United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, New York, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1523 

Issued: May 15, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan E. Wolin, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 22, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 1, 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 this 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

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective October 6, 2015; and (2) whether 

appellant met his burden of proof to establish continuing disability after October 6, 2015 causally 

related to the accepted July 17, 2013 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 17, 2013 appellant, then a 49-year-old immigration enforcement agent, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that date, he injured his back while picking 

up a box of files in his cubicle. He stopped work on the date of injury. OWCP accepted the 

claim for a thoracic strain. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation from September 1, 

2013 to February 7, 2015 on the supplemental rolls, and on the periodic rolls commencing 

February 8, 2015. 

On August 25, 2014 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Jeffrey Lakin, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation regarding appellant’s current condition and 

disability status.3

In a report dated September 8, 2014, Dr. Lakin reviewed the statement of accepted facts 

and the medical record, and provided results on examination. He noted minimal tenderness in 

the upper midline thoracic. Dr. Lakin reviewed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. A 

May 28, 2009 MRI scan showed T6-7 and T8-9 disc bulges and no significant myelopathy or 

spinal stenosis while a May 24, 2013 MRI scan showed T8-9 central posterior herniated disc. 

Dr. Lakin noted appellant’s minimal thoracic tenderness was the only objective finding and there 

were no objective findings of a thoracic disc herniation. He reported that appellant’s symptoms 

were consistent with the diagnosis of a thoracic sprain. Dr. Lakin noted that, while appellant had 

a preexisting thoracic pathology, based on prior MRI scans, he saw no aggravation caused by the 

accepted July 17, 2013 work injury. Dr. Lakin opined that appellant’s accepted thoracic sprain 

had resolved without residual. Regarding appellant’s disability status, he related that appellant 

had been disabled from July 17, 2013 until his examination. However, appellant could now 

return to full-duty work with no restrictions and that no further medical treatment was required. 

In disability notes dated October 3 and 31 and December 5, 2014, Dr. John Joseph Smith, 

a Board-certified internist and treating physician, related that appellant would continue to be 

disabled from work until January 9, 2015. 

 3

 OWCP, in a July 24, 2014 letter, had referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Dana Mannor, 

a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, on August 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. Appellant failed to appear for the 

appointment. Following an August 11, 2014 notice proposing to suspend his benefits for failing to attend a 

scheduled examination under 5 U.S.C. § 8123(d), appellant advised OWCP that he had been out of the country on 

the date of the examination. He provided copies of his airline tickets showing that he had been traveling outside the 

country. OWCP subsequently referred appellant to Dr. Lakin. 
3

On November 5, 2014 OWCP requested a supplemental report from Dr. Lakin clarifying 

his opinion regarding whether appellant continued to have residuals of the accepted thoracic 

sprain due to conflicting answers and findings in his report. 

Dr. Lakin, in a November 6, 2014 addendum, reiterated that appellant had objective 

evidence of minimal upper midline thoracic tenderness; however, appellant had excellent spinal 

motion and was neurologically intact. 

On November 19, 2014 OWCP requested further clarification from Dr. Lakin as to why 

he determined that appellant was capable of returning to full-duty work based on the objective 

finding of minimal upper thoracic tenderness and why he concluded that appellant’s thoracic 

sprain had resolved. 

In a December 3, 2014 second addendum, Dr. Lakin reported that appellant’s thoracic 

tenderness on palpation was minimal and would not impact his ability to work. He explained 

that appellant’s intact upper and lower extremity neurological function and no limitation of his 

thoracic motion or strength, established that he could return to full-duty, full-time work. 

Dr. Lakin also explained that appellant had sustained a thoracic sprain, based on clinical findings 

and history. Appellant’s thoracic sprain had resolved with no residuals or disability because 

appellant lacked any significant findings which would require further treatment. 

On January 8, 2015 OWCP issued a notice proposing to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits based on Dr. Lakin’s opinion that his thoracic sprain had 

resolved without residuals or disability. 

