United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

RESERVE, Barling, AR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0639 

Issued: January 13, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 26, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 11, 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 OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

compensation for wage-loss and medical benefits. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 6, 2000 appellant, a 38-year-old heavy mobile equipment repairer, suffered a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty when a hydraulic jack rolled out from under a 

400-pound wheel, causing an injury to his back. OWCP accepted his claim for lumbosacral 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

sprain and later expanded the claim to include lumbar disc displacement at L4-5 without 

myelopathy. Appellant received compensation for wage loss on the periodic rolls.2

OWCP referred appellant over the years to second opinion physicians to determine 

appellant’s work capacity. It subsequently found that a conflict in opinion arose between 

Dr. John A. Sazy, the attending orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Melburn K. Huebner, a second 

opinion Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, as to whether appellant had any ongoing residuals of 

his accepted conditions. 

To resolve whether residuals of the work injury had ceased, OWCP referred appellant, 

together with the medical record and a statement of accepted facts, to Dr. Stephen J. Ringel, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial medical evaluation. Dr. Ringel examined 

appellant on April 22, 2014. He related appellant’s history of injury, reviewed appellant’s 

medical record, noted appellant’s complaints, and described his findings on physical examination 

and reviewed appellant’s medical record. 

Dr. Ringel explained that the January 6, 2000 work injury would be expected, at most, to 

have resulted in a lumbosacral strain/sprain or contusion of the lower back. This should have 

resolved within one to two months at most. There was never any objective evidence of 

significant injury other than the mentioned strain/sprain or contusion. Imaging studies 

demonstrated only degenerative conditions that did not result from the January 6, 2000 work 

injury. EMG and nerve conduction studies similarly did not show any evidence of 

radiculopathy. Therefore, in the normal course of events, no further treatment for the January 6, 

2000 work injury would be indicated. Dr. Ringel observed that significant pathology would not 

explain the lapse in treatment from 2001 to 2010. There was no current objective evidence on 

physical examination of the January 6, 2000 lumbosacral sprain or lumbar disc displacement 

without myelopathy. Although imaging studies might show degenerative disc disease, 

Dr. Ringel believed that this was only a manifestation of the normal aging process with the 

majority of individuals having similar findings without symptoms. “The symptoms that 

[appellant] is experiencing, as well as the [imaging studies], in my considered opinion, are more 

likely than not attributable to normal disease of life and the aging process and not to the incident 

in question.” 

On May 13, 2014 OWCP advised appellant of its intention to terminate wage-loss and 

medical benefits. 

An imaging study obtained on April 14, 2014 noted that appellant had back pain on and 

off for 14 years. It was worse for the past month following dirt shoveling. The study revealed 

mild-to-moderate canal stenosis at L2-3 and L3-4, and moderate stenosis at L4-5. Lateral recess 

stenosis was seen on the right at L5-S1. There was fairly severe foraminal narrowing at L5-S1 

 2

 Effective October 4, 2003, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation for wage loss to reflect his capacity to earn 

wages in the constructed position of mail clerk. On October 12, 2010 appellant underwent a physical performance 

evaluation that tested his strength, cardiovascular endurance, and range of motion. Therapeutic exercise was 

recommended to increase strength, stability, range of motion, and endurance of the lumbar spine and supporting 

areas to aid appellant in activities of daily living and work-related activities. Appellant’s prognosis was deemed 

poor. 
3

on the right, with mild-to-moderate narrowing bilaterally at L3-4 and L4-5 and minimal 

narrowing at L2-3. A fairly moderate scoliotic concavity to the right was present. 

The record indicates that appellant had been employed with Titan Lansing Transloading 

as a loader since April 12, 2013. He was shoveling dirt out of a front-end loader on February 19, 

2014 and sustained an injury to his lower back. 

Appellant alleged that the April 14, 2014 imaging showed severe damage to his 

back/spine that was a result of his January 6, 2000 work injury. He added that he never had any 

back problems until that accident. 

In a decision dated June 19, 2014, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits. It found that the weight of the medical evidence rested with the referee 

opinion of Dr. Ringel. OWCP further found that the results of the recent imaging study, together 

with appellant’s statement, were insufficient to alter the proposed termination. 

