 2006 employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

As OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits, the 

burden shifted to appellant to establish that he had continuing disability causally related to his 

accepted employment injury.7

 To establish causal relationship between the claimed disability 

and the employment injury, appellant must submit rationalized medical opinion evidence based 

on a complete factual and medical background supporting such a causal relationship.8

The medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical 

opinion evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a 

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of appellant, must be one 

of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by appellant.9

 6

 Docket No. 15-1217 (issued October 8, 2015). 

7 See Joseph A. Brown, Jr., 55 ECAB 542 (2004); Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001). 

8 Daniel F. O’Donnell, Jr., 54 ECAB 456 (2003). 

9 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 351-52 (1989). 
4

ANALYSIS 

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

accepted employment-related lumbar and cervical strains on or after September 16, 2009 

causally related to the May 19, 2006 employment injury. 

In its June 16, 2015 decision, the Board discussed Dr. Selya’s April 24 and August 29, 

2013 reports and determined at that time that Dr. Selya provided only conclusory statements on 

causal relationship without providing medical reasoning or rationale to support his opinion. The 

Board concluded that these reports were insufficient to establish continuing residuals after 

September 16, 2009.10 The Board finds that, with respect to the findings made in its prior 

decision dated June 9, 2015; those matters are res judicata absent any further review by OWCP 

under section 8128 of FECA.11

The Board finds that Dr. Selya’s latest opinion of February 11, 2015 is also insufficient to 

establish that appellant had residuals from his May 19, 2006 employment injury after 

September 16, 2009. In fact, the February 11, 2015 report provided no support for appellant’s 

claim of continuing disability due to the accepted employment incident. Dr. Selya failed to 

provide a rationalized medical opinion that appellant’s conditions of cervical stenosis, 

degenerative disc disease at C4-C5, disc syndrome at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and radiculopathies 

within C5 distribution with impairment of balance were causally related to appellant’s accepted 

employment injury. His report is therefore of limited probative value as it failed to provide an 

opinion as to whether appellant continued to have residuals of his accepted work conditions after 

September 16, 2009.12

Accordingly, as the Board finds that appellant failed to submit a rationalized medical 

report from a physician that established continuing employment-related residuals or disability 

after September 16, 2009 causally related to his accepted employment injury, appellant has failed 

to meet his burden of proof.13 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish that he had any continuing employment 

residuals or disability after September 16, 2009 causally related to the May 19, 2006 

employment injury. 

 10 Docket No. 14-401 (issued June 16, 2014). 

11 See D.V., Docket No. 16-1168 (issued September 13, 2016). 

12 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause 

of an employee’s condition is of diminished probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 

13 See L.C., Docket No. 15-0877 (issued August 2, 2016). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated April 11, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: November 25, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board