In a January 19, 2015 progress note, Dr. Dhimant J. Balar, an examining osteopath 

Board-certified in internal medicine, related appellant’s history of injury, symptoms, and recent 

medical treatment. He noted appellant’s constant upper back pain following the accepted 

July 2013 work injury. Dr. Balar also noted that a May 24, 2013 MRI scan showed T8-9 disc 

herniation without root compression and right-sided C5-6 herniated nucleus pulposus, as well as 

scattered degenerative changes. He explained that appellant’s physical examination findings 

included tenderness on palpation of the lower cervical muscles, marked limited cervical range of 

motion due to pain, paraspinal muscle spasm, positive Spurling’s test, decreased bilateral 

shoulder range of motion, and tenderness on palpation bilateral deltoid muscles. Dr. Balar 

diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, cervical intervertebral disc degeneration, C5-6 herniated disc, 

shoulder impingement syndrome, shoulder/arm sprain/strain, and intervertebral disc 

displacement. He recommended that appellant not return to work due to his cervical and back 

pain. However, Dr. Balar also noted that appellant was currently not working based on a treating 

psychiatrist’s recommendation. 

By letter dated February 5, 2015, counsel disagreed with OWCP’s proposal to terminate 

appellant’s compensation benefits. He contended that appellant’s disability extended beyond his 

back condition and that he also suffered from a disabling post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

On February 11, 2015 OWCP received additional evidence. In an April 24, 2013 report, 

Dr. Jacob Jacoby, a treating psychiatrist, provided a history of appellant’s illness and that he was 
4

upset due to being passed over for promotion. He related appellant’s diagnoses as panic 

disorder, and dependent personality traits. 

In a January 20, 2015 report, Angelo F. Contino, Ph.D. and clinical psychologist, advised 

that appellant was under his care for treatment of PTSD. He noted appellant’s symptoms, work 

duties, and work assignments. Dr. Contino attributed appellant’s PTSD to appellant’s work 

duties and assignments as an immigration enforcement agent. He reported that appellant felt 

frustrated due to his lack of promotion, which he attributed to cronyism and ethnic prejudice. 

Dr. Patrick Rowan, a treating psychiatrist, and Christopher Nackos, a licensed certified 

social worker, in a January 21, 2015 report noted that appellant had been treated for major 

depression, PTSD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. He had first been admitted to the 

treatment program on January 12, 2014 and had been hospitalized from December 30, 2014 

through January 8, 2015. 

In a January 24, 2015 report, Dr. Thomas D’Amato, a treating psychiatrist, noted that he 

had treated appellant for major depression and PTSD since February 18, 2014. He reported that 

appellant had periods of hospitalizations for these conditions. Dr. D’Amato opined that 

appellant was disabled from work due to past work incidents and the diagnosed conditions. 

Progress notes from Dr. Anatoliy Yanovskiy, a treating psychiatrist, dated January 26, 

2015, diagnosed PTSD exacerbated by marital and work factors. He provided a history of 

appellant’s treatment and hospitalizations. Dr. Yanovskiy opined that appellant was totally 

disabled from work due to his PTSD caused by his work and home stress. 

In a February 3, 2015 report, Dr. Smith provided a history of the July 17, 2013 work 

injury and opined that it caused cervical, right shoulder, and thoracic injuries. He opined that 

appellant was unable to perform the duties of an immigration enforcement agent. Dr. Smith 

noted that appellant continued to have cervical and thoracic pain, herniated cervical and thoracic 

discs as well as lumbago and right shoulder problems. He diagnosed panic disorder, PTSD, 

depression, cervical sprain/strain due to herniated discs and osteoarthritis/osteoarthrosis, thoracic 

herniated discs, persistent mechanical strain/sprain syndrome, low back pain, lumbago, and 

myofascial pain. Dr. Smith noted that appellant had experienced two mental breakdowns and 

had been institutionalized twice. He concluded that appellant currently was disabled from work 

due to his psychiatric conditions and musculoskeletal issues. 

On June 25, 2015 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Dean Carlson, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, to resolve the conflict in the medical opinion evidence between Dr. Smith, 

appellant’s treating physician, and Dr. Lakin, an OWCP referral physician, as to whether 

appellant had residuals or disability due to the accepted employment injury, and whether there 

was a causal relationship between any other current condition and the accepted July 17, 2013 

work injury. 

In a July 16, 2015 report, Dr. Carlson concluded that appellant no longer had any 

residuals or disability due to the accepted thoracic strain based on a review of the statement of 

accepted facts, the medical record, medical history, and physical examination. He observed that 

appellant injured his thoracolumbar back on July 17, 2013 while moving file boxes, that 
5

appellant stopped work that day, and that he had not returned. Dr. Carlson noted that appellant 

had related that his back pain prevented him from working and had impacted his daily personal 

activities. Appellant also had related feelings of depression due to his back pain. 

