United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Edison, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1409 

Issued: February 6, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Donald J. Millman, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 27, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 4, 

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 over the merits of this case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to justify termination of 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective February 11, 2015 as she no 

longer suffered residuals or disability due to the accepted June 6, 2013 employment injury; and 

 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

(2) whether appellant has established any continuing residuals or disability due to the June 6, 

2013 employment injury after February 11, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 6, 2013 appellant, then a 47-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 6, 2013 she injured her right foot, toe, ankle, leg, and lower 

back when she fell while descending stairs due to a staircase collapse. She stopped work. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right ankle sprain.3

 It paid compensation benefits and 

placed appellant on the periodic rolls. 

Appellant received medical treatment from Dr. Burgess L. Berlin, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon. In narrative reports dated June 11 and 13, 2013, he indicated that appellant 

was under his care for injuries sustained to her neck, middle, and low back, right shoulder, right 

hip, right ankle, and right foot as a result of a June 6, 2013 employment injury. Upon 

examination of her neck, Dr. Berlin observed decreased sensation in the C6 through T1 

dermatomes bilaterally and marked tenderness over the thoracic paravertebral muscles with 

marked limitation of thoracic range of motion. Lumbar examination revealed lumbar 

paravertebral muscle spasm and moderate limitation of lumbosacral range of motion in all 

ranges. Dr. Berlin reported that straight leg raise testing was positive at 30 degrees with a 

positive Lasegue sign. Upon examination of appellant’s right ankle, he noted a collateral 

ligament sprain grade 1 to 2. Examination of appellant’s right shoulder demonstrated tenderness 

over the anterolateral aspect with limitation in active forward flexion and abduction to 80 

degrees. Dr. Berlin diagnosed post-traumatic cervical, thoracic, lumbosacral myositis with 

radiculitis, post-traumatic right shoulder bursitis tendinitis, post-traumatic right hip bursitis 

tendinitis, and post-traumatic right ankle and foot sprain. He explained that appellant’s injuries 

had an adverse effect on appellant’s ability to engage in normal and customary activities of daily 

living, especially her job duties, which included prolonged standing and walking and repeated 

lifting and bending. Dr. Berlin recommended that appellant remain off work. 

An October 14, 2013 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report of the right foot by 

Dr. Michael Yuz, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, revealed evidence of cystic changes 

within the navicular bone likely to be chronic in nature. Dr. Yuz reported chronic tendinosis of 

the Achilles tendon, tenosynovitis of the flexor hallucis tendon, and focal cystic changes within 

the navicular bone likely to be chronic in nature. 

OWCP subsequently referred appellant to Dr. William Oppenheim, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination to determine whether she continued to 

have residuals and remained disabled due to her June 6, 2013 employment injury and whether 

she sustained other medical conditions as a result of the June 6, 2013 incident. In a 

December 10, 2013, report, Dr. Oppenheim described the June 6, 2013 employment incident and 

reviewed appellant’s history. He conducted a physical examination and found no objective 

findings to support that appellant continued to have residuals of her accepted right ankle injury 

or that she needed further medical treatment. Dr. Oppenheim advised that she was able to return 

 3

 In its decision, OWCP noted that the conditions of post-traumatic cervical, thoracic, lumbosacral myositis with 

radiculitis, post-traumatic right shoulder bursitis tendinitis, and post-traumatic right hip bursitis tendinitis had not 

been accepted under this claim because the medical evidence was insufficient to establish these conditions. 
3

to work. With regard to Dr. Berlin’s opinion that appellant sustained additional injuries to her 

cervical spine, lumbar spine, and right shoulder, he reported that he found no objective findings 

to establish these diagnosed conditions at the time of his examination. 

OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits 

in a decision dated January 21, 2014. It found that the weight of the medical evidence rested 

with the opinion of the second opinion examiner, Dr. Oppenheim, who determined in a 

December 10, 2013 report that there were no objective findings to demonstrate that appellant 

continued to have residuals of her June 6, 2013 employment injury. Appellant was afforded 30 

days to submit additional evidence or argument if she disagreed with the proposed termination. 

