United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Saint Louis, MO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1585 

Issued: August 17, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 1, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 14, 2016 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has more than four percent permanent impairment of the 

left lower extremity, for which he previously received a schedule award. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 Appellant timely requested an oral argument before the Board. By order dated April 11, 2017, the Board 

exercised its discretion and denied appellant’s request for an oral argument, finding that his arguments on appeal 

could adequately be addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Order Denying Request for Oral 

Argument, Docket No. 16-1585 (issued April 11, 2017). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts of the case as set forth in the 

Board’s prior decisions and order are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows. 

On January 31, 2009 appellant, then a 51-year-old customer service supervisor, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed a bulging disc in his lower 

back as a result of climbing, walking, and bending while completing route inspections in the 

performance of duty. He first became aware of his condition and realized that it resulted from 

his federal employment on January 20, 2009. The claim form did not indicate whether appellant 

stopped work. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for lumbar sprain. 

On May 22, 2009 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

In a September 11, 2009 letter, Dr. Randall J. Rogalsky, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant was not at maximum medical improvement (MMI). He provided 

examination findings. Dr. Rogalsky opined that according to the fifth edition of the American 

Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides), 

appellant’s whole person permanent impairment was approximately 27 percent. 

In a January 20, 2010 report, Dr. Neil Ghodadra, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon 

and OWCP medical adviser, reviewed appellant’s claim, including Dr. Rogalsky’s 

September 11, 2009 impairment rating. He reported that according to Table 16-2 of the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had four percent permanent impairment of the left lower 

extremity due to sciatic nerve symptoms. Dr. Ghodadra explained that appellant had zero 

percent right lower extremity impairment as appellant’s right leg symptoms were a result of his 

right knee medial meniscal tear, which was not accepted as work related by OWCP. He noted 

that appellant had reached MMI on September 11, 2009. 

On April 20, 2010 OWCP granted four percent permanent impairment of his left lower 

extremity. It also determined that he did not have any permanent impairment of his right lower 

extremity as a result of his accepted lumbar condition. 

On May 3, 2010 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative, which was held on August 4, 2010.4

 In a decision dated October 20, 2010, the 

hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s April 20, 2010 decision and determined that the 

medical evidence of record failed to establish that appellant had greater than four percent 

permanent impairment of the left lower extremity. 

 3

 Docket No. 11-0198 (issued August 3, 2011); Docket No. 12-1279 (issued November 26, 2012); Docket No. 13-

0600 (issued July 26, 2013). 

4

 The record reveals that appellant testified that he did not wish to contest the zero percent impairment rating for 

his right lower extremity. 
3

Appellant filed an appeal with the Board on November 2, 2010. In a decision dated 

August 3, 2011, the Board determined that Dr. Ghodadra’s January 20, 2010 medical report was 

not well reasoned as he did not apply the appropriate methodology for rating appellant’s left 

lower extremity impairment due to his accepted lumbar condition. The Board set aside the 

October 20, 2010 decision and remanded the case for further medical development, to be 

followed by a de novo decision on the schedule award issue.5

OWCP referred appellant’s claim to Dr. Sanjai Shukla, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon and OWCP medical adviser. In a September 4, 2011 report, Dr. Shukla noted his 

disagreement with Dr. Rogalsky’s September 11, 2009 report as the impairment was based on 

the whole person and utilized the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. He opined that because 

appellant had no complaints of radiculopathy, he had zero percent permanent impairment of each 

lower extremity. Dr. Shukla noted a date of MMI of September 11, 2009. 

In an October 17, 2011 report, Dr. William R. Bartley, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted appellant’s continued complaints of low back pain with bilateral radiculopathy. 

He related that an October 14, 2011 nerve conduction velocity (NCV) study was abnormal and 

consistent with left L5-S1 radiculopathy. Dr. Bartley provided physical examination findings. 

He referenced various tables in the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, July/August 2009 The 

Guides Newsletter and concluded that appellant had a “disability” impairment rating of 27 

percent. 