Appellant’s physical examination revealed no cervical muscle local tenderness, normal 

cervical range of motion, diffuse tenderness on palpation of the second thoracic spinous process 

to the fourth lumbar spinous process, normal upper and lower extremity sensory testing, and 

normal upper extremity motor power. Review of a May 24, 2013 MRI scan showed a nonworkrelated T8-9 central posterior herniated disc, which was now resolved. Dr. Carlson reported 

appellant’s accepted diagnosis as thoracic strain. Nonwork-related diagnoses included cervical 

radiculopathy, cervical intervertebral disc degeneration, C4-5 herniated disc, shoulder 

impingement syndrome, shoulder and arm sprain/strain, and intervertebral disc displacement. 

Dr. Carlson concluded that appellant’s accepted thoracic strain had resolved based on full 

cervical range of motion and no cervical or thoracic osteoarthritis findings on examination. He 

further found no disability or residuals from working due to the accepted July 17, 2013 work 

injury. Next, Dr. Carlson opined that appellant’s claim should not be expanded to include 

additional conditions. 

On August 17, 2015 OWCP issued a notice proposing to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits based on the opinion of the impartial medical examiner 

(IME), Dr. Carlson, that appellant’s accepted employment injury had resolved without residuals 

or disability. 

In a September 15, 2015 letter, counsel disagreed with OWCP’s proposal to terminate 

appellant’s benefits. He contended that appellant’s disability extended beyond his back 

condition and requested that appellant’s claim be expanded to include additional unspecified 

conditions. 

In a September 10, 2015 updated report, Dr. D’Amato related appellant’s complaints, 

medical history, treatment provided, and mental status examination. Diagnoses included rule out 

PTSD, major depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive 

disorder. Dr. D’Amato noted that appellant had complaints of chronic thoracic herniated disc 

pain. He reviewed appellant’s job description and opined that appellant was unable to perform 

the duties of his position, and was disabled from any work activity. Dr. D’Amato also opined 

that if appellant returned to work he would decompensate. 

Dr. Smith, in a September 15, 2015 report, reiterated his opinion that appellant was 

totally disabled from performing his usual employment due to his orthopedic and psychiatric 

conditions. He attributed appellant’s psychiatric conditions to his duties, and the dangers 

inherent in the job, as an immigration enforcement agent. Dr. Smith again opined that appellant 

was totally disabled from performing any type of work currently or in the future. 

By decision dated October 6, 2015, OWCP finalized the termination of appellant’s 

compensation benefits, effective that date. It found the report of Dr. Carlson, the IME, 

constituted the special weight of the medical opinion evidence and established that appellant’s 

thoracic condition had resolved without residuals. OWCP also found the evidence insufficient to 
6

establish that appellant sustained a psychiatric condition due to the accepted July 17, 2013 

employment injury. 

On October 22, 2015 appellant and counsel requested an oral hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative, which was held on January 27, 2016. 

By decision dated March 1, 2016, the hearing representative affirmed the October 6, 2015 

decision terminating appellant’s benefits. She found the weight of the medical opinion evidence 

rested with Dr. Carlson, the impartial medical examiner, who concluded that appellant no longer 

had any residuals or disability due to the accepted July 17, 2013 work injury. 

Counsel requested reconsideration on April 5, 2016. In support of his request, he 

resubmitted a January 19, 2015 report and submitted a March 28, 2016 report by Dr. Balar. 

Dr. Balar, in a March 28, 2016 report, briefly noted appellant’s history and treatment. He 

reported that appellant was not currently working based on his treating psychiatrist’s opinion that 

he was totally disabled due to PTSD. Dr. Balar reported that appellant had a fall a few months 

ago which caused increased back, shoulder, and neck pain. 

By decision dated July 1, 2016, OWCP denied modification. It found that the evidence 

submitted by appellant was insufficient to establish that OWCP erred in terminating his 

compensation benefits or that he had any continuing disability and residuals on or after the date 

benefits had been terminated. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of proof to justify 

modification or termination of an employee’s benefits.4 After it has determined that an 

employee has disability causally related to his or her 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 OWCP’s burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing 

rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.6

The right to medical benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of 

entitlement for disability.7 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must 

establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition, which would 

require further medical treatment.8

 4 S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003). 

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Elsie L. Price, 54 ECAB 734 (2003). 

