United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Morriston, FL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0975 

Issued: June 9, 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 April 6, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 12, 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 to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s entitlement 

to wage-loss and schedule award compensation benefits effective September 11, 2015 as she 

refused an offer of suitable work under section 8106(c)(2) of FECA. 

On appeal appellant contended that the medical evidence established that the offered 

position was not suitable work. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 23, 1998 appellant, then a 33-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that while in the performance of her job duties she was struck by an 

automobile and suffered injuries to her head, shoulder, and thoracic spine. The employing 

establishment provided an authorization for examination (Form CA-16) on October 23, 1998. 

Dr. Ross G. Moorman, a Board-certified internist, diagnosed cervical and thoracic sprain and 

provided work restrictions. Appellant returned to light-duty work at the employing 

establishment on November 13, 1998. Appellant’s attending physician released her to return to 

regular full-duty work on January 29, 1999. Appellant returned to limited-duty work on 

March 2, 1999 and returned to full-duty work by May 14, 1999. 

Dr. Steven A. Reid, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, examined appellant on December 2, 

2008 and found that her November 5, 2008 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan 

demonstrated a disc herniation at L4-5. He opined that this condition was due to her 

employment injury and recommended spine surgery for appellant’s herniated disc. OWCP 

forwarded Dr. Reid’s report for review by an OWCP medical adviser. On February 9, 2009 the 

medical adviser recommended that the surgery not be approved. 

On December 15, 1998 OWCP expanded the accepted conditions to include cervical and 

thoracic strains. It accepted that appellant sustained a displacement of her lumbar intervertebral 

disc without myelopathy at L4-5 on December 16, 2008. 

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. David Lotman, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to determine the extent and degree of any remaining injuryrelated disability and the need for lumbar disc surgery. In a report dated April 28, 2009, 

Dr. Lotman found that appellant had ongoing medical residuals due to her accepted employment 

injuries. He found that her MRI scan supported a disc herniation at L4, but that her complaints 

and physical findings were not entirely consistent with this finding. Due to the inconsistencies, 

Dr. Lotman recommended further testing before consideration of surgery. He completed a work 

restriction evaluation report and found that appellant could not perform her date-of-injury 

position. Dr. Lotman indicated that she could work eight hours a day with restrictions on 

walking, standing, reaching above the shoulder, twisting, bending, and stooping. He indicated 

that appellant should not push or pull more than 40 pounds and that she should not lift more than 

25 pounds. 

By decision dated June 18, 2009, OWCP denied authorization for the spine surgery 

recommended by Dr. Reid on December 2, 2008. 

Appellant underwent right medial nerve neuroplasty at the right wrist on 

August 18, 2009. Dr. Oscar B. DePaz, Board-certified in physiatrist, prescribed massage therapy 

on March 30, 2009 from that date through July 30, 2009 and OWCP authorized the requested 

massage therapy. 

On September 23, 2009 OWCP later denied authorization for continued massage therapy. 
3

Dr. DePaz performed an electromyogram (EMG) of appellant’s lower extremities on 

November 6, 2009 which was normal with no electrophysiological evidence of acute or chronic 

radiculopathy or plexopathy affecting the lower extremities. 

On January 12, 2010 appellant requested a review of the written record from OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the June 18, 2009 denial of authorization for spine 

surgery. By decision dated January 26, 2010, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review denied 

this request as untimely as it was not made within 30 days from the June 18, 2009 decision 

denying authorization for surgery. 

Dr. DePaz examined appellant on March 20, 2013 due to progression of neck pain. He 

reviewed a June 8, 2012 MRI scan which demonstrated progression of articular arthropathy at 

the C4-5 level. Dr. DePaz diagnosed acute neck pain with right C5-6 radiculitis. He opined that 

appellant was currently totally disabled. Appellant stopped work. The employing establishment 

informed OWCP that it could not accommodate appellant’s restrictions. 

Appellant filed CA-7 forms for leave without pay on February 13 to 16, 2013. OWCP 

paid for 16 hours for medical appointments. She submitted additional claims for compensation 

(Form CA-17) starting March 13, 2013 and was paid wage-loss compensation for March 13, 

2013 supplemental wage-loss payments from March 20 to June 1, 2013, and on the periodic rolls 

effective June 2, 2013. OWCP authorized wage-loss benefits. 

