United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

PHILADELPHIA, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-491 

Issued: May 27, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 5, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a September 5, 

2014 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 appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained a 

recurrence of disability in February 2012 causally related to her August 2, 2005 work injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. In a March 5, 2012 decision, the Board 

set aside OWCP’s February 10, 2011 decision, which denied authorization for physical therapy 

and spinal epidural injections. The Board found that a conflict in medical opinion existed 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

between appellant’s physicians and OWCP’s referral physician regarding whether physical 

therapy and spinal injections were medically necessary to treat her accepted conditions. The 

Board remanded the case for referral to an impartial medical examiner to resolve the conflict.2 

In a June 26, 2014 decision, the Board affirmed OWCP’s September 9, 2013 decision, which 

terminated appellant’s medical and wage-loss compensation benefits effective March 10, 2013 as 

she no longer had residuals or disability causally related to her August 2, 2005 work injury. The 

Board found that the special weight of the medical evidence rested with the May 30, 2012 

impartial medical report of Dr. Stuart Trager, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon.3 The facts as 

set forth in the Board’s prior decisions are hereby incorporated by reference. The relevant facts 

are set forth below. 

OWCP accepted that on August 2, 2005 appellant, then a 45-year-old distribution 

window clerk, sustained a back injury in the performance of duty. Appellant stopped work on 

August 6, 2005. OWCP accepted her claim for acute lumbosacral sprain, acute sciatica, and 

acute post-traumatic radiculitis. It paid disability compensation and medical benefits. 

OWCP referred appellant to a vocational rehabilitation program. On July 5, 2011 

appellant obtained employment with a private sector employer as a part-time pool nurse. In 

January 2012, she stopped work as a part-time pool nurse and obtained a job with a psychiatric 

center as a part-time psychiatric nurse.4 

On January 29, 2012 appellant stopped work again, claiming that her accepted conditions 

prevented her from working in her capacity as a nurse. By letter dated February 5, 2012, she 

informed her private sector employer that she was resigning from her part-time job effective 

February 9, 2012 because she was unable to fulfill her position due to the physical requirements. 

Appellant continued to receive medical treatment and undergo physical therapy. 

By letter dated March 1, 2012, OWCP advised appellant that if she was claiming a 

recurrence of injury it must be related to her accepted employment-related condition. It 

requested that she provide evidence to establish that her light-duty assignment changed such that 

it no longer met the restrictions set by her physician or that her condition worsened to the extent 

that she was no longer able to perform her work duties. 

In a March 26, 2012 report, Dr. Jerry Murphy, who specializes in emergency and trauma 

medicine, related that since he last examined appellant on November 14, 2011 she continued to 

complain of persistent lower back pain radiating into her hips, buttocks, and thighs. He related 

that, in 2011, she began working as a nurse and experienced increased back pain, stiffness, and 

soreness as a result of her job duties. Dr. Murphy stated that these symptoms were a 

continuation and not a recurrence or new injury. He indicated that appellant worked a 10-hour 

shift, which required constant standing, lifting, twisting, bending, and reaching. Dr. Murphy 

reported that after a lengthy discussion with her and an evaluation of her job description as a 

 2

 Docket No. 11-1442 (issued March 5, 2012). 

3

 Docket No. 14-423 (issued June 26, 2014). 

4

 The Board notes that, although OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation based on her actual wages as a nurse, 

it did not issue a formal loss of wage-earning capacity (LWEC) decision. 
3

registered nurse he concluded that she could no longer fulfill the requirements of her current job. 

He recommended that appellant continue with physical therapy and injection treatment as well as 

undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan examination. 

In a March 27, 2012 MRI scan report, Dr. Joel Swartz, a Board-certified diagnostic 

radiologist, observed moderate disc degeneration with mild-to-moderate broad-based disc 

protrusion impinging upon the dual sac and narrowing of both neural foramina, left greater than 

right, at L4-5, mild-to-moderate disc protrusion with left greater than right neural foraminal 

narrowing at L3-4, and mild-to-moderate biforaminal disc protrusion at L2-3. He also noted 

shallow eccentric left-sided intraforaminal disc herniation at L1-2, but no evidence of fracture or 

dislocation. 