6 See J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988). 

7 T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Kathryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

8 Kathryn E. Demarsh, id.; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003). 
7

Section 8123(a) of FECA provides in pertinent part: 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.9 Where a case is 

referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving a conflict, the opinion of 

such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based on a proper factual and medical 

background must be given special weight.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a thoracic strain due to the accepted July 17, 

2013 employment injury and paid benefits. Appellant stopped work on the date of the injury and 

was subsequently placed on OWCP’s periodic compensation rolls. OWCP terminated his wageloss compensation and medical benefits on October 6, 2015 based on the report of Dr. Carlson, 

the IME. By decision dated March 1, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

October 6, 2015 termination decision. OWCP denied modification of the termination in a July 1, 

2016 decision. The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof. 

OWCP determined that a conflict in the medical opinion evidence existed between 

appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Smith, who continued to support appellant’s need for 

treatment of his accepted thoracic sprain, and Dr. Lakin, a second opinion physician, who found 

that he was capable of returning to his regular-duty position and had no residuals or disability 

due to the accepted thoracic sprain. It referred appellant to Dr. Carlson for an impartial medical 

examination to resolve the conflict in medical opinion evidence regarding whether he continued 

to suffer residuals of his accepted employment injury and was unable to work due to the accepted 

employment injury. 

In a July 16, 2015 report, Dr. Carlson described the July 17, 2013 employment injury and 

upon physical examination, reported no cervical muscle local tenderness, normal cervical range 

of motion, diffuse tenderness on palpation of the second thoracic spinous process to the fourth 

lumbar spinous process, normal upper and lower extremity sensory testing, and normal upper 

extremity motor power. Based on review of a May 24, 2013 MRI scan, Dr. Carlson reported a 

nonwork-related T8-9 central posterior herniated disc, which had resolved. He opined that 

appellant’s accepted thoracic strain had also resolved. Dr. Carlson noted that his opinion was 

based on objective findings of full cervical range of motion and no cervical or thoracic 

osteoarthritis findings on examination. Thus, he found that appellant was capable of performing 

his usual work and there were no residuals of the accepted July 17, 2013 work injury. Finally, 

Dr. Carlson concluded that appellant’s claim should not be expanded to include additional 

conditions. 

The Board finds that Dr. Carlson’s report is well rationalized and based on a complete 

and accurate history, a complete statement of accepted facts, physical examination and review of 

the medical record. He examined appellant thoroughly, reviewed the medical records, and 

reported accurate medical and employment histories. Thus, the Board finds that Dr. Carlson’s 

 9

 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006); Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006). 

10 V.G., 59 ECAB 635 (2008); Sharyn D. Bannick, 54 ECAB 537 (2003); Gary R. Sieber, 46 ECAB 215 (1994). 
8

opinion as set forth in his July 16, 2015 report is probative and reliable evidence and entitled to 

the special weight of the evidence accorded to an IME.11 Accordingly, Dr. Carlson’s opinion is 

sufficient to justify OWCP’s termination of his compensation benefits effective October 6, 2015. 

The additional medical evidence submitted in response to Dr. Carlson’s report is 

insufficient to overcome the special weight accorded to him as an impartial medical specialist 

regarding this issue. While Dr. Smith submitted a September 15, 2015 report reiterating that 

appellant was totally disabled due to his orthopedic and psychiatric conditions, he had been on 

one side of the conflict in medical opinion regarding whether there were any residuals of the 

employment-related conditions and whether they were disabling. Reports from a physician who 

was on one side of the medical conflict that an IME was obtained to resolve, are generally 

insufficient to overcome the special weight accorded to the opinion of the impartial physician or 

to create a new conflict.12

Appellant also relies upon the medical opinions of his treating psychiatrists and 

psychologist, Drs. D’Amato, Jacoby, Contino, Rowan, Yanovskiy, to establish that he was 

totally disabled due to an employment condition. Dr. Jacoby diagnosed panic disorder, 

dependent personality traits, upset due to being passed over for a promotion, and overwhelming 

panic. Dr. Contino diagnosed PTSD which he attributed to appellant’s immigration enforcement 

work duties. Similarly, Dr. Rowan diagnosed PTSD, major depression, and obsessivecompulsive disorder and noted that appellant had been hospitalized twice. Dr. D’Amato also 

diagnosed PTSD and major depression which he attributed to work incidents and opined that 

appellant was totally disabled. Dr. Yanovskiy diagnosed PTSD which he attributed to 

appellant’s marital discord and work and opined that appellant was totally disabled due to his 