On June 3, 2013 Dr. DePaz performed electrodiagnostic studies due to persistent cervical 

pain with radiation to the upper extremities. He found appellant’s EMG demonstrated mild 

irritation at the bilateral C5-6 roots, no evidence of overt denervation, and mild irritability at the 

right C7 distribution. Dr. DePaz reviewed appellant’s June 8, 2012 magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan and determined that there had been some progression of appellant’s articular 

arthropathy extending from C3 through C6 resulting in probable impingement of the left C4, 

bilateral C5, and right C6 nerves. He found that appellant was disabled and recommended a 

neurosurgical consultation. 

Dr. Steven M. Bailey, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, examined appellant on July 2, 

2013 and noted her history of injury. He recommended light-duty work. Dr. Bailey provided 

work restrictions of lifting up to 25 pounds, no reaching above the shoulder, and no driving a 

vehicle at work, but he indicated that appellant could drive her personal vehicle for up to three 

hours a day. The employing establishment indicated on July 22, 2013 that it continued to have 

no work within these restrictions. Dr. Bailey repeated his work restrictions on January 28, 

February 27, and April 30, 2014. 

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Richard C. Smith, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, on March 12, 2014. The statement of accepted facts 

provided to him noted that appellant had an active case before OWCP for bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome. It further noted that appellant underwent surgery on October 2, 2012 for left carpal 

tunnel syndrome and received a schedule award for five percent permanent impairment of her 

left upper extremity. 
4

In a form report dated March 28, 2014, Dr. Smith noted that he had obtained an 

additional cervical MRI scan and had referred appellant for a functional capacity evaluation 

(FCE). He described appellant’s history of injury and her medical treatment. Dr. Smith 

diagnosed cervicalgia, lumbago and intervertebral disc disorder of the lumbar region with 

myelopathy, cervical spondylosis without myopathy, and carpal tunnel syndrome. He opined 

that appellant could not return to her date-of-injury position and provided work restrictions 

which were effective until the FCE was completed including no repetitive bending and no lifting 

over 25 pounds. 

In a narrative report dated March 31, 2014, Dr. Smith noted that appellant had neck and 

radicular pain as well as back pain and some residual symptoms from her bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome. He found that diagnostic studies supported these symptoms including appellant’s 

cervical and lumbar MRI scans and her EMG and nerve conduction studies of the upper 

extremities. Dr. Smith provided additional work restrictions opining that appellant was unable to 

lift more than 25 pounds, reach overhead, or use her upper extremities on a repetitive basis. 

Dr. Smith referred appellant for an FCE on May 22, 2014. This testing was conducted by 

physical therapist, Elizabeth Panatages and S. Rob Oyer, a vocational and functional capacity 

evaluator. These practitioners determined that appellant could perform light work with carrying 

and lifting 25 pounds from the floor to the waist, occasionally, which was defined as up to two 

hours a day or 100 repetitions, lift 18 pounds from the waist to the shoulder occasionally, and lift 

15 pounds from her waist overhead occasionally, push and pull 25 pounds occasionally and 15 

pounds frequently, which was defined as three to five hours a day or 100 to 500 repetitions, 

sitting constantly, and stand, walk, reach forward, reach overhead, handle, grasp, and manipulate 

both hands and fingers on her right hand frequently. The FCE demonstrated that appellant could 

stoop, bend, crawl, stair climb, balance, and finger with her left hand occasionally. Appellant 

was also noted to have exhibited some symptom magnification behaviors. 

Dr. Smith completed a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) on June 8, 2014 based 

on the May 22, 2014 FCE. On this form he indicated that appellant could not return to her dateof-injury position, but that she could work eight hours a day. Dr. Smith provided restrictions that 

appellant could push, pull, and lift up to 25 pounds for four hours a day. 

OWCP requested a supplemental report from Dr. Smith on June 12, 2014 addressing 

appellant’s specific diagnoses, and whether her work-related conditions had resolved. It also 

requested that Dr. Smith identify the diagnoses causing appellant’s current physical limitations. 

Dr. DePaz examined appellant on July 29, 2014 and diagnosed cervical disc degeneration 

C5-6, cervicalgia, and chronic pain syndrome. 

On September 19, 2014 the employing establishment informed OWCP that it had offered 

appellant a limited-duty position as a regular rural carrier, which she had rejected. It provided a 

position description dated September 11, 2014 which required appellant to case mail for three 

hours, with a platform and wing provided, and deliver mail for one hour. The physical 

requirements were no lifting over 25 pounds and driving a personal vehicle for up to three hours. 

The employing establishment officials met with appellant on September 11, 2014 and indicated 

that this position would include a platform so that she would not have to reach above her 
5

shoulder, and if that was insufficient, then a wing would be provided and her shelves adjusted so 

that she would not have to reach above her shoulders. Appellant was to leave any packages over 

24 pounds in the office and she was to drive one hour of her route in her vehicle. 