By letter dated April 26, 2012, OWCP requested that appellant submit a medical report 

from her treating physician which explained why she stopped work in February 2012 and how it 

was related to her accepted August 2, 2005 conditions. 

On May 22, 2012 appellant filed a recurrence claim alleging that in February 2012 she 

was no longer able to work due to her August 2, 2005 employment injury. She stated that she 

was conducting activities of daily living at home and noted that OWCP stopped her injections 

and physical therapy on a consistent basis. Appellant described the injury as lower back pain 

radiating down both legs. She submitted various physical therapy and progress notes and a 

position description of her part-time registered nurse job. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Trager to determine whether she continued to suffer 

residuals of the August 2, 2005 work injury and whether she was able to return to work.5

 In a 

May 30, 2012 medical report, Dr. Trager reviewed her history and conducted an examination. 

He noted that appellant worked for the employing establishment for 25 years until the August 2, 

2005 employment injury. Appellant then returned to work part time as a nurse on June 5, 2011. 

Upon examination, Dr. Trager observed no paraspinal muscle spasm but tenderness diffusely 

producing a response somewhat out of proportion with palpation of the paraspinal muscles in the 

lumbar region. Supine and sitting straight leg raise testing were negative. Dr. Trager provided 

range of motion findings. He opined that appellant’s August 2, 2005 work-related injury had 

resolved and any restrictions would be related to her underlying degenerative condition at the 

time. Dr. Trager stated that based upon physical examination findings, prior evaluations, and 

diagnostic testing there was no indication for ongoing restrictions based upon the August 2, 2005 

work-related injury. 

In a June 22, 2012 report, Dr. Chee Woo, Board-certified in anesthesiology and pain 

medicine, stated that appellant was post-transforaminal injection at the left L4, but her pain was 

not improving. He noted that she appeared to be in pain that was just localized in the gluteal 

area, which might be myofascial in origin. Dr. Woo diagnosed degenerative disc disease and 

lumbar radicular symptoms. 

 5

 Appellant’s claim was referred to Dr. Trager following the Board’s March 5, 2012 decision, which found that a 

conflict in medical opinion existed regarding whether she continued to suffer residuals of her August 2, 2005 

employment injury and needed to continue medical treatment. It remanded the case to OWCP for referral to an 

impartial medical examiner in order to resolve the conflict. 
4

In a decision dated June 29, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence of disability 

claim. It found that the special weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Trager’s May 30, 

2012 report which found that appellant no longer needed restrictions as a result of her accepted 

August 2, 2005 work injury.6

 

In a letter dated July 5, 2012, appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing. By 

decision dated September 10, 2012, an OWCP hearing representative determined that her case 

was not in posture for decision because Dr. Trager’s opinion was not fully rationalized and was 

insufficient to resolve the issues at hand. It remanded the case, along with the complete medical 

record, and an amended statement of accepted facts (SOAF) to include a description of 

appellant’s physical activities as a registered nurse when she stopped working in February 2012, 

in order for Dr. Trager to review the description and explain whether she was capable of 

performing such work. 

In workers’ compensation medical reports dated June 20, 2012 to January 20, 2013, 

Dr. Murphy related that he first treated appellant on August 10, 2005 following an August 5, 

2005 work injury. He noted diagnoses of lumbosacral neuritis and sciatica and his dates of 

treatment. Dr. Murphy recommended that appellant continue medication, physical therapy, and 

disability. He checked a box marked “No” to indicate that she could not return to her preinjury 

job without restrictions. Dr. Murphy also provided various handwritten progress notes. 

In a September 17, 2012 letter, appellant’s counsel requested that appellant participate in 

the selection of the impartial medical specialist. 

In a September 20, 2012 duty status report, Dr. Murphy noted a date of injury of 

August 2, 2005 and diagnosis of back sprain with lumbar disc pathology. He advised that 

appellant could return to work on October 1, 2012 with the following restrictions: sitting up to 7 

hours; fine manipulation up to 6 hours; standing, walking, and simple grasping up to 4 hours; 

reaching above shoulder up to 3 hours; kneeling, pulling, pushing, and driving a vehicle up to 2 

hours; and operating machinery, bending, stooping, and twisting up to 1 hour. In a handwritten 

disability note, Dr. Murphy indicated that she was partially incapacitated and could work with 

restrictions. 