Appellant requested reconsideration. He submitted a June 11, 2014 evaluation by 

Dr. Richard B. Lawrence, a specialist in family medicine designated by the Texas Department of 

Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. Dr. Lawrence had been asked to determine 

appellant’s maximum medical improvement date, impairment rating, and extent of injury. He 

noted that on February 19, 2014 appellant was shoveling dirt out of a front-end loader and 

sustained an injury to his lower back. Dr. Lawrence diagnosed lumbar strain, disc space 

narrowing and disc bulging at L4-5 and L5-S1, right L5-S1 radiculopathy, exacerbation of 

lumbar canal stenosis, and exacerbation of lateral recess stenosis at L5-S1. He found that 

appellant had not reached maximum medical improvement. 

By decision dated December 11, 2014, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s case 

and denied modification of its prior decision. 

On appeal, appellant describes the long painful road he was on and asks the Board to 

restore his benefits. He objects to the finding that his back problem stems from smoking. 

Appellant notes that he now has sciatica and numbness in both his feet. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA pays compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal injury 

sustained while in the performance of duty.3

 Once OWCP accepts a claim, it has the burden of 

proof to justify termination or modification of compensation benefits.4 After it has determined 

that an employee has disability causally related to federal employment, OWCP may not 

terminate compensation without establishing that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer 

related to the employment.5

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

4 Harold S. McGough, 36 ECAB 332 (1984). 

5 Vivien L. Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986); David Lee Dawley, 30 ECAB 530 (1979); Anna M. Blaine, 26 ECAB 

351 (1975). 
4

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.6

 When there exist 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.7

ANALYSIS 

Appellant sustained a traumatic work injury on January 6, 2000 which OWCP accepted 

for the conditions of lumbosacral sprain and lumbar disc displacement without myelopathy. He 

received medical benefits and compensation for wage loss attributable to these two medical 

conditions. As OWCP has terminated medical benefits and compensation for wage loss, it bears 

the burden of establishing that the accepted lumbosacral sprain and lumbar disc displacement no 

longer are disabling or require medical treatment. 

To resolve a conflict of medical evidence between Dr. Sazy, the attending orthopedic 

surgeon, and Dr. Huebner, the second opinion orthopedic surgeon, on whether residuals of the 

January 6, 2000 work injury had ceased, OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Ringel an impartial 

medical specialist. OWCP provided Dr. Ringel with appellant’s medical record and a statement 

of accepted facts so he could base his opinion on a proper medical and factual history. After 

reviewing appellant’s history, complaints, findings on physical examination, and medical record, 

it was Dr. Ringel’s opinion that the January 6, 2000 work injury had resolved. 

Dr. Ringel supported his opinion with sound medical reasoning. He observed that there 

was never any objective evidence of significant injury, apart from lumbosacral strain/sprain, or 

contusion of the lower back. Imaging studies demonstrated degenerative conditions that were 

only a manifestation of the normal aging process and were not accepted by OWCP. Appellant’s 

lapse in treatment from 2001 to 2010 supported the lack of any significant pathology. There was 

currently no objective evidence on physical examination of the accepted lumbosacral sprain or 

lumbar disc displacement. The accepted strain should have resolved within one to two months. 

As the accepted lumbosacral strain should have resolved and there currently was no objective 

evidence of the two accepted medical conditions, no further treatment for the January 6, 2000 

work injury was indicated. 

The findings of the April 14, 2014 imaging study -- stenosis, foraminal narrowing, and 

scoliotic concavity -- are not sufficient to establish that appellant continues to suffer from the 

lumbosacral sprain or lumbar disc displacement he suffered on January 6, 2000. 

The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Ringel is based on a proper factual and medical 

history, is sufficiently well reasoned, and must be accorded special weight in resolving whether 

the January 6, 2000 work injury has resolved. As the weight of the medical opinion evidence 

establishes that appellant no longer suffers from the accepted lumbosacral sprain or lumbar disc 

 6

 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). 

7 Carl Epstein, 38 ECAB 539 (1987); James P. Roberts, 31 ECAB 1010 (1980). 
5

displacement, the Board finds that OWCP has met its burden of proof to justify the termination 

of compensation for those two medical conditions. The Board will therefore affirm OWCP’s 

December 11, 2014 decision. 

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 the weight of the medical opinion evidence establishes that the 

lumbosacral sprain and lumbar disc displacement caused by appellant’s January 6, 2000 work 

injury have resolved. OWCP has met its burden to justify the termination of his medical benefits 

and compensation for wage loss. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 11, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 13, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board