United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL ADVISORY CENTER, 

Redstone Arsenal, AL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0884 

Issued: August 23, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Sally F. LaMacchia, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 14, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 13, 

2017 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 over 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

ISSUE 

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

to compensation effective October 22, 2014 as the temporary aggravation of schizoaffective 

disorder had resolved. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 2, 2015 appellant, then a 51-year-old program analyst, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced stress and overwork causally related to 

factors of her federal employment. She was last exposed to the conditions alleged to have 

resulted in her illness on July 1, 2014. 

On March 24, 2015 appellant, through counsel, described her employment duties when 

she began work in 2006. She related that the employing establishment began assigning her 

additional duties starting in 2007. Appellant described her work duties in detail, noting that an 

August 30, 2010 Accretion of Duties form confirmed her added responsibilities. Counsel 

advised that appellant became concerned that she could not meet her job requirements after she 

began performing work formerly assigned to several people. The number of people using the 

travel system grew from 12 to 60 people, but she received no assistance. Appellant stopped 

work on October 22, 2014. 

The employing establishment controverted the claim. In an April 28, 2015 

memorandum, J.D., a manager, noted that appellant was largely absent from work beginning 

August 22, 2013 and was absent without leave beginning January 13, 2015. He submitted 

disciplinary actions and described her work duties. J.D. related that appellant initially requested 

full-time telework after her office relocated, which the employing establishment approved based 

on the supporting medical evidence. Appellant subsequently requested relocation, which the 

employing establishment granted after she agreed on August 21, 2013 to hold it harmless for any 

deterioration in her health due to the move. J.D. advised that appellant was “precluded from 

making any claims related to her health occurring after that date.” He noted that she filed her 

claim only after receiving a proposed removal from service. 

By decision dated May 28, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim. 

It found that she had not established any compensable factors of employment. 

Appellant, through counsel, on June 10, 2015 requested an oral hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative. On January 18, 2016 counsel requested reconsideration in lieu of an oral 

hearing. In a decision dated January 22, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration as she had not raised a new legal argument or submitted relevant evidence 

sufficient to warrant reopening the case for further merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

On April 15, 2016 appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration. She 

attributed her condition to stress trying to meet her position requirements and thus asserted that 

she had established compensable work factors. 
3

OWCP accepted as compensable work factors that the individuals using the Defense 

Travel System increased from 2008 to 2013. It further accepted that appellant assumed some 

duties of her manager when he retired in 2007 and became the lead for budget execution, though 

she received assistance from contractors in fulfilling her duties. In June 2011 appellant had to 

approve last minute travel orders for four employees and subsequently for her manager without 

time to allocate the budget. In July 2012 she had to redo a proposal using a different system. 

Appellant’s responsibilities increased after a promotion in August 2010. OWCP noted that the 

employing establishment indicated that she did not manage all programs herself and only 

assumed some of the duties of a retiring manager. It prepared a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) on August 17, 2016. 

On August 22, 2016 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Walker Lyerly, IV, a Boardcertified psychiatrist, for a second opinion examination. In a report dated September 6, 2016, 

Dr. Lyerly reviewed appellant’s work history and found “prominent paranoid delusions” on 

evaluation of her mental status. He diagnosed schizoaffective disorder and to rule out 

personality disorder, and further noted that she had a history of fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue 

syndrome. Dr. Lyerly indicated that appellant received treatment for depression and experienced 

difficulty with relationships prior to the factors set forth in the SOAF, but that the records did not 

provide a history of the paranoid delusions found on examination. He related, “Despite her 

psychiatric symptoms, medical records support that she was able to maintain employment until 

the beginning of 2014. Given that she was able to maintain employment up to that time although 

she had a preexisting condition, in my medical opinion the factors of employment described in 

[the SOAF], aggravated and accelerated her psychiatric condition.” Dr. Lyerly noted that it was 

difficult to understand what happened in the workplace as she now believed that her supervisor 

and others were trying to kill her and were also rearranging items in her home. He advised that 

appellant related that “her underlying chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia were 

aggravated by stress that she encountered in the workplace.” Dr. Lyerly opined that appellant 

was disabled from work due to her psychosis and paranoid delusions and found that she had not 

received adequate psychiatric treatment. Regarding the question of whether any employmentrelated condition had resolved, he responded, “No, as evidenced by [appellant’s] paranoid 

delusions at this time are centered around a supervisor who previously worked with her in her 

last workplace.” 

OWCP, on September 26, 2016, requested that Dr. Lyerly clarify whether the work 

factors identified in the SOAF caused a psychiatric condition and, if so, whether it had resolved 

at the time of his evaluation. It used bold text and underlining to highlight portions of the 

questions. 

In a supplemental report received October 24, 2016, Dr. Lyerly related that factors of 

appellant’s federal employment as set forth in the SOAF aggravated her psychiatric condition 

and that she was “not able to adequately tolerate the stress and responsibilities of her work duties 

due to the nature of and severity of her psychiatric condition.” He advised that work factors did 

not cause her condition, but that due to her condition she was unable to cope with its demands. 