PTSD. OWCP has not, however, accepted the currently diagnosed psychiatric conditions as 

causally related to the accepted July 17, 2013 employment injury. As previously noted, it has 

accepted only a thoracic strain in this case. For conditions not accepted by OWCP as being 

employment related, it is the employee’s burden of proof to provide rationalized medical 

evidence sufficient to establish causal relationship.13 None of physicians attributed the 

diagnosed psychiatric conditions to the accepted July 17, 2013 employment injury nor contain 

any rationale explaining how these conditions had been caused or aggravated by the accepted 

July 17, 2013 employment injury. Thus, the reports are insufficient to create a conflict with 

Dr. Carlson’s report. Regarding the request to expand the claim to include psychiatric 

conditions, as discussed above, none of the reports appellant submitted attribute these conditions 

to the accepted July 17, 2013 employment injury. Thus, these reports are insufficient to create a 

conflict with Dr. Carlson’s opinion. 

Appellant also relied upon a January 19, 2015 progress note by Dr. Balar in support of his 

claim that he remained totally disabled due to an employment injury condition. Dr. Balar 

provided examination findings and reviewed objective and medical evidence. He diagnosed 

 11 See E.H., Docket No. 08-1862 (issued July 8, 2009); Bryan O. Crane, 56 ECAB 713 (2005). 

12 S.J., Docket No. 09-1794 (issued September 20, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 

13 G.A., Docket No. 09-2153 (issued June 10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, supra note 12; Alice J. Tysinger, 51 ECAB 

638 (2000). 
9

cervical radiculopathy, cervical intervertebral disc degeneration, C5-6 herniated disc, shoulder 

impingement syndrome, shoulder/arm sprain/strain, and intervertebral disc displacement. 

According to Dr. Balar appellant’s current work disability was based on recommendations from 

his treating psychiatrist. He recommended that appellant not return to work due to his cervical 

and back pain, but provided no opinion on the cause of the conditions. Medical evidence that 

does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative 

value.14 As discussed above, it is the employee’s burden of proof to provide rationalized medical 

evidence sufficient to establish causal relationship for conditions not accepted by OWCP as 

being employment related.15 Dr. Balar also did not offer a rationalized medical opinion 

explaining how the conditions he diagnosed were causally related to the accepted July 17, 2013 

employment injury, or why any of these conditions would cause disability.16 Thus, his report is 

of diminished probative value and insufficient to create a conflict with Dr. Carlson’s opinion. 

Therefore, the Board finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective October 6, 2015, as the special weight of the 

competent medical evidence established that the accepted thoracic sprain had resolved without 

residuals or disability. The Board further finds that OWCP properly denied expanding the claim 

to include additional conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

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

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

injury.17 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

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

from his accepted July 17, 2013 thoracic sprain injury, on or after October 6, 2015. 

Following the termination of compensation benefits on October 6, 2015 and OWCP’s 

hearing representative’s decision affirming the termination on March 1, 2106, appellant 

submitted a new March 28, 2016 report by Dr. Balar. Dr. Balar reported that due to a recent fall 

appellant had increased neck, shoulder and back pain and was currently totally disabled due to 

his PTSD, based on a treating psychiatrist’s opinion. He did not address causal relationship 

between appellant’s disability and continuing residuals and the accepted thoracic sprain.18 Thus, 

Dr. Balar’s report is insufficient to create a conflict with Dr. Carlson’s report. 

 14 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

15 Supra note 13. 

16 See I.J., supra note 5. 

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

18 See Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001). 
10

Consequently, appellant has failed to establish an employment-related condition or 

disability after October 6, 2015. 

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 OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective October 6, 2015. The Board further finds that 

appellant has not established continuing disability after October 6, 2015, causally related to the 

accepted July 17, 2013 employment injury. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated July 1, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: May 15, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board