In a statement dated September 11, 2014, appellant refused the offered position and noted 

that she would request a more complete “ruling of suitability” from her physician. 

Dr. Smith submitted a November 10, 2014 supplemental report. He diagnosed cervical 

radiculopathy, cervical spondylosis, and cervical stenosis based on her MRI scan. Dr. Smith 

opined that the accepted conditions of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar sprains had resolved. He 

found that she continued to exhibit residuals of her L4-5 disc herniation which had progressed. 

Dr. Smith opined that appellant’s cervical condition was more serious than a sprain. He found 

that appellant’s diagnosed conditions resulted in her limited physical capacity. 

On March 10, 2015 the employing establishment provided OWCP with a limited-duty 

position offer based on her FCE. This position, dated February 27, 2015, required appellant to 

work 8.20 hours a day with scheduled days off of Saturday and Sunday, and was available 

March 21, 2015. The duties were to deliver mail for six hours and case mail for two hours. The 

physical requirements were pushing, pulling, and carrying no more than 25 pounds, lifting no 

more than 25 pounds from the floor to her waist, lifting no more than 18 pounds from the waist 

to the shoulder, and lifting no more than 15 pounds from her waist to over her head. The average 

time for each of these tasks was four hours a day. Appellant refused this position on March 6, 

2015 alleging that she could not perform repetitive work as this increased her neck pain. 

Dr. DePaz completed a report on March 10, 2015 diagnosing cervical disc degeneration, 

cervicalgia, and chronic pain syndrome. He opined that appellant’s work restrictions remained 

the same and that she could not perform repetitive motions. Dr. DePaz repeated these findings 

and restrictions on April 28, 2015. 

OWCP referred appellant for vocational rehabilitation on March 12, 2015. In a letter 

dated March 17, 2015, appellant addressed the limited-duty position provided by the employing 

establishment. She asserted that she was unable to perform repetitive motions as it worsened her 

condition. Appellant alleged that she would like to return to work within her restrictions. On 

June 22, 2015 she again noted that the repetitive nature of the offered position would adversely 

affect her neck conditions. 

The employing establishment offered appellant a limited-duty position as a rural carrier 

on June 10, 2015. The position was available on August 10, 2015. The duties entailed collection 

of the mail from the employing establishment for 5 minutes, casing mail, pulling down mail, 

loading her vehicle, and office duties for 2 hours 10 minutes, delivering her route for 6 hours, 

and returning to the employing establishment for 5 minutes. The physical restrictions included: 

pushing, pulling, and carrying no more than 25 pounds for four hours; lifting no more than 25 

pounds from the floor to her waist for four hours; lifting no more than 18 pounds from her waist 

to her shoulder for four hours; and lifting no more than 15 pounds from her waist to overhead for 

four hours. The employing establishment noted that appellant would report to work and retrieve 

her mail, including a hamper with parcels, trays of mail, letters, and flats. Appellant was then to 

transport the mail in the hamper to her case which required pushing, pulling, carrying, and lifting 
6

within her restrictions. She was required to case or sort the mail for street delivery which 

entailed lifting and carrying. After the mail was cased, appellant was required to pull down her 

case of mail, load her hamper, and load her vehicle. Her next task was to drive her route and 

deliver the mail which involved driving for several hours, placing letters in mailboxes, and 

occasionally dismounting her vehicle to deliver a parcel or accountable letter. After completing 

her deliveries, appellant was to return to the employing establishment and leave empty trays, 

bins, or outgoing mail which involved pushing and carrying. She refused this position on 

June 22, 2015 alleging that she could not perform the repetitive duties required. 

On July 9, 2015 OWCP advised appellant that the rural carrier position dated June 10, 

2015 was suitable work in accordance with her medical restrictions as provided by Dr. Smith. It 

informed her that the weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Smith and his review of her 

FCE. OWCP noted that the offered position was still available and allowed her 30 days to accept 

the offered position or provide her reasons for refusal. It further advised appellant that if she 

refused a suitable work position she would forfeit any further compensation for wage loss or a 

schedule award. 

Dr. Bailey examined appellant on July 21, 2015 and diagnosed cervical disc degeneration 

C5-6, cervicalgia, chronic pain syndrome, and other spondylosis with radiculopathy cervical 

region. He found that Spurling’s test was positive for numbness and tingling. Dr. Bailey also 

found neck pain and bilateral arm radiculopathy and recommended an additional cervical MRI 

scan. 

