United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Washington, D.C., Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0780 

Issued: October 11, 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 February 29, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 4, 2015 merit 

decision and a December 24, 2015 nonmerit 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.2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP properly terminated appellant’s medical and wageloss compensation benefits, effective September 4, 2015 because she no longer suffered residuals 

or disability causally related to her employment; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied further 

merit review of appellant’s case pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the December 24, 2015 decision. Since 

the Board’s jurisdiction however is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, 

the Board may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); Sandra D. Pruitt, 

57 ECAB 126 (2005). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on March 27, 1995 appellant, then a 40-year-old flat sorter clerk, 

sustained injuries to her neck, back, shoulder, legs, and arms when an escalator that she was 

standing on suddenly stopped and she was thrown forward. She stopped work on March 28, 

1995 and returned to limited duty on May 30, 1995. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and sprain of back, neck, shoulder, upper arm, knee, and leg. 

Appellant stopped work again and on October 20, 1997 filed a claim for recurrence of 

disability (Form CA-2a) for the period August 18 to September 3, 1997. OWCP accepted her 

recurrence of disability claim and paid wage-loss compensation. Appellant continued to receive 

medical treatment. She returned to work on November 3, 1998. 

On November 5, 1998 OWCP granted a schedule award for 13 percent permanent 

impairment of each upper extremity and 12 percent permanent impairment of each lower 

extremity. 

In a decision dated January 23, 2001, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation based on 

her actual wages as a manual distribution clerk. It found that she had demonstrated her ability to 

perform the duties of her job since November 3, 1998 and that her actual wages met or exceeded 

the current wages of her date-of-injury job. 

In 2001, appellant underwent a lumbar nerve block and stopped work again. On 

December 2, 2003 she returned to part-time light duty. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Daniel R. Ignacio, Board-certified in physical medicine and 

rehabilitation. In narrative reports dated February 11 to June 26, 2015, he noted a date of injury 

of March 27, 1995. Dr. Ignacio related that she continued to suffer significant injuries and 

experience persistent pain along her neck, back, and extremities due to an injury she sustained on 

March 27, 1995. Upon examination of appellant’s cervical spine, he observed spasm that 

restricted her motions along the cervical spine, tenderness along the interspinous ligaments and 

paraspinal muscles, and trigger points along the cervical area, and bilateral upper trapezius. 

Examination of the lower and upper extremities revealed tenderness, hypoesthesia, and weakness 

along the left arm, knees, and leg. Range of motion was slow. Dr. Ignacio further reported 

restricted motion and tenderness along the midthoracic and lower lumbar paraspinal muscles 

with trigger points. He diagnosed chronic cervical strain syndrome, chronic cervical disc 

syndrome, chronic bilateral shoulder strain syndrome, chronic lumbar disc syndrome with 

lumbar radiculopathy, chronic bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic synovitis of the bilateral 

knees, and chronic internal derangement along the knee. 

On May 26, 2015 OWCP scheduled appellant for a second opinion evaluation with 

Dr. D. Burke Haskins, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to determine whether she continued 

to suffer residuals and remained disabled due to her March 27, 1995 employment injury. 

In a July 14, 2015 report, Dr. Haskins reviewed the statement of accepted facts (SOAF) 

and accurately described the March 27, 1995 employment injury. He discussed appellant’s 

history and the medical records that he reviewed. Dr. Haskins related her complaints of pain in 
3

the neck, lumbar spine, and bilateral knees and intermittent radiation of symptoms in both arms. 