On December 7, 2012 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Trager for a supplemental 

examination. It requested that he review the updated SOAF and diagnostic studies and opine on 

whether she was capable of performing the position of registered nurse either full time or with 

restrictions. The amended SOAF stated that appellant worked as a registered nurse for a private 

employing establishment from July 5, 2011 to February 2012. Appellant’s position required the 

ability to stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, reach, stand, walk, push, lift, grasp, and perceive the 

attributes of objects. She would also be required to exert up to 100 pounds of force occasionally, 

be able to lift, carry, push, or pull objects up to 100 pounds, and perform repetitive motions with 

wrists, hands, and fingers. 

 6

 By separate decision, OWCP also proposed to terminate appellant’s disability compensation and medical 

benefits based on Dr. Trager’s May 30, 2012 report. 
5

In a December 20, 2012 supplemental report, Dr. Trager stated that he reviewed 

appellant’s diagnostic reports dated from March 2012, as well as August and September 2007. 

He explained that although she had ongoing electrodiagnostic changes consistent with a right L5 

radiculopathy, physical examination was not consistent with and did not support a diagnosis of 

clinical radiculopathy. Dr. Trager pointed out specifically that straight leg raise testing was 

negative on the right and left. He noted that the MRI scan was consistent with significant 

degenerative changes throughout the spine but this condition was unrelated to the August 2, 2005 

employment injury. Dr. Trager concluded that appellant was capable of performing work as a 

registered nurse on a full-time basis. 

In a decision dated January 11, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim. It 

found that the special weight of evidence rested with Dr. Trager’s May 30 and December 20, 

2012 reports, which found that she was no longer disabled from work as a result of the August 2, 

2005 employment injury. 

In a letter dated January 28, 2013, appellant’s counsel requested a hearing, which was 

held on May 22, 2013. Appellant and counsel were present. She testified that she began to work 

for the employing establishment on June 2, 1982 and reviewed her work duties for the various 

job positions she held. Appellant described the August 2, 2005 employment injury and how she 

went through the vocational rehabilitation process. Appellant reported that in June 2011 she was 

hired as a part-time pool nurse for a private sector employer. In January 2012, appellant stopped 

employment as a part-time pool nurse and obtained employment as a part-time psychiatric nurse. 

She related that she worked a 12-hour shift on Saturday and Sunday. Appellant stated that she 

experienced problems with her back during the 12-hour shift. She noted that her employing 

establishment eventually gave her a contract which detailed that her job required repetitive 

bending, stooping, and running. Appellant stated that she did not sign the contract because she 

believed that she was not physically able to do the things they wanted her to do. In June 2012, 

she began to work as a psychiatric nurse for another employing establishment and in March 25, 

2013 she returned to full duty at the employing establishment following the termination of her 

medical and wage-loss benefits. Appellant related that she disagreed with Dr. Trager’s opinion 

that she could work without restrictions. She believed that she should have restrictions on 

lifting, walking, standing, and sitting. 

Counsel asked appellant to describe the January 2012 recurrence of injury. Appellant 

stated that she was having problems with standing for a long time and that Dr. Murphy took her 

out of work. She related that he told her that being a psychiatric nurse was too violent for her 

and required too much activity. Appellant also reported that her examination with Dr. Trager 

was terrible and that she repeatedly informed him that he was going too fast for her. Counsel 

initially contested that OWCP needed to provide a formal LWEC decision with appeal rights in 

order to decide whether she sustained a recurrence from a full-time nursing job or three part-time 

nursing jobs. He further alleged that these jobs were too much for appellant and exceeded her 

physical requirements. Counsel noted that Dr. Murphy disagreed with Dr. Trager and 

acknowledged that she was not capable of performing a nursing job. He also contested that 

Dr. Trager’s report should not carry the special weight of medical evidence because the record 

failed to demonstrate that Dr. Trager was properly selected and his report was not probative on 

the recurrence issue. 
6

In a June 22, 2013 letter, the employing establishment noted that, although appellant 

continued to experience back and lower extremity pain, Dr. Trager attributed these symptoms to 

her underlying degenerative condition. The employing establishment alleged that Dr. Trager’s 

medical opinion should continue to be the special weight of medical evidence. 