In a letter dated February 18, 2014, appellant, through counsel, indicated that she was 

submitting a new narrative report from Dr. Berlin in support of her claim for continued benefits. 

In a February 11, 2014 narrative report, Dr. Berlin described the June 6, 2013 

employment incident and noted that appellant was immediately treated in the emergency room 

for a right ankle sprain. He related that appellant then presented to his office for complaints of 

neck, right shoulder, middle, low back pain and stiffness, right ankle pain, and right hip pain. 

Dr. Berlin discussed his examination findings from appellant’s initial evaluation and noted that 

repeat evaluations revealed a neurologic deficit in appellant’s upper and lower extremities and a 

positive impingement sign with an equivocal drop arm sign of the right shoulder. He opined that 

there was a “direct causal relationship between the accident in question and the resultant injuries 

this patient sustained.” Dr. Berlin explained: 

“The axial loading force was of sufficient magnitude when she fell into a seated 

position to cause injuries to her cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Also, when 

she struck her body against the steps, in twisting it, she so injured her right 

shoulder, right hip, and right ankle. I feel there is a direct correlation physically 

between the history of the trauma and the resultant pathologies.” 

Appellant underwent a right shoulder MRI scan by Dr. Joel Swartz, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, revealed moderate productive change at the acromioclavicular joint, 

which was encroaching on the supraspinatus muscle tendon complex, fluid in the subacromial/ 

subdeltoid bursa compatible with shoulder impingement, and partial thickness tear of the 

supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendon. A lumbar spine MRI scan by Dr. Swartz revealed 

straightening of normal lordotic curvature, compatible with muscle spasm and broad-based disc 

bulges at L4-5 and L5-S1. In a June 7, 2014 MRI scan of the cervical spine, Dr. Swartz reported 

disc degeneration with mild-to-moderate disc protrusion and left greater than right 

neuroforaminal narrowing at C5-6, mild disc protrusion to left at C6-7 and C7-T1, and moderate 

disc degeneration with mild disc protrusion on the left at C4-5, mild-to-moderate disc protrusion 

eccentric toward the left neuroforamen at C3-4 as described, and mild disc bulging to left at 

C2-3. 

On June 6, 2014 appellant returned to part-time duty. 

OWCP determined that a conflict in the medical evidence existed between Dr. Berlin, 

appellant’s treating physician, and Dr. Oppenheim, OWCP’s second opinion physician, with 

respect to her employment-related conditions and her disability. It referred appellant, along with 
4

a statement of accepted facts and a copy of the record, to Dr. Howard M. Pecker, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, to resolve the conflict. 

In a July 31, 2014 report, Dr. Pecker described the June 6, 2013 employment injury and 

noted that OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right ankle sprain. He related that appellant was 

initially examined in the emergency room (ER) for complaints of right foot and ankle pain and 

returned to the emergency room two days later for complaints of pain in her neck and back 

which radiated to her right trapezius and arm. Relative to the accepted condition of right ankle 

sprain, he explained that x-ray examination of appellant’s right ankle showed normal bone, with 

no evidence of fracture or dislocation. Dr. Pecker indicated that appellant continued to complain 

of low back pain and neck pain radiating to the right trapezius and shoulder. He reviewed 

appellant’s medical records and noted that various diagnostic examinations of the cervical spine 

and upper extremity revealed degenerative changes. Upon physical examination, Dr. Pecker 

reported no tenderness or crepitance of the cervical spine. Range of motion exhibited extension 

and flexion to 45 degrees and forward flexion on causal observation. Right and left rotation was 

to 50 degrees. Upon examination of appellant’s upper extremities, Dr. Pecker observed 2+ deep 

tendon reflexes and sensation to pinprick in the right hand. Examination of the right shoulder 

revealed complaints of tenderness with light palpation of the clavicle and tenderness of the right 

trapezius. Dr. Pecker noted forceful resistance to motion after forward elevation to 120 degrees 

and resisted downward pressure on the shoulder forcefully at the top of the range. Upon 

examination of the lumbar spine, he observed intact sensation to pin prick throughout and diffuse 

tenderness with moderate palpation of the right Achilles. Strength was 5+ and deep tendon 

reflexes were 2+. 

