United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

NORTH METRO, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0475 

Issued: September 28, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Paul Felser, Esq., for the appellant1

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 December 29, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from 

September 5, October 14, and December 3, 2014 merit decisions 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.3

 