By decision dated August 7, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative set aside the 

January 11, 2013 OWCP decision regarding appellant’s recurrence claim. Appellant noted that 

Dr. Trager’s report could not carry the special weight of an impartial medical report because at 

the time he issued his report there was no conflict in the medical evidence regarding her 

recurrence claim. The hearing representative further determined that Dr. Trager’s report lacked 

probative value to determine her recurrence claim. He remanded the case for OWCP to amend 

the SOAF to include appellant’s work history as a nurse, a description of the duties of a 

registered nurse position, and for referral to a new referee medical examiner in order to 

determine whether her inability to work in February 2012 was causally related to the August 2, 

2005 employment injury. 

In letters dated August 12 and October 2, 2013, appellant’s counsel requested copies of 

the iFECS screen shots to verify that the impartial medical examiner was properly selected. He 

also requested to participate in the selection of the impartial specialist. 

OWCP referred appellant, along with an amended SOAF, to Dr. Andrew Collier, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, in order to resolve a conflict in medical evidence regarding 

whether she sustained a recurrence of her August 2, 2005 employment injury in February 2012. 

The record contained a copy of the ME023 Appointment Schedule Notification indicating 

that appellant was scheduled to see Dr. Collier on October 16, 2013. The record also contained a 

bypass history report which revealed that no physicians were bypassed. 

In an October 16, 2013 report, Dr. Collier provided an accurate history of the August 2, 

2005 employment injury and reviewed appellant’s medical records, including the SOAF. He 

reported that in July 2011 she worked as a part-time pool nurse for six months. Appellant then 

worked as a part-time psychiatric nurse but testified that she could not perform the required job 

activities of lifting, carrying 100 pounds, positioning, or interacting with patients or clients. She 

stopped work but returned to full duty at the employing establishment in March 2013 until she 

was “released” from her job. Dr. Collier related appellant’s complaints of lumbar spine and low 

back pain, which radiates into her lower extremities and increases with prolonged sitting. 

Upon examination, Dr. Collier observed no tenderness or spasm over appellant’s spinous 

process, the paraspinal muscles, or the lumbar spine. He reported that appellant was mildly 

tender over the iliolumbar ligaments bilaterally but not over the sciatic notches. Straight leg 

raise testing caused mild low back pain on the right but not on the left. Wells test and Lasegue 

sign were negative. Dr. Collier opined that appellant had no residuals of the acute strain and 

sprain and that there was no evidence of any radiculopathy at her examination. He reported that 

her August 2, 2005 employment injuries had resolved. Regarding the questions of whether 

appellant’s work stoppage in February 2012 was related to the August 2, 2005 work injury and 

whether she sustained a recurrence of injury, Dr. Collier responded “No.” He noted that she had 

chronic underlying degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, which limited her activity, but 
7

was not related to her acute injury. Dr. Collier reported that appellant had work restrictions, as 

outlined in the attached form, due to the degenerative disc disease. 

In an October 16, 2013 work capacity evaluation form, Dr. Collier noted that appellant’s 

claim was accepted for acute lumbosacral sprain, acute sciatica, and acute post-traumatic 

radiculitis. He indicated that she was not able to perform her usual job due to her degenerative 

disc disease but could work with restrictions. Dr. Collier reported that appellant could sit for 

three to four hours, walk, stand, push, and pull up to four hours and no more than 20 pounds, lift 

for eight hours up to 35 pounds, and no bending or stooping. 

By dated December 19, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the medical 

evidence established that she no longer had any residuals or continued disability from work 

causally related to the August 2, 2005 employment injury. It determined that the special weight 

of medical evidence rested with Dr. Collier’s October 16, 2012 impartial medical report, which 

stated that appellant did not suffer a recurrence in February 2012. 

In a letter dated December 27, 2013, appellant’s counsel requested a hearing, which was 

held on June 19, 2014. Appellant was represented by counsel. First, counsel contested that there 

was no proof on the record that Dr. Collier was properly selected as the impartial medical 

examiner. Secondly, he alleged that Dr. Collier’s report lacked any medical rationale to support 

his conclusion that appellant did not sustain a recurrence of disability causally related to her 

accepted conditions. Counsel pointed out that Dr. Collier found some sciatica and tenderness but 

attributed these symptoms to an underlying degenerative condition. He contended that 

Dr. Collier did not adequately explain how appellant’s current symptoms were related to a 

preexisting condition and not to the August 2, 2005 work injury. 