Upon examination of appellant’s cervical spine, he reported pain in the paracervical region, but 

no deformities or spasm. Range of motion testing revealed forward flexion to three 

fingerbreadths from the sternum, active rotation to the left to 10 degrees, active rotation to the 

right to 15 degrees, and extension to 5 degrees. Dr. Haskins examined appellant’s shoulders and 

noted normal musculature. He provided range of motion findings and indicated that there was 

full internal rotation bilaterally and external rotation to the neutral position bilaterally. Speed 

sign was negative for discomfort. Examination of the upper extremities revealed intact sensation 

with no thenar or hypothenar atrophy of the hands. Dr. Haskins reported that appellant’s elbows 

were normal in appearance and carrying angles. He indicated that left flexion was to 125 

degrees, right to 120 degrees, and full extension, pronation, and supination. Upon examination 

of appellant’s lumbar spine, Dr. Haskins observed normal lumbar lordosis and active forward 

flexion and extension. Straight leg raise testing was to 90 degrees and produced neck and knee 

pain. Dr. Haskins reported that during the physical examination appellant presented with various 

exaggerated pain behaviors, such as moaning, groaning, and grimacing, but did not reveal any 

obvious pathology. 

Responding to questions posed by OWCP, Dr. Haskins diagnosed unresolved carpal 

tunnel syndrome unrelated to the accident, right shoulder degenerative joint disease unrelated to 

the industrial accident, bilateral osteoarthritis of the knees with meniscal tear unrelated to the 

industrial accident, cervical disc disease and spondylosis unrelated to the accident, hematoma 

extremities unrelated to the accident, lumbar spondylosis unrelated to the accident, shoulder 

strain, knee strain, and cervical strain. He explained that the conditions of shoulder strain, 

cervical strain, knee strain, and lumbar strain were medically connected to appellant’s work 

injury. Dr. Haskins reported that she did not suffer any residuals of the cervical strain, shoulder 

strain, knee strain, or lumbar strain and pointed out that there was no evidence of radiculopathy 

in the extremities based on the history or examination other than by nerve conduction studies 

performed by Dr. Ignacio. He indicated that there were significant signs of symptom 

magnification. Dr. Haskins opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement 

for any injuries she sustained in the 1995 work accident and that her current treatment was for 

unrelated conditions. He noted that her work restrictions were due to unrelated factors, including 

obesity, and deconditioning. Dr. Haskins included a work capacity evaluation form of 

appellant’s work restrictions. 

In a July 10, 2015 report, Dr. Philip B. Bovell, an orthopedic surgeon, indicated that he 

reexamined appellant for progressive degenerative joint disease of the left knee. He noted that 

she was going to water therapy to treat her medical condition and needed an extension of this 

water therapy program. 

On August 4, 2015 OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of appellant’s wageloss compensation because she no longer suffered residuals or disability causally related to the 

March 27, 1995 employment injury. It determined that the weight of medical evidence rested on 

the July 14, 2015 second opinion report of Dr. Haskins. Appellant was afforded 30 days in 

which to submit additional evidence or argument. 
4

Appellant submitted an examination note dated July 24, 2015 by Dr. Ignacio, which 

indicated that she had a follow-up appointment on August 27, 2015 and needed neural 

enhancement therapy. 

In a July 24, 2015 report, Dr. Ignacio indicated that appellant continued to experience 

significant pain along her neck, shoulders, wrists, back, and bilateral knees. Upon examination 

of her cervical spine, he observed palpable spasm with limited motion. Dr. Ignacio also reported 

slow movements with pain and tenderness on the bilateral shoulders. He noted hypoesthesia and 

weakness along the left arm. Examination of the thoracolumbar spine revealed tenderness along 

the midthoracic and lower lumbar paraspinal muscles. Straight leg raise testing was limited to 

70 degrees. Upon examination of appellant’s lower extremities, Dr. Ignacio observed limited 

motion in the knees and hypoesthesia and weakness along the legs. He diagnosed chronic 

cervical strain syndrome, chronic bilateral shoulder strain syndrome, chronic cervical disc 

syndrome, chronic lumbar disc syndrome with lumbar radiculopathy, chronic bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome, chronic synovitis of the bilateral knees, and chronic internal derangement 

along the knees. Dr. Ignacio recommended that appellant continue with pain medication and 

conservative treatment. 

On August 7, 2015 appellant was examined again by Dr. Bovell for progressive 

degenerative joint disease of the left knee. 

On September 4, 2015 OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits, effective that date. It found that the weight of medical evidence rested on the 

July 14, 2015 second opinion report of Dr. Haskins who determined that appellant no longer 

suffered residuals of her March 27, 1995 employment injury. 