Dr. Pecker opined that there was no objective evidence of traumatic injury to the 

shoulder, lumbar spine, or the lower extremities related to the accident on examination. He 

explained that variable sensation reporting in the right upper extremity was inconsistent with the 

MRI scan findings or with radiculopathy of the cervical spine. Dr. Pecker also related that 

tenderness with light palpation of the clavicle and forceful resistance to motion at variable 

forward elevation angle was not consistent with internal derangement of the shoulder. He further 

indicated that variable reporting and findings of different ER visits were inconsistent with the 

findings on MRI scan and with the mechanism of injury. Dr. Pecker noted that MRI scan 

findings of the cervical spine were consistent with mild degenerative disc changes and were 

consistent with the claimant’s age. He reported that the only current diagnosed condition was 

degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, which was not causally related to the work 

accident. Dr. Pecker concluded that there were no objective findings causally related to the 

June 6, 2013 employment injury. He reported that further medical treatment for her June 6, 2013 

injury was not needed and appellant could continue to work. 

Appellant continued to be treated by Dr. Berlin for complaints of pain and stiffness in her 

neck, back, right hip, and right upper and lower extremity. He provided physical examination 

findings similar to his previous examinations and recommended physical therapy and isometric 

and isotonic exercises to help relieve her symptoms. In an October 17, 2014 letter, Dr. Berlin 

opined that appellant’s injuries currently comprised of post-traumatic right shoulder torn rotator 

cuff with impingement syndrome, post-traumatic right foot tendinitis, and a cervical and 

lumbosacral myositis with radiculopathy. He noted that because appellant’s symptoms had 

flared up, he recommended that appellant remain out of work for the next four weeks. 
5

OWCP finalized the termination of appellant’s wage-loss and medical benefits in a 

decision dated February 11, 2015. It found that Dr. Pecker’s July 31, 2014 impartial medical 

report represented the special weight of the medical evidence and established that she no longer 

suffered residuals or disability due to her June 6, 2013 employment injury. 

On March 10, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s request, through counsel, for a hearing 

before an OWCP hearing representative. 

A hearing was held on October 15, 2015. Counsel asserted that Dr. Pecker only 

addressed the accepted condition of appellant’s right ankle, but appellant had sustained other 

multiple injuries in the accepted fall. Appellant described the June 6, 2013 employment incident 

and the symptoms she experienced after her injury. She noted that she was initially treated for 

only right foot and ankle pain. Appellant related that the next morning she woke up with 

extreme pain on her entire right side. The pain continued to worsen over the next few days so 

appellant went back to the ER again and was treated for musculoskeletal contusions. Appellant 

indicated that she was seen by Dr. Berlin on June 11, 2013 for pain and stiffness in the neck, 

arm, low back, and right ankle. She noted that Dr. Berlin diagnosed post-traumatic cervical 

thoracic and lumbosacral myositis with radiculitis, post-traumatic right shoulder bursitis, and 

post-traumatic right hip bursitis with tendinitis, and post-traumatic right ankle and right foot 

sprain. Appellant described the medical treatment she continued to receive, including physical 

therapy, nerve block injections, and surgery on July 29, 2015. She noted that she returned to 

part-time light duty until October 13, 2014 when she was pulled out of work due to a worsening 

of her conditions. 

Following the hearing, appellant submitted a November 10, 2015 narrative letter by 

Dr. Berlin. He described the June 6, 2013 employment injury and related that when appellant 

fell as the stairs collapsed, her entire body was jolted and she fell into a seated position, striking 

her buttocks and twisting her right ankle. Dr. Berlin noted that as a result of the impact appellant 

put a forceful axial load on her spine. He discussed in detail the medical treatment he provided 

for appellant beginning on June 11, 2013, including his examination findings, diagnoses, and 

recommendations. Dr. Berlin opined that the injuries for which he was treating appellant 

involved her neck, low back, right shoulder, right hip, and right ankle comprising the diagnoses 

of traumatic cervical and lumbosacral myositis with radiculopathy, right shoulder bursitis 

tendinitis, right hip bursitis, and right ankle and foot Achilles, and flexor and extensor tendinitis 

were directly and causally related to the work injury of June 6, 2013. He reported: “that the axial 

loading force was of sufficient magnitude when she fell into a seated position to cause injuries to 

her cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Also, when she struck her body against the steps, in 

twisting it, she injured her right shoulder, right hip, and right foot.” Dr. Berlin opined that 

appellant was still in need of medical treatment and continued to be disabled from work. 