In a June 19, 2014 statement, appellant provided a very detailed description of her 

examination by Dr. Collier and the questions he asked. 

By decision dated September 5, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

December 19, 2013 denial decision. She found that the special weight of medical evidence 

rested with Dr. Collier’s October 16, 2012 impartial medical report, which determined that 

appellant’s inability to work in February 2012 was not related to her August 2, 2005 work injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s implementing regulations define a recurrence of disability as an inability to 

work after an employee has returned to work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical 

condition, which resulted from a previous injury or illness without an intervening injury or new 

exposure to the work environment that caused the illness.7 This term also means an inability to 

work when a light-duty assignment made specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical 

limitations due to his or her work-related injury or illness is withdrawn (except when such 

withdrawal occurs for reasons of misconduct, nonperformance of job duties or a reduction-in-

 7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 
8

force) or when the physical requirements of such an assignment are altered so that they exceed 

his or her established physical limitations.8 

When an employee who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account 

of employment-related residuals returns to a limited-duty position or the medical evidence of 

record establishes that he or she can perform the limited-duty position, the employee has the 

burden to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence 

of total disability and to show that he or she cannot perform the limited-duty position. As part of 

this burden, the employee must show either a change in the nature and extent of the 

injury-related condition or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty requirements.9

 

This burden includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a qualified physician who 

concludes, on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, that the disabling 

condition is causally related to the employment injury.10 The medical evidence must 

demonstrate a change in the degree of the work-related injury or condition and explain how and 

why the accepted injury or condition disabled the claimant for work on and after the date of the 

alleged recurrence of disability.11

Section 8123(a) of FECA provides that if there is a disagreement between the physician 

making the examination for the United States and the physician of an employee, the Secretary 

shall appoint a third physician (known as a referee physician or impartial medical specialist) who 

shall make an examination.12 This is called a referee examination and OWCP will select a 

physician who is qualified in the appropriate specialty and who has no prior connection with the 

case.13 When there exists opposing medical reports of virtually equal weight and rationale and 

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 upon a proper factual 

background, must be given special weight.14

A physician selected by OWCP to serve as an impartial medical specialist should be 

wholly free to make a completely independent evaluation and judgment. In order to achieve this, 

OWCP has developed specific procedures for the selection of the impartial medical specialist 

designed to provide adequate safeguards against any possible appearance that the selected 

physician’s opinion was biased or prejudiced. The procedures contemplate that the impartial 

 8 Id. 

9 Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); Mary A. Howard, 45 ECAB 646 (1994); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 

222 (1986). 

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.2 (January 2013). 

11 James H. Botts, 50 ECAB 265 (1999). 

12 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see R.S., Docket No. 10-1704 (issued May 13, 2011); S.T., Docket No. 08-1675 (issued 

May 4, 2009). 

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.321. 

14 Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 
9

medical specialist will be selected on a strict rotating basis in order to negate any appearance that 

preferential treatment exists between a particular physician and OWCP.15

The medical management assistant (MMA), which replaced the PDS, allows users to 

access a database of Board-certified specialist physicians and is used to schedule referee 

examinations. The application contains an automatic and strict rotational scheduling feature to 

provide for consistent rotation among physicians and to record the information needed to 

document the selection of the physician.16

The claims examiner is not able to determine which physician serves as the impartial 

medical specialist. A medical scheduler inputs the claim number into the application, from 

which the claimant’s home zip is loaded. The scheduler chooses the type of examination to be 

performed (second opinion or impartial referee) and the applicable medical specialty. The next 

physician in the roster appears on the screen and remains until an appointment is scheduled or 

the physician is bypassed. If the physician agrees to the appointment, the date and time are 

entered into the application. Upon entry of the appointment information, the application prompts 

the medical scheduler to prepare an ME023 appointment notification report for imaging into the 

case file. Once an appointment with a medical referee is scheduled, the claimant and any 

authorized representative are to be notified.17

If an appointment cannot be scheduled in a timely manner or cannot be scheduled for 

some other reason such as a conflict or the physician is of the wrong specialty, the scheduler will 

update the application with an appropriate bypass code. Upon the entering of a bypass code, the 

MMA will select the next physician in the rotation.18

ANALYSIS 

OWCP properly found a conflict in medical opinion between appellant’s treating 

physicians and Dr. Trager regarding the issue of whether her inability to work in February 2012 

was causally related to her August 2, 2005 employment injuries and therefore referred her to 

Dr. Collier to resolve the conflict. 