On September 21, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. 

Appellant submitted reports by Dr. Ignacio dated August 7 and 28, 2015. Dr. Ignacio 

described the March 27, 1995 employment injury and reviewed her history. He indicated that 

appellant’s condition had not improved over the years and had worsened to the point that she 

needed surgery to both hands due to continuing pain, numbness, and weakness. Dr. Ignacio 

provided examination findings and noted diagnoses of chronic cervical strain, chronic bilateral 

shoulder strain, chronic lumbar strain, chronic bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, status post 

bilateral wrist surgery with residual pain, chronic lumbar strain, chronic internal derangement of 

the knees, chronic synovitis of the knees, chronic cervical disc syndrome with cervical 

radiculopathy, and chronic pain syndrome. He opined that appellant continued to suffer with the 

above-mentioned medical conditions, which she sustained on March 27, 1995 and was not able 

to return to work. Dr. Ignacio noted his disagreement with Dr. Haskin’s July 14, 2015 report. 

He mentioned that appellant would continue with pain management and a rehabilitation program. 

In a decision dated December 24, 2015, OWCP denied further merit review of appellant’s 

claim finding that her request did not meet any of the requirements warranting merit review 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). It specifically found that the medical reports she submitted were 

cumulative and substantially similar to evidence that was previously considered by OWCP. 
5

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Under FECA, once OWCP has accepted a claim it has the burden of justifying 

termination or modification of compensation benefits.3

 OWCP may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability ceased or that it was no longer related to the employment.4

 

Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence 

based on a proper factual and medical background.5

 

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

entitlement for disability.6

 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must 

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

would require further medical treatment.7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits for her March 27, 1995 employment injuries. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s March 27, 1995 traumatic injury claim for bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome and sprain of back, neck, shoulder, upper arm, knee, and leg. In order to 

determine her current work status and need for medical treatment, on May 26, 2015 it scheduled 

her for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Haskins. In a July 14, 2015 report, Dr. Haskins 

reviewed appellant’s history and noted the March 27, 1995 employment injury. He related her 

current complaints of pain in the neck, lumbar spine, and bilateral knees and intermittent 

radiation of symptoms in both arms. Dr. Haskins provided physical examination findings of 

appellant’s cervical and lumbar spines and upper and lower extremities. He reported that during 

the physical examination she presented with various exaggerated pain behaviors, but did not 

reveal any obvious pathology. Responding to questions posed by OWCP, Dr. Haskins opined 

that appellant did not suffer any residuals of the cervical strain, shoulder strain, knee strain, or 

lumbar strain. He pointed out that there was no evidence of radiculopathy in the extremities and 

indicated that there were significant signs of symptom magnification. Dr. Haskins indicated that 

appellant had reached maximum medical improvement for any injuries she sustained in the 1995 

work accident and that her current work restrictions were due to unrelated factors, including 

obesity, and deconditioning. 

The Board finds that the weight of the medical opinion evidence rests with Dr. Haskins, 

who directly addressed the issue of whether appellant continued to suffer residuals of her 

March 27, 1995 employment injury. Dr. Haskins based his opinion on a proper factual and 

 3 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Vivien L. Minor, 37 ECAB 541, 546 (1986). 

4 Charles E. Minniss, 40 ECAB 708, 716 (1989). 

5 See Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988). 

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

7 Kathryn E. Demarsh, id; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003). 
6

medical history derived from the SOAF and her medical records.8

 He provided essentially 

normal findings on physical examination and indicated that appellant showed signs of symptoms 

magnification. Dr. Haskins concluded that she had reached maximum medical improvement for 

her work injuries and that her current work restrictions were not due to her employment. 