By decision dated January 4, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

February 11, 2015 termination decision. She determined that the special weight of evidence 

rested with the opinion of the referee medical examiner, Dr. Pecker, who determined in a 

July 31, 2014 report that appellant no longer had any residuals or disability causally related to 

her June 6, 2013 employment injury. 
6

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

According to FECA, once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the 

burden of justifying termination or modification of an employee’s benefits.4 OWCP may not 

terminate compensation without establishing that the disability had ceased or that it was no 

longer related to the employment.5

 Its 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 compensation.7 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must 

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

require further medical treatment.8

 

When there are opposing reports of virtually equal weight and rationale, the case will be 

referred to an impartial medical specialist pursuant to section 8123(a) of FECA which provides 

that, if there is a disagreement between the physician making the examination for the United 

States and the physician of an employee, the Secretary shall appoint a third physician (known as 

a referee physician or impartial medical specialist) who shall make an examination and resolve 

the conflict of medical evidence.9 This is called a referee examination and OWCP will select a 

physician who is qualified in the appropriate specialty and who has no prior connection with the 

case.10 The opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based upon a proper 

factual background, must be given special weight.11

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP determined that a conflict in medical opinion evidence existed between 

Dr. Berlin, appellant’s treating physician, who continued to opine that appellant had residuals of 

her accepted right ankle sprain as well as cervical, lumbar, and right shoulder conditions 

resulting from the June 6, 2013 employment injury, and Dr. Oppenheim, OWCP’s referral 

physician, who found that appellant no longer suffered residuals of her June 6, 2013 employment 

injury. Appellant was referred to Dr. Pecker for an impartial medical examination to resolve the 

conflict in medical evidence regarding whether she continued to have residuals or disability 

causally related to the June 6, 2013 employment injury. 

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

5 Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); Vivien L. Minor, 37 

ECAB 541 (1986). 

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

7 T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Kathryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005); A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued 

August 5, 2009). 

8 James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003); Pamela K. Guesford, 53 ECAB 727 (2002); A.P., id.

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see R.S., Docket No. 10-1704 (issued May 13, 2011); S.T., Docket No. 08-1675 (issued 

May 4, 2009). 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.321. 

11 Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 
7

In a July 31, 2014 report, Dr. Pecker described that on June 6, 2013 appellant fell down, 

striking her right side and twisting her right ankle, when the staircase she was walking on 

collapsed while working. He noted her accepted condition for right ankle sprain. Dr. Pecker 

discussed appellant’s medical treatment and related her continued complaints of low back pain 

and neck pain radiating to the right trapezius and shoulder. Regarding her accepted right ankle 

sprain condition, Dr. Pecker related that x-ray of the right ankle showed normal findings, with no 

fracture or dislocation. 

Regarding appellant’s other alleged conditions, he related that upon physical 

examination, appellant had no tenderness or crepitance of the cervical spine. Examination of 

appellant’s right shoulder revealed complaints of tenderness with light palpation of the clavicle 

and tenderness of the right trapezius with forceful resistance to motion after forward elevation to 

120 degrees and resisted downward pressure on the shoulder forcefully at the top of the range. 

Dr. Pecker observed intact sensation to pin prick throughout the lumbar spine and diffuse 

tenderness with moderate palpation of the right Achilles. 

Dr. Pecker opined that there was no objective evidence of traumatic injury to the 

shoulder, lumbar spine, or the lower extremities related to the accident on examination. He 

explained that appellant’s complaints on examination and her results were inconsistent with MRI 

scan findings or with the mechanism of injury. Dr. Pecker noted that the only current diagnosed 

condition was degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, which was not causally related to 

the work accident. He concluded that there were no objective findings on examination to support 

that appellant continued to suffer from the accepted right ankle sprain or from any other medical 

conditions causally related to the June 6, 2013 employment injury. Dr. Pecker reported that 

appellant was able to continue working and that she was no longer in need of further medical 

treatment. 