Appellant’s counsel argues on appeal that Dr. Collier was improperly selected as the 

impartial medical specialist. The MMA, which replaced the PDS, allows users to access a 

database of Board-certified specialist physician, and is used to schedule referee examinations. 

The application contains an automatic, and strict rotational scheduling feature to provide for 

consistent rotation amongst physicians and to record the information needed to document the 

selection of the physician. The Board notes that the record contains a September 19, 2013 

ME023 iFECS report documenting the selection of Dr. Collier under the MMA. Additionally, 

 15 Raymond J. Brown, 52 ECAB 192 (2001). 

16 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, OWCP Directed Medical Examinations, Chapter 3.500.5 

(December 2012); see also R.C., Docket No. 12-468 (issued October 25, 2012). 

17 B.N., Docket No. 12-1392 (issued August 5, 2013). 

18 Supra note 16. 
10

the record also contains a bypass history report certifying that the MMA was used to schedule 

appellant’s appointment with Dr. Collier and that no physicians were in fact bypassed.19 Thus, 

the Board finds that OWCP provided documentation and properly utilized its MMA system in 

selecting Dr. Collier as the impartial medical examiner. 

The Board finds, however, that Dr. Collier’s medical opinion is not sufficiently well 

rationalized to be afforded the special weight of an impartial medical examiner. His report, 

therefore, did not resolve the conflict regarding whether appellant’s inability to work in 

February 2012 was causally related to her August 2, 2005 employment injury. 

In his October 16, 2013 report, Dr. Collier reviewed the medical file and provided 

findings on physical examination. He opined that appellant no longer suffered residuals of the 

August 2, 2005 employment injury and reported that her current symptoms were related to an 

underlying degenerative disc disease. Regarding the questions of whether appellant’s work 

stoppage in February 2012 was related to the August 2, 2005 work injury and whether she 

sustained a recurrence of injury, Dr. Collier responded “No.” The Board finds, however, that he 

did not provide any medical reasoning to support his conclusion about her inability to work 

relative to a recurrence. The Board has found that a brief opinion cannot be accorded special 

weight when the referee examiner does not present adequate medical rationale or an otherwise 

detailed analysis.20 In this case, Dr. Collier did not describe appellant’s work duties at the time 

she stopped work in February 2012 or address whether she was capable of performing these 

duties. He simply answered “No” when asked about her inability to work. Dr. Collier noted that 

appellant had work restrictions but he did not specifically address when her degenerative disc 

disease became the cause of her work restrictions. Because he failed to provide any medical 

rationale to support his conclusion, the Board finds that his report is of diminished probative 

value and is insufficient to resolve the conflict. 

As OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Collier, it has a duty to obtain a report sufficient to 

resolve the issues raised and the questions posed to the specialist.21 The case will be remanded 

to OWCP for further development of the medical evidence and to obtain a supplemental opinion 

as to whether her work stoppage in February 2012 was related to the August 2, 2005 work injury 

and whether she sustained a recurrence of injury. After such further development as OWCP 

deems necessary, an appropriate decision should be issued regarding appellant’s recurrence 

claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. The case shall be remanded 

for further development of the medical evidence, to be followed by an appropriate merit 

decision. 

 19 On the Bypass History report for the Scheduled Appointment, the comment input indicated: “No Bypasses are 

available.” 

20 See A.R., Docket No. 12-443 (issued October 9, 2012). 

21 J.R., Docket No. 12-1639 (issued January 22, 2013); Melvin James, 55 ECAB 406 (2004). 
11

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 5, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside. The case is remanded for action consistent with 

this decision of the Board. 

Issued: May 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board