Dr. DePaz completed a report on July 28, 2015 and opined that the offered position did 

not meet appellant’s current work restrictions due to her chronic neck pain as well as tingling and 

pain in her arms. He noted that Dr. Bailey had referred appellant for an additional cervical MRI 

scan. Dr. DePaz referred to an attached duty status report (Form CA-17). This report provided 

restrictions including alternating standing and sitting every one and a half hours, walking with 

frequent rest, single flight of stairs only, no kneeling, bending, stooping, or twisting. Appellant 

was to pull and push up to 25 pounds only, perform limited simple grasping and fine 

manipulation for 15 minutes each, reach above the shoulder less than one or two times a month, 

and only drive her personal vehicle for up to three noncontinuous hours a day. Dr. DePaz added, 

“Repetitive neck/arm/shoulder motion caused patient extended periods of pain flare ups usually 

lasting [one to two] days beyond baseline pain level.” 

Appellant underwent a cervical MRI scan on August 3, 2015 which demonstrated 

multilevel degenerative changes of the cervical spine with foraminal stenosis most notable at C3-

4, C4-5, and C5-6. 

In a letter dated August 13, 2015, appellant noted that she disagreed that the offered 

position represented suitable work. She noted discrepancies between Dr. Smith’s narrative 

report, his duty status report, the FCE, and the offered position. 

In a letter dated August 25, 2015, OWCP reviewed the reasons for appellant’s refusal of 

the offered position and found that the offered reasons were not valid. It allowed appellant an 

additional 15 days to accept the position and report to the employing establishment. OWCP 
7

noted, “If you do not accept and report to the position during the allotted period, your entitlement 

to wage loss and schedule award benefits will be terminated.”2

Dr. Bailey completed a report on August 21, 2015 and indicated that appellant could not 

perform repetitive movements or push or pull over 25 pounds. He provided a lifting restriction 

of 10 pounds. Dr. Bailey noted that appellant “cannot do repetitive motion,” was “very limited 

overall,” and “cannot perform duties of rural mail carrier.” 

By decision dated September 10, 2015, OWCP terminated appellant’s compensation for 

wage-loss and schedule award effective September 11, 2015 based on a finding that she refused 

suitable work, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2). It found that the weight of the medical 

evidence rested with Dr. Smith and that the offered position was within the work restrictions he 

provided on June 8, 2014. OWCP further found that appellant had failed to submit any wellreasoned medical evidence establishing that she was incapable of performing the offered 

position. 

On September 17, 2015 OWCP received an August 21, 2015 report from Dr. Bailey who 

recommended that appellant undergo a posterior C4-6 fusion with lateral mass instrumentation 

and bilateral foraminotomies at C4-5 and C5-6. OWCP referred Dr. Bailey’s request for surgery 

to an OWCP medical adviser. 

On September 21, 2015 appellant disagreed with the suitable work termination decision 

of September 10, 2015 and alleged that all doctors opined that she could not perform repetitive 

motion. She requested additional medical development of her claim by OWCP. 

On September 23, 2015 OWCP’s medical adviser noted that appellant’s claim had been 

accepted for cervical sprain and found that there was no evidence of cervical radiculopathy. He 

noted that appellant required minimal pain medication and indicated that appellant could 

continue work as a rural mail carrier. The medical adviser recommended denial of the requested 

surgery. 

In a letter dated October 15, 2015, OWCP requested additional evidence in support of 

appellant’s claim for cervical spine surgery. Dr. Bailey completed a work capacity evaluation 

dated October 22, 2015 and indicated that appellant was totally disabled due to her need for 

surgery. 

In a letter dated November 5, 2015, appellant’s representative requested reconsideration 

of the September 10, 2015 decision terminating appellant’s wage-loss and schedule award 

compensation benefits for refusal of a suitable work position. He argued that Dr. Smith 

supported that appellant was unable to lift more than 25 pounds, reach overhead, or use her upper 

extremities on a repetitive basis. The representative further alleged that appellant had residuals 

 2

 The employing establishment provided an investigative report for the period June 10 to August 13, 2015. The 

record also contains brief digital video clips documenting appellant’s activities on July 27, and 29, 2015 as well as 

August 26, 2015. 
8

of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which had previously been accepted by OWCP,3

 and that 

this condition and its residuals should be considered in formulating the suitable work position. 