Dr. Shukla reviewed Dr. Bartley’s October 17, 2011 impairment rating and in a 

February 19, 2012 report noted that appellant’s symptoms of right-sided radiculopathy were 

inconsistent with appellant’s accepted condition of lumbar sprain. He opined that it was most 

likely due to a new injury. Regarding appellant’s left leg radiculopathy, Dr. Shukla referenced 

Table 16-12, page 535 of the A.M.A., Guides, and assigned a class 1 diagnosis for four percent 

permanent impairment. He reported grade modifiers of one for walking with a slight limp, one 

for physical examination, and one for clinical studies. After utilizing the net adjustment formula, 

Dr. Shukla indicated that appellant had four percent permanent impairment of the left lower 

extremity. He noted a date of MMI of October 17, 2011. 

In a de novo decision dated May 3, 2012, OWCP granted four percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity and zero percent permanent impairment of the right lower 

extremity. The date of MMI was found to be October 17, 2011. 

On May 24, 2012 appellant again appealed to the Board.6

 In an Order Remanding Case

dated November 26, 2012, the Board found that Dr. Shukla’s September 4, 2011 report was 

insufficiently rationalized because he did not properly utilize the July/August 2009 edition of 

The Guides Newsletter for rating spinal nerve extremity impairments pursuant to the sixth edition 

of the A.M.A., Guides. The Board remanded the case for further development, to be followed by 

a de novo decision.” 

 5

 Docket No. 11-0198 (issued August 3, 2011). 

6

 Docket No. 12-1279 (issued November 26, 2012). 
4

OWCP referred appellant’s claim to Dr. Christopher Gross, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon and OWCP medical adviser. In a December 24, 2012 report, Dr. Gross related his 

disagreement with Dr. Bartley’s impairment rating because he had not used the proper method 

for rating radiculopathy pursuant to FECA. He referenced the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides, and the July/August 2009 edition of The Guides Newsletter, Proposed Table 2 and 

concluded that appellant had zero percent permanent impairment of each lower extremity. 

Dr. Gross noted an MMI date of September 11, 2009. 

In a decision dated January 9, 2013, OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to an 

additional schedule award greater than the four percent permanent impairment previously 

awarded for his left lower extremity. It found that the weight of the medical evidence rested with 

Dr. Gross’ December 24, 2012 report. 

On January 17, 2013 appellant filed another appeal with the Board. By decision dated 

July 26, 2013, the Board determined that Dr. Gross’ December 24, 2012 report was not well 

rationalized because it was not based on a complete and accurate factual history. The Board 

pointed out that Dr. Gross reported that Dr. Bartley had not mentioned any sensory or motor 

deficits and that generally radicular pain is not a sign of sensory impairment. However, the 

Board found that, although Dr. Bartley specifically mentioned that appellant’s October 14, 2011 

nerve conduction velocity study (NCV) was abnormal and that the “F” wave abnormality on the 

left was indicative of L5-S1 radiculopathy, Dr. Gross did not address these results. The Board 

remanded the case for further medical development and a de novo decision on appellant’s 

schedule award claim.7

OWCP referred appellant’s case, along with the record, back to Dr. Gross to determine 

whether appellant had a ratable impairment of the right lower extremity and greater than four 

percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity pursuant to the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides and the July/August 2009 edition of The Guides Newsletter. 

In a September 2, 2013 report, Dr. Gross reviewed appellant’s claim and noted the 

accepted condition of lumbar sprain. He related that he disagreed with Dr. Bartley’s October 17, 

2011 impairment rating because it was based on lumbar and hip range of motion, which was not 

the proper methodology to determine an impairment rating for radiculopathy according to FECA. 

Dr. Gross noted that Dr. Bartley’s report did not discuss appellant’s objective findings such as 

motor strength and sensory loss. He explained that in order to make a final determination 

regarding appellant’s permanent impairment of the bilateral lower extremities, he needed the 

latest report of the “treating surgeon,” Dr. Rogalsky, which contained appellant’s motor or 

sensory examination. Dr. Gross added that there was no evidence to support an impairment of 

the right lower extremity. 