Dr. Lyerly related: 

“At the time of my evaluation, [appellant] was not employed. Therefore there is 

no work[-]related component of her psychiatric condition. [Appellant’s] 
4

psychiatric condition persists since she left her employment. Again it is my 

medical opinion that [appellant’s] psychiatric condition was not caused by her 

work situation. It is my medical opinion that her psychiatric condition was 

present during her time of employment [and] was aggravated by her work stress 

and responsibilities because the nature and severity of her psychiatric condition 

was unable to tolerate and manage her work demands and responsibilities.” 

Dr. Lyerly found that it was appropriate to remove appellant from work in October 2014. He 

opined that her psychiatric condition continued and diagnosed schizoaffective disorder and a 

possible personality disorder. 

 In a February 13, 2017 decision, OWCP modified in part and affirmed in part its May 28, 

2015 decision. It found that Dr. Lyerly’s report was sufficient to show that she sustained an 

aggravation of a preexisting mental condition due to employment factors, but that any 

aggravation resolved around October 22, 2014, the approximate date that she stopped work. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a temporary aggravation of schizoaffective disorder. 

On appeal counsel argued that Dr. Lyerly’s opinion was insufficient to establish that her 

aggravation of schizoaffective disorder was temporary or ceased by October 22, 2014. She notes 

her objection to OWCP’s use of bold text in its request for clarification from the physician. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of justifying 

modification or termination of an employee’s benefits. It may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability ceased or that it was no longer related to the employment.3 

OWCP’s burden of proof in terminating compensation includes the necessity of furnishing 

rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.4

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that she sustained stress and overwork due to factors of her federal 

employment. OWCP accepted as compensable that the number of people she assisted under a 

travel system increased from 2008 to 2013, that she performed some managerial duties with 

assistance from contractors beginning 2007, and that her responsibilities grew after she was 

promoted in 2010. It further accepted that in 2011 appellant had to approve last minute travel 

arrangements and had to redo a proposal using a different system in 2012. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Lyerly to evaluate if she sustained an emotional 

condition due to employment factors. On September 6, 2016 Dr. Lyerly diagnosed 

schizoaffective disorder, possible personality disorder, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue 

syndrome. On examination he found paranoid delusions and discussed her history of depression 

prior to the events occurring in the SOAF. Dr. Lyerly determined that compensable work factors 

 3 Elaine Sneed, 56 ECAB 373 (2005); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 

4 Gewin C. Hawkins, 52 ECAB 242 (2001). 
5

aggravated appellant’s psychiatric condition, noting that she maintained employment before 

those events. He also found that her preexisting fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome 

contributed to her difficulty functioning. Dr. Lyerly opined that appellant’s work-related 

condition had not resolved as shown by her paranoid delusions about her supervisor. In an 

October 2016 supplemental report, he again opined that work factors as described in the SOAF 

aggravated her psychiatric condition such that she was unable to “tolerate” the stress of her work 

responsibilities. Dr. Lyerly clarified that work factors did not cause her condition, but that work 

stress and responsibility aggravated her condition. He noted that as appellant was not employed 

at the time of the evaluation, she had no current work-related aggravation. Dr. Lyerly found that 

it was “appropriate” to remove appellant from employment in October 2014. 

Based on Dr. Lyerly’s findings, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for an aggravation of 

schizoaffective disorder that ceased by October 22, 2014. The Board has held that, even when 

OWCP accepts the claim for a specific period of disability, the burden of proof does not shift to 

appellant to show that she is still disabled.5

 The burden is on OWCP to demonstrate an absence 

of employment-related disability in the period subsequent to the date when compensation is 

terminated or modified.6

 The issue, consequently, is whether it has met its burden of proof to 

show that appellant had no residuals of the accepted condition after that date. 

The Board finds that Dr. Lyerly’s opinion is insufficient to support terminating 

appellant’s compensation effective October 22, 2014. In his October 24, 2016 report, Dr. Lyerly 

noted that, at the time he evaluated her, she was no longer working for the employment 

establishment and thus had no “work[-]related component of her psychiatric condition.” He, 

however, did not specifically address when the employment-related aggravation due to 

compensable work factors ceased. Further, Dr. Lyerly initially asserted in his September 6, 2016 

report that appellant’s employment-related emotional condition had not resolved. He did not 

explain his subsequent finding that she had no further work-related condition in a manner which 

would resolve the apparent inconsistency in his findings. Without a reasoned medical opinion 

addressing when any disability due to appellant’s accepted temporary aggravation of 

schizoaffective disorder ended, OWCP has not met its burden of proof in finding that she had no 

further disability or residual condition due to her accepted employment injury as of 

October 22, 2014.7

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

entitlement to compensation effective October 22, 2014 as the temporary aggravation of 

schizoaffective disorder had resolved. 

 5 See B.S., Docket No. 08-1869 (issued June 19, 2009); Elsie L. Price, 54 ECAB 734 (2003). 

6 Id. 

7 See C.C., Docket No. 08-2485 (issued September 15, 2009); Tara G. Deramu, Docket No. 94-1391 (issued 

September 16, 1996). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 13, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 

Issued: August 23, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board