The Board finds that Dr. Pecker’s July 31, 2014 report is entitled to the special weight of 

the medical opinion evidence and establishes that appellant no longer had residuals of her 

employment injury and was able to continue to work. Dr. Pecker’s specifically noted that x-ray 

evaluation of appellant’s right ankle showed normal findings. He provided an accurate history of 

the June 6, 2013 employment injury and reviewed her medical records. Dr. Pecker performed a 

thorough, clinical examination and provided findings on examination. He opined that there were 

no objective findings to support appellant’s subjective complaints that she suffered from any 

medical conditions or was unable to work due to her June 6, 2013 employment injury. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that Dr. Pecker’s medical opinion was sufficient for OWCP to 

justify the termination of appellant’s wage-loss and medical benefits effective February 11, 2015 

as she no longer had residuals of and remained disabled due to her June 6, 2013 employment 

injury.12

On appeal, counsel disagrees with the findings of Dr. Oppenheim and Dr. Pecker that 

there was no objective evidence of traumatic injury to the shoulder, lumbar spine, or lower 

extremities. He alleges that the medical reports of Dr. Berlin and appellant’s testimony 

supported a causal relationship between injuries to appellant’s shoulder, lumbar spine, and lower 

extremities and the June 6, 2013 work-related incident. As noted above, however, Dr. Pecker’s 

 12 Id. 
8

opinion was entitled to the special weight of the medical opinion evidence as an impartial 

medical examiner and established that appellant no longer had any residuals or disability 

causally related to the accepted employment-related injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

When OWCP meets its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits on 

February 11, 2015, the burden shifts to appellant to establish continuing disability causally 

related to the accepted employment injury.13

Causal relationship is a medical issue. The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical 

certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by the 

claimant.14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The Board finds that the evidence submitted following the February 11, 2015 termination 

decision was insufficient to establish that appellant continued to be disabled after that date due to 

the June 6, 2013 employment injury. 

Appellant submitted a November 10, 2015 narrative letter by Dr. Berlin. He described 

the June 6, 2013 employment injury and noted that, as a result of the impact of falling on the 

stairs, appellant put a forceful axial load on her spine. Dr. Berlin discussed the medical 

treatment that appellant received and provided physical examination findings. He opined that the 

injuries for which he was treating appellant involving her neck, low back, right shoulder, right 

hip, and right ankle comprising the diagnoses of traumatic cervical and lumbosacral myositis 

with radiculopathy, right shoulder bursitis tendinitis, right hip bursitis, and right ankle and foot 

Achilles and flexor and extensor tendinitis were directly and causally related to the work injury 

of June 6, 2013. Dr. Berlin opined that appellant was still in need of medical treatment and 

continued to be disabled from work. The Board notes that while Dr. Berlin provided an 

affirmative opinion on causation, he did not provide any medical rationale explaining how 

appellant continued to be disabled as a result of the June 6, 2013 employment injury. A medical 

report is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship if it contains a conclusion 

regarding causal relationship which is unsupported by medical rationale.15 Furthermore, 

Dr. Berlin was on one side of the conflict resolved by Dr. Pecker and the Board has held that 

reports from a physician who was on one side of a medical conflict that an impartial medical 

specialist resolved, are generally insufficient to overcome the weight accorded to the report of 

the impartial medical examiner, or to create a new conflict.16 His report, therefore, has failed to 

establish appellant’s continued disability as a result of the June 6, 2013 employment injury. 

 13 See Joseph A. Brown, Jr., 55 ECAB 542 (2004). 

14 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 

15 S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009); T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009). 

16 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008). 
9

Appellant has not submitted sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate that she has any 

continuing disability causally related to the June 6, 2013 employment injury. 

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 benefits effective February 11, 2015. The Board further finds that appellant has 

failed to establish continuing employment-related residuals or disability after February 11, 2015 

causally related to the June 6, 2013 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 4, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 6, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board