On September 10, 2013 OWCP forwarded Dr. Gross appellant’s medical record, 

including Dr. Rogalsky’s September 11, 2009 report, the February 20, 2008 operative report for 

appellant’s employment-related back sprain (L5-S1 microdiscectomy), and the NCV results 

referenced by Dr. Bartley. It requested a supplemental report regarding the degree of any 

 7

 Docket No. 13-0600 (issued July 26, 2013). 
5

permanent impairment of the lower extremities utilizing The Guides Newsletter and the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

In a September 14, 2013 report, Dr. Gross related that he had reviewed the record and 

referenced the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides and the July/August 2009 edition of The 

Guides Newsletter in determining the date of MMI and whether there was any permanent 

impairment. He indicated that according to Dr. Shukla’s February 19, 2012 report, a 

preoperative EMG study showed an L5-S1 radiculopathy. Dr. Gross noted that the EMG report 

was not provided. He also related that Dr. Rogalsky indicated in his September 11, 2009 report, 

that appellant had no myotomal or dermatomal deficit and, thus, the L5 radiculitis resulted in a 

class zero diagnosis with zero percent permanent impairment. Dr. Gross opined that appellant 

had no permanent impairment of the bilateral lower extremities. He noted a date of MMI of 

September 11, 2009. 

By decision dated November 7, 2013, OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to a 

schedule award greater than the four percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity, 

for which he previously received a schedule award. It determined that the weight of the medical 

evidence rested with Dr. Gross’ September 14, 2013 medical report, which established that 

appellant did not have any permanent impairment of the bilateral lower extremities. 

On November 14, 2013 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP 

hearing representative. By decision dated March 13, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative 

found that appellant’s claim was not in posture for decision and vacated the November 7, 2013 

decision. She determined that there was no medical evidence of record that diagnosed a lumbar 

sprain in connection with his employment, but there was a medical opinion from Dr. Bartley that 

attributed appellant’s herniated disc condition to his employment. The hearing representative 

remanded the case for OWCP to refer appellant to Dr. Rogalsky to provide a medical opinion on 

whether appellant sustained a herniated disc and/or recurrent herniated disc causally related to 

his federal employment. She instructed Dr. Rogalsky that, if appellant’s herniated disc condition 

was causally related to his employment, he should provide an impairment rating of appellant’s 

bilateral lower extremities in accordance with the July/August 2009 edition of The Guides 

Newsletter. 

By letter dated May 29, 2014, OWCP requested that Dr. Rogalsky provide a rationalized 

opinion on whether appellant’s federal employment duties caused or contributed to his herniated 

discs prior to the February 2008 surgery and/or to any recurrent herniated disc(s) subsequent to 

that surgery. If so, Dr. Rogalsky should further opine whether appellant had additional 

permanent impairment of his bilateral lower extremities according to the July/August 2009 

edition of The Guides Newsletter. It provided an updated SOAF and description of appellant’s 

employment duties. Dr. Rogalsky was afforded 30 days to respond. He did not respond within 

the time allotted. 

In a decision dated July 16, 2014, OWCP determined that the medical evidence of record 

failed to establish that appellant was entitled to an additional schedule award, greater than the 

four percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity, for which he previously received 

a schedule award. 
6

On July 21, 2014 OWCP received a June 13, 2014 report from Dr. Rogalsky, who related 

appellant’s complaints of continued mechanical low back symptoms of stiffness and soreness 

and left lower extremity radicular pain. Upon physical examination, Dr. Rogalsky reported 

lumbar spasms and 50 percent loss of motion in the lumbar spine, worse on the left. Straight leg 

raise testing was positive at 70 degrees with positive Lesague test. Dr. Rogalsky diagnosed 

chronic lumbar degeneration/radiculopathy. 

On July 25, 2014 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP hearing 

representative of the July 16, 2014 decision. In a decision dated July 7, 2015, OWCP’s hearing 

representative found that Dr. Rogalsky’s July 23, 2014 report failed to address OWCP’s 

questions. He remanded the case to OWCP for further medical development to determine 

whether appellant’s federal employment caused or contributed to his herniated disc condition 

and, if so, whether appellant had a permanent impairment of the bilateral lower extremities 

causally related to the herniated disc condition in accordance with the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides. 

On February 20, 2015 OWCP referred appellant, along with an updated SOAF and the 

record, to Dr. Richard Katz, Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, for a second 

opinion examination in order to determine whether appellant’s federal employment caused or 

contributed to his herniated disc condition prior to the February 20, 2008 surgery, whether a 

diagnosis had been established, and whether the diagnosed condition was in any way causally 

related to his federal employment. For schedule award purposes, OWCP requested that he 

provide a rationalized medical opinion indicating the “permanent functional loss of use of the left 

and right lower extremities” in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides and the July/August 2009 

edition of The Guides Newsletter. It also requested him to provide the date of MMI. 

