United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Garland, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1760 

Issued: January 4, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 20, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 13, 2015 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 over the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a 

high wheel based motor vehicle. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Appellant also appealed a February 5, 2015 decision of OWCP. As more than 180 days elapsed from the 

February 5, 2015 decision to the filing of this additional appeal, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review that decision. 

See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 22, 1999 appellant, then a 45-year-old vehicle operations maintenance assistant, 

claimed to have injured his right knee as he stepped off a curb while in the performance of duty. 

On June 26, 2008 he claimed a new work-related right knee injury when his right knee buckled 

in the performance of duty. Appellant retired effective January 2, 2009 and began working for a 

private employer. 

OWCP accepted torn lateral meniscus of the right knee, old disruption of the right 

anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), and traumatic arthropathy of the right pelvic and thigh region. 

Appellant’s claim later accepted sprained neck, spinal stenosis in cervical region, and 

displacement of cervical intervertebral disc without myelopathy following a September 30, 2014 

consequential injury. 

OWCP approved multiple surgical procedures, including an April 8, 2009 medial and 

lateral meniscectomy, hemocyte tissue graph, and chondroplasty of the patella, medial femoral 

condyle, and lateral femoral. It approved a March 31, 2011 right knee arthroscopic ACL 

surgery, removal of the synovium and/or adhesions, arthroscopic meniscus surgery, 

patellofemoral extensor autologous soft tissue transfer, and platelet gel patch. OWCP authorized 

a February 20, 2012 arthroscopic retinacular/capsular ligament release, arthroscopic 

meniscectomy, and soft tissue transfer of the right knee. On October 28, 2013 it authorized right 

knee arthroscopic meniscus repair/lateral repair, removal of adhesions, and extensor mechanism 

surgery.3

 

On October 22, 2014 appellant requested authorization for a truck with a high wheel base 

to assist him in getting in and out of his vehicle. He subsequently submitted an October 15, 2014 

report from Dr. John McConnell, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who advised that 

appellant related that he had difficulty entering and exiting a standard vehicle and needed a high 

wheel based vehicle. Examination of the right knee revealed a stable ACL, quad weakness and 

deconditioning, 0 to 125 degrees range of motion, and recurrent pain. Dr. McConnell diagnosed 

knee pain, quadriceps atrophy, stiffness, and neck pain. He noted that appellant related that 

assistance was available from his insurance to help him access a high wheel based vehicle, such 

as a truck, if appellant could provide medical confirmation that he needed it subsequent to his 

knee injury. Dr. McConnell noted that he agreed with appellant’s need for a high wheel based 

vehicle. He also wrote a prescription for a high wheel based vehicle, such as a truck. 

OWCP referred the case file, together with the statement of accepted facts, to an OWCP 

medical adviser for review. In a February 3, 2015 report, the medical adviser opined that a high 

wheel vehicle, such as a truck, was not medically necessary. He noted that appellant had normal 

range of motion in the right knee and that right knee strength was not primary for entering the 

driver side of a vehicle. The medical adviser further opined that appellant’s right knee problems 

as described would indicate easier entrance and egress from a standard type vehicle. 

 3

 On June 28, 2010 appellant received a schedule award for 12 percent right leg impairment and, on March 25, 

2013, he received a schedule award for an additional 7 percent right leg impairment. On February 5, 2015 he found 

that he did not have more than 19 percent total impairment of the right leg for which he had previously received 

schedule awards. The Board does not have jurisdiction over this decision. See id. 
3

By decision dated May 13, 2015, OWCP denied authorization for the purchase of a high 

wheel based vehicle, such as a truck, because the medical evidence failed to establish that a truck 

was medically reasonable and necessary in the treatment of appellant’s work-related conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8103(a) of FECA provides for furnishing an injured employee the services, 

appliances, and supplies prescribed or recommended by a qualified physician, which OWCP, 

under authority delegated by the Secretary of Labor, considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce 

the degree or the period of disability, or aid in lessening the amount of the monthly 

compensation. OWCP has great discretion in determining whether a particular type of treatment 

is likely to cure or give relief.4 

OWCP procedures discuss requests for vehicle modification and/or purchase of new 

vehicles.5

 To be eligible for vehicle modification, a claimant must be severely restricted in terms 

of mobility and independence, in normal living functions, on a permanent basis, due to the workrelated injury. Examples are impairments that require the use of a prosthesis, wheelchair, leg 

braces, crutches, canes, and self-help devices.6 OWCP procedures provide that modifications 

must be established as necessary and desirable for increased mobility or independence by a 

recommendation of a physiatrist or other medical specialist appropriate to the type of injury 

sustained.7 Modifications of a claimant’s present vehicle must be explored before considering a 

new purchase.8 If it is established that a claimant cannot drive his or her present car due to the 

inability to place a wheelchair in it without assistance or it is not practical to modify the present 

vehicle, OWCP will pay for a suitable car or van (if necessary).9

ANALYSIS 

Appellant contended that the purchase of a high wheel based vehicle was medically 

necessary. The Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying his request. 

In support of his request for a new high wheel based vehicle such as a truck, appellant 

submitted an October 15, 2014 report from Dr. McConnell. Dr. McConnell noted that appellant 

complained of trouble entering and exiting a standard vehicle and related that he needed a high 

wheel based vehicle such as a truck. He agreed that a high wheeled vehicle was medically 

necessary and also wrote a prescription for such a vehicle. Dr. McConnell did not provide a 

specific description of appellant’s restrictions or physical limitations which necessitated a high 

 4 Thomas Lee Cox, 54 ECAB 509 (2003); Stella M. Bohlig, 53 ECAB 341 (2002). 

5

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Housing and Vehicle Modifications, Chapter 2.1800 

(October 2009). See M.B., Docket No. 06-701 (issued December 4, 2006). 

6 See id. at Chapter 2.1800.3. 

7 See id. at Chapter 2.1800.5(a)(1). 

8 See id. at Chapter 2.1800.5(a)(2). 

9 See id. at Chapter 2.1800.5(a)(4). 
4

wheel base motor vehicle. Further, he did not provide any detailed findings or reasoned 

explanation for his conclusion. Medical opinions that lack a rationale for the opinion are of 

diminished probative value.10

The medical adviser, on February 3, 2015, opined that the purchase of a truck was not 

medically necessary. He noted that appellant had normal range of motion in the right knee and 

that right knee strength was not primary for entering the driver side of a vehicle. The medical 

adviser further opined that appellant’s right knee problems as described would indicate that 

easier entrance and egress would be from a standard type vehicle. 

An abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly 

unreasonable exercise of judgment, or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and 

probable deductions from established facts.11 OWCP has broad discretion pursuant to section 

8103 of FECA to determine whether purchase of a truck is likely to cure or give relief for the 

accepted employment-related injury. As Dr. McConnell offered no medical rationale to explain 

why appellant needed a truck due to the accepted conditions, OWCP did not abuse its discretion 

in this case. There is no probative medical evidence of record explaining the need for a truck.12 

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 did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s request 

for purchase of a high wheel based motor vehicle. 

 10 See William D. Farrior, 54 ECAB 566, 569 (2003). 

11 Gerald A. Carr, 55 ECAB 225 (2004). 

12 M.B., Docket No. 06-701 (issued December 4, 2006); Thomas Lee Cox, 54 ECAB 509 (2003); Stella M. Bohlig, 

53 ECAB 341 (2002). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 13, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 4, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board