Because he provided a well-rationalized opinion based on medical evidence of record regarding 

appellant’s ability to work, the Board finds that OWCP properly relied on his July 14, 2015 

report in terminating her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits for the March 27, 1995 

employment injury.9

Appellant submitted reports by Dr. Ignacio regarding her need for continued medical 

treatment. In reports dated February 11 to July 24, 2015, Dr. Ignacio related that appellant 

continued to suffer significant pain along her neck, shoulders, wrists, back, and bilateral knees 

since a March 27, 1995 work-related injury. Upon examination, he observed spasms and 

tenderness along her cervical area and bilateral upper trapezius. Dr. Ignacio also noted 

tenderness, hypoesthesia, and weakness along appellant’s lower and upper extremities. He 

diagnosed chronic cervical strain syndrome, chronic cervical disc syndrome, chronic bilateral 

shoulder strain syndrome, chronic lumbar disc syndrome with lumbar radiculopathy, chronic 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic synovitis of the bilateral knees, and chronic internal 

derangement along the knee. Dr. Ignacio recommended that appellant continue to receive 

medical treatment. 

Although Dr. Ignacio mentioned the March 27, 1995 employment injury and diagnoses 

based on examination findings, the Board finds that he has not provided a rationalized medical 

opinion relating appellant’s disability or need for medical care due to her accepted injuries.10 On 

the contrary, he attributed her need for medical treatment to various conditions, including 

chronic cervical disc syndrome, chronic lumbar disc syndrome with lumbar radiculopathy, 

chronic synovitis of the bilateral knees, and chronic internal derangement along the knee, which 

are not accepted by OWCP. Accordingly, Dr. Ignacio’s reports fail to establish appellant’s 

continued disability and need for medical treatment due to her accepted injuries.11 Similarly, 

Dr. Bovell’s July 10 and August 7, 2015 medical notes also fail to establish her continued 

disability and need for medical treatment as he did not opine on her inability to work or need for 

continued treatment for his accepted March 27, 1995 employment injury. The Board finds that 

these medical reports are not of sufficient probative value to establish that appellant continues to 

suffer residuals of her March 27, 1995 employment injury. 

 8 See N.P., Docket No. 15-1580 (issued September 1, 2016); see also Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443 (1987). 

9 See L.S., Docket No. 09-1508 (issued May 6, 2010). See also Cleopatra McDougal-Saddler, 47 ECAB 

480 (1996). 

10 Supra note 5. 

11 Id. 
7

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award 

for or against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.12 

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument that: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.13 

A request for reconsideration must also be received by OWCP within one year of the date 

of OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.14 If OWCP chooses to grant reconsideration, it 

reopens and reviews the case on its merits.15 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one 

of the requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

On September 4, 2015 OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits, effective that date. On September 21, 2015 it received her request for 

reconsideration. In a decision dated December 24, 2015, OWCP denied further merit review of 

appellant’s claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). The Board finds that OWCP properly refused 

to reopen her case for further consideration of the merits of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

Along with her reconsideration request, appellant provided medical reports from 

Dr. Ignacio dated August 7 and 28, 2015. Although these medical reports were not previously 

considered by OWCP, the Board finds that they are substantially similar and duplicate evidence 

previously considered and reviewed by OWCP. Dr. Ignacio mentioned the March 27, 1995 

employment injury, provided examination findings and diagnosis, and opined that appellant 

continued to suffer residuals from her employment injury. The Board has held that evidence or 

argument that repeats or duplicates evidence previously of record has no evidentiary value and 

does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.17 As these medical reports do not constitute 

relevant new evidence, the Board finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case 

for further consideration of the merits of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

 12 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-

1569 (issued December 9, 2008). 

14 Id. at § 10.607(a). 

15 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007). 

16 Id. at § 10.608(b); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March 18, 2010). 

17 E.M., Docket No. 09-39 (issued March 3, 2009). 
8

The Board finds that as appellant did not meet any of the necessary requirements for 

further consideration of the merits of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), OWCP properly 

denied further merit review of her traumatic injury claim. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective September 4, 2015 as she no longer suffered 

residuals or disability causally related to the March 27, 1995 employment injury. The Board also 

finds that OWCP properly denied further merit review of her case pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a). 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 24, 2015 nonmerit decision and 

September 4, 2015 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are 

affirmed. 

Issued: October 11, 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