In a March 26, 2015 report, Dr. Katz provided a detailed account of appellant’s history 

and noted that his claim was accepted for lumbar sprain. He indicated that a January 30, 2008 

lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination showed L5-S1 concentric disc 

bulge and large broad-based disc herniation and bilateral foraminal stenosis. Dr. Katz related 

appellant’s complaints of ongoing low back pain and left lower extremity radicular pain. Upon 

physical examination of appellant’s lumbar spine, he observed superficial palpation lateral to the 

spine or axial compression and normal range of motion. Dr. Katz reported that muscle strength 

was normal. Straight leg raise testing, Thomas test, and femoral stretch tests were negative. 

Dr. Katz indicated that sensory examination was notable for slight numbness/tingling in the left 

lateral three toes. He reported that chart review, history, and physical examination were 

consistent with largely resolved left lumbar S1 radiculopathy, mild residual reflux change, low 

back pain, and left-sided foot numbness. Dr. Katz diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. 

In response to OWCP’s questions, Dr. Katz opined that appellant’s federal employment 

did not cause or contribute to appellant’s herniated disc. He explained that appellant’s lumbar 

pathology was a chronic degenerative process which was not work related. Dr. Katz noted that 

the evidence showed that the degenerative changes in appellant’s spine and discs were hereditary 

and age related, not work related, and referenced various published medical articles, as well as 

medical textbooks supporting his opinion. He reported that he was not providing an impairment 

rating in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides as he did not feel that 

appellant’s herniated disc condition was causally related to his employment. 
7

In a decision dated May 7, 2015, OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to more 

than the four percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity. It determined that the 

weight of medical opinion rested with Dr. Katz who concluded in his March 26, 2015 report that 

he did not need to provide an impairment rating because appellant’s lumbar disc herniation was 

not causally related to his employment. 

On May 21, 2015 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP hearing 

representative. He asserted that Dr. Katz conducted his second opinion evaluation as if appellant 

sustained a traumatic injury, not an occupational disease that had occurred over a lengthy period 

of time. Appellant alleged that Dr. Katz knew there was a problem with his back, but chose not 

to evaluate appellant based on the information given to him by OWCP, and instead, cited 

appellant’s age as the cause of appellant’s lumbar disc herniation. 

By decision dated October 30, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative found that the 

weight of medical opinion rested with Dr. Katz’ March 26, 2015 report and found no workrelated permanent impairment. Therefore, she affirmed OWCP’s May 7, 2015 decision. 

On April 14, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. He related that he had worked for 

the employing establishment for over 30 years and had sustained a few injuries during his career. 

Appellant alleged that he felt discriminated against because Dr. Katz suggested his injury was 

age related. He stated that he started work at 23 years of age and asserted that the wear and tear 

on a person could cause injury. 

Appellant resubmitted various progress notes dated January 24, 2014 to October 27, 2015 

from Dr. Thomas B. Brummett, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, regarding treatment for his 

low back pain. In an October 27, 2015 note, Dr. Brummett related that appellant was doing well 

with his current pain medication regimen. Upon physical examination of appellant’s lumbar 

spine, he observed normal curvature of the spine and no spine tenderness, no paraspinal spasm, 

no facet tenderness, and no tenderness on the sacroiliac (SI) joints. Dr. Brummett reported 

normal range of motion. Sensory examination was normal to light touch/deep pressure. 

Dr. Brummett diagnosed lumbar stenosis, lumbar post-laminectomy syndrome, lumbosacral 

neuritis, and chronic pain syndrome. 

By decision dated July 14, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the October 30, 2015 

decision. It found that the medical evidence of record failed to establish that appellant was 

entitled to an additional schedule award greater than the four percent permanent impairment of 

the left lower extremity, for which he was previously granted a schedule award. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA and its implementing regulations set forth the 

number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent impairment from 

loss or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. FECA, however, does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss of a member shall be determined. The 

method used in making such determination is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of 

OWCP. For consistent results and to ensure equal justice, the Board has authorized the use of a 

single set of tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The 
8

A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by OWCP as a standard for evaluation of schedule losses and 

the Board has concurred in such adoption.8 For schedule awards after May 1, 2009, the 

impairment is evaluated under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009.9