By decision dated February 12, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the September 10, 

2015 decision finding that appellant had not established that her current cervical condition was 

related to her employment and that her reasons were insufficient to overturn the suitable work 

determination. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

It is well settled that once OWCP accepts a claim, it has the burden of justifying 

termination or modification of compensation benefits.4 As OWCP in this case terminated 

appellant’s compensation under 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c), OWCP must establish that appellant refused 

an offer of suitable work. Section 8106(c) of FECA5

 provides that a partially disabled employee 

who refuses or neglects to work after suitable work is offered to, procured by, or secured for the 

employee is not entitled to compensation. Section 10.517 of the applicable regulations6

 provided 

that an employee who refuses or neglects to work after suitable work has been offered or secure 

for the employee, has the burden of showing that such refusal or failure to work was reasonable 

or justified, and shall be provided with the opportunity to make such showing before a 

determination is made with respect to termination of entitlement to compensation. To justify 

termination of compensation, OWCP must show that the work offered was suitable and must 

inform appellant of the consequences of refusal to accept such employment.7 Section 8106(c) 

will be narrowly construed as it serves as a penalty provision, which may bar an employee’s 

entitlement to compensation based on a refusal to accept a suitable offer of employment.8

OWCP’s regulations provide that OWCP shall advise the employee that it has found the 

offered work to be suitable and afford the employee 30 days to accept the job or present any 

reasons to counter the finding of suitability. If the employee presents such reasons and OWCP 

determines that the reasons are unacceptable, it will notify the employee of that determination 

and that he or she has 15 days in which to accept the offered work without penalty.9

It is well established that OWCP must consider preexisting and subsequently acquired 

conditions in the evaluation of suitability of an offered position.10

 3

 This separate claim is not currently before the Board. 

4 Mohamed Yunis, 42 ECAB 325, 334 (1991). 

5

 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.517(a). 

7 Arthur C. Reck, 47 ECAB 339, 341-342 (1995). 

8 See Joan F. Burke, 54 ECAB 406 (2003). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.516. 

10 Richard P. Cortes, 56 ECAB 200 (2004). 
9

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and schedule award compensation benefits effective September 11, 

2015, under section 8106(c)(2) of FECA for refusal of an offer of suitable work. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for cervical and thoracic strain as well as herniated 

disc at L4-5. In a separate claim, it also accepted bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as 

employment related. Appellant’s attending physicians Dr. DePaz and Bailey also diagnosed 

chronic neck pain syndrome, cervical disc degeneration, and cervicalgia.

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Smith, who examined 

appellant and requested an FCE. Based on this examination Dr. Smith found that appellant could 

return to work with restrictions of no lifting over 25 pounds. The employing establishment 

offered appellant a rural carrier position consistent with Dr. Smith’s November 10, 2014 report 

and June 8, 2014 restrictions, which OWCP deemed suitable on July 9, 2015. Dr. Smith based 

his restrictions on the conditions of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, cervical spondylosis, 

cervical radiculopathy, cervical stenosis, and L4-5 disc herniation. 

On July 21, 2015 Dr. Bailey imposed restrictions inconsistent with the offered rural 

carrier position based upon diagnosis of cervical disc degeneration C5-6, cervicalgia, chronic 

pain syndrome and other spondylosis with radiculopathy cervical region. He also found neck 

pain and bilateral arm radiculopathy. Dr. DePaz opined on July 28, 2015 that the offered 

position was not within appellant’s work restrictions due to her chronic neck pain as well as 

tingling and pain in her arms. 

Appellant has submitted a series of reports from her physicians noting increasing 

restrictions due to her subsequently-arising cervical conditions of chronic neck pain syndrome, 

cervical disc degeneration, and cervicalgia which were based on their continuous examination 

and treatment of appellant. Dr. Bailey and Dr. DePaz both clearly indicated that appellant had 

additional restrictions due to her subsequently-arising cervical conditions. OWCP’s procedures 

provide that the claimant must be taken as a whole person. If an additional condition arises 

which results in work restrictions, those restrictions must be considered when making an offer of 

suitable work. The Board finds that OWCP failed to establish a suitable work position as it did 

not develop the medical evidence to determine whether appellant was capable of performing the 

position given her subsequently-arising cervical conditions, including chronic neck pain 

syndrome, cervical disc degeneration, and cervicalgia.11 As a penalty provision, section 

8106(c)(2) must be narrowly construed.12 OWCP did not discharge its burden of proof to justify 

the termination of appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits and schedule award. 

 11 See supra note 10, see also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claim, Reemployment: Determining 

Wage-Earning Capacity, Chapter 2.814.3 (June 1993). 

12 See Karen Spurling, 56 ECAB 189 (2004); Christine P. Burgess, 43 ECAB 449 (1992). 
10

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

entitlement to wage-loss and schedule award compensation benefits effective September 11, 

2015 as she refused an offer of suitable work under section 8106(c)(2) of FECA. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 12, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: June 9, 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