United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-95 

Issued: May 22, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 22, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from the July 31, 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 to review the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly suspended appellant’s compensation pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8123(d) for obstructing an OWCP-directed medical examination. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 10, 1991 appellant, a 50-year-old regular mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that her carpal tunnel syndrome was a result of repetitive activities in her 

federal employment. OWCP accepted her claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. On 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

December 22, 2000 it granted appellant schedule awards for 72 percent impairment of her left 

arm and 58 percent impairment of her right arm. 

On January 21, 2013 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Robert A. Smith, a Board-certified 

orthopedist, for a second opinion evaluation on the extent of her permanent impairment. It 

notified appellant that, if she obstructed the examination scheduled for February 1, 2013, her 

benefits would be suspended in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 8123(d): 

“If an employee refuses to submit to or obstructs an examination, his right to 

compensation under this subchapter is suspended until the refusal or obstruction 

stops. Compensation is not payable while a refusal or obstruction continues, and 

the period of the refusal or obstruction is deducted from the period for which 

compensation is payable to the employee.” 

Dr. Smith advised OWCP that appellant appeared on time for her examination; however, 

she refused to fill out or sign the short intake form and became belligerent with the staff. 

“Therefore, the encounter was terminated and she left. Appellant was never examined because 

of failure to fill out our one[-]page intake form or sign the examination consent form and her 

belligerent nature.” 

Appellant telephoned OWCP to report that she was given paperwork to complete and 

sign, but she refused. She contended that the physician should have already known the answers 

to the questions. Appellant was then told that Dr. Smith would not examine her. She considered 

possibly completing and signing the questionnaire, but she was told that the specialist would not 

see her because she had refused. 

Appellant wrote OWCP to explain further. She thought the referral was “asinine” and 

that she was apprehensive because others had told her such evaluations were never favorable. 

Also, appellant had a virus. 

“When I arrived at the office I was asked to sign (2) papers I signed one paper 

which I understood to be a HIPAA form. The other form was a patient 

information form which I opted not to sign because I felt that the information 

requested on the form should have been sent to the doctor to read before I saw 

him and I stated that to the person who did my intake. Her response to me was 

that I should sign it and leave the questions blank. I opted not to do this, because 

why would I leave blank spaces on a form for a doctor to fill in if I don’t think 

that he will act in my best interest? At this time the female intake person went 

into a back room and came out and told me that I was free to go because I had not 

signed the form and the doctor would not see me. At this point I said that I would 

sign the form so that I would not have wasted a day coming to the office. This 

person did not respond to my comment, she just walked back to the office where 

she was when I first entered. Because she was taking a while to give me the form 

which I thought she was going to do, I walked over to the desk where she was to 

ask for the form. She finished her telephone call and told me that I was free to 

leave because she had called the main office and was told that since I had refused 

to sign the form the doctor would not see me and I was free to go, so I left. 
3

Because I felt threatened and also that my rights were disregarded since it has 

already been determined that I have a permanent work-related injury as well as a 

recent doctor’s narrative that this was not a process that I should be undergoing.” 

In a follow-up letter, appellant disagreed with Dr. Smith’s assertion that she had become 

belligerent with the staff. 

“This statement is very inaccurate. I asked why I had to fill it out and I then was 

told okay then just sign it and leave the questions blank. I did not think that this 

was a good idea so I opted not to do this. I would also add that if I had indeed 

become belligerent I really do not think that the receptionist would have come 

back and stood as close as she did when she spoke to me, nor do I think that she 

would have tried to help me by making a call to see if I could be seen. Evidently 

this has not happened before or she would not have tried to resolve the situation 

because a solution would have been in place.” 

Appellant stated that she did not at any time refuse to attend a second opinion evaluation. 

In a decision dated April 2, 2013, OWCP suspended appellant’s compensation effective 

that date. It found that she did not cooperate. OWCP considered appellant’s statement and 

found it an invalid reason for not cooperating. It advised that her benefits may be reinstated only 

after verification that she attended and fully cooperated with the examination, with such 

reinstatement effective the date of compliance. 

In a decision dated July 31, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative performed a review 

of the written record and affirmed the April 2, 2013 decision suspending appellant’s 

compensation. The hearing representative found that OWCP properly suspended her 

compensation on the grounds that she obstructed an OWCP-directed medical examination 

without good cause. Appellant appeared for the examination but refused to complete the short 

questionnaire Dr. Smith’s office required because she felt he should have already known the 

answers. In evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the hearing representative found that the 

reasons appellant proffered failed to demonstrate good cause for her refusal to cooperate. 

Appellant appealed the “termination” of her claim. “On the day of the second opinion 

evaluation, I was ill, had traveled a great distance in inclement weather. I was also apprehensive 

about being given another EMG [electromyogram] test. Perhaps I was perceived as being 

belligerent however that was not my intent.” She added that at no time did she ever refuse to 

undergo a second opinion examination. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee shall submit to examination by a medical officer of the United States, or by 

a physician designated or approved by the Secretary of Labor, after the injury and as frequently 

and at the times and places as may be reasonably required.2

 If an employee refuses to submit to 

or obstructs an examination, his or her right to compensation is suspended until the refusal or 

obstruction stops. Compensation is not payable while a refusal or obstruction continues, and the 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). 
4

period of the refusal or obstruction is deducted from the period for which compensation is 

payable to the employee.3

ANALYSIS 

Dr. Smith, the second opinion orthopedic surgeon, advised OWCP that he terminated 

appellant’s appointment because she failed to fill out or sign a short intake form. Appellant 

confirmed that she refused. Her reason for refusing was that the physician should have already 

known the answers to the questions. “I felt that the information requested on the form should 

have been sent to the doctor to read before I saw him.” 

The Board finds that appellant’s refusal to follow standard intake procedures constituted 

obstruction of an OWCP-directed medical examination. Her disagreement with OWCP 

procedures or the physician’s routine business practices, and her feeling that other procedures 

should have been followed, do not constitute good cause for her failure to cooperate. The Board 

will therefore affirm OWCP’s October 22, 2013 decision suspending her compensation pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8123(d). 

Appellant initially denied that she became belligerent with the physician’s staff. She 

described the assertion as being very inaccurate. Nonetheless, appellant thought the referral was 

“asinine.” In an apparent justification for her conduct, she explained that she was apprehensive 

because others had told her such evaluations were never favorable. Appellant did not think the 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon would act in her best interest. She also explained that she 

was ill with a virus, had traveled a great distance in inclement weather, and was also 

apprehensive about being given another EMG. “Perhaps I was perceived as being belligerent,” 

appellant concedes on appeal, but that was not her intent. 

That appellant can understand why Dr. Smith’s staff perceived her as being belligerent 

tends to support the description of her conduct, but it does not matter to the outcome of this case. 

For the purpose of invoking the penalty under 5 U.S.C. § 8123(d), it is sufficient that she refused 

to comply with standard intake procedures. Although appellant argues that at no time did she 

ever refuse to undergo the examination, she did refuse a step that was necessary for the 

successful completion of the examination. 

The Board notes that OWCP did not terminate appellant’s compensation. OWCP 

suspended any right to compensation pending her full cooperation and verified compliance. 

Following her full cooperation and verified compliance with the scheduled examination, the 

period of the obstruction, however long that may be, will be deducted from the period for which 

any compensation is payable. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly suspended appellant’s compensation pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8123(d) for obstructing an OWCP-directed medical examination. 

 3 Id. at § 8123(d). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 31, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 22, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board