Neither FECA nor its regulations provide for a schedule award for impairment to the 

back or to the body as a whole.10 Furthermore, the back is specifically excluded from the 

definition of organ under FECA.11 For peripheral nerve impairments to the upper or lower 

extremities resulting from spinal injuries, OWCP procedures indicate that the July/August 2009 

edition of The Guides Newsletter “Rating Spinal Nerve Impairment Using the Sixth Edition” is 

to be applied for rating spinal nerve impairments consistent with sixth edition methodology.12 

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a disinterested 

arbiter.13 While the claimant has the responsibility to establish entitlement to compensation, 

OWCP shares responsibility in the development of the evidence. It has the obligation to see that 

justice is done.14 Accordingly, once OWCP undertakes to develop the medical evidence further, 

it has the responsibility to do so in the proper manner.15

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for lumbar sprain and granted appellant a schedule 

award for four percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity. On July 14, 2016 it 

denied modification of its hearing representative’s October 30, 2015 decision, which found that 

the medical evidence of record failed to establish that appellant was entitled to an additional 

schedule award greater than the four percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity, 

for which he previously received a schedule award. OWCP found that the weight of medical 

opinion rested with the March 26, 2015 report of Dr. Katz, the second opinion examiner, who 

determined that appellant had not sustained a herniated disc condition as a result of his federal 

employment and, accordingly, did not provide any impairment rating. 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. OWCP referred appellant’s 

claim to Dr. Katz for a second opinion examination to determine whether appellant’s federal 

employment caused or contributed to his herniated disc condition and, if so, whether he sustained 

 8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404 (1999); see also Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 139 (2002). 

9

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, 

Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010); Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims,

Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013). 

10 See N.D., 59 ECAB 344 (2008); Tania R. Keka, 55 ECAB 354 (2004). 

11 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(19); Francesco C. Veneziani, 48 ECAB 572 (1997). 

12 Supra note 9 at Chapter 3.700 (January 2010). The Guides Newsletter is included as Exhibit 4. 

13 See Vanessa Young, 55 ECAB 575 (2004). 

14 See Richard E. Simpson, 55 ECAB 490 (2004). 

15 See R.M., Docket No. 16-0147 (issued June 17, 2016); Melvin James, 55 ECAB 406 (2004). 
9

a ratable permanent impairment of his bilateral lower extremities due to his herniated disc 

condition in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides and The Guides Newsletter 

July/August 2009 edition. In a March 26, 2015 report, Dr. Katz reviewed appellant’s claim and 

provided examination findings. He indicated that sensory examination was notable for slight 

numbness/tingling in the left lateral three toes. Dr. Katz reported that chart review, history, and 

physical examination were consistent with largely resolved left lumbar S1 radiculopathy, mild 

residual reflux change, low back pain, and left-sided foot numbness. He diagnosed lumbar 

radiculopathy. In response to OWCP’s questions, Dr. Katz opined that appellant’s federal 

employment did not cause or contribute to appellant’s herniated disc, but resulted from a chronic 

degenerative process which was hereditary and age related. He reported that he was not 

providing an impairment rating in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides 

because appellant’s herniated disc condition was not causally related to his employment. 

The Board finds that, while Dr. Katz responded to OWCP’s questions regarding the 

etiology of appellant’s herniated disc, it failed to ask him to address whether appellant had any 

additional permanent impairment to his left lower extremity as a result of his accepted condition 

of lumbar sprain, which was the basis for the initial schedule award and the subject of appellant’s 

claim. The Board notes that Dr. Katz acknowledged that appellant had left lumbar S1 

radiculopathy, which is a basis for rating spinal nerve impairments consistent with sixth edition 

methodology.16 As noted above, once OWCP undertakes to develop the medical evidence 

further, it has the responsibility to do so in a manner that will resolve the relevant issues in the 

case.17 As OWCP did not request that Dr. Katz address whether appellant had any additional 

permanent impairment of appellant’s left lower extremity causally related to his accepted lumbar 

sprain and, if so, to provide an impairment rating, his report is insufficient to resolve the 

pertinent issue in this case. The case will be remanded for OWCP to obtain a supplemental 

report from Dr. Katz for a proper evaluation of any left extremity impairment due to the accepted 

lumbar sprain in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides and the 

July/August 2009 edition of The Guides Newsletter. After such further development as OWCP 

deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s claim for an increased schedule 

award. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision and is remanded to OWCP for 

further development. 

 16 Supra note 9. 

17 Supra note 12. 
10

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 14, 2016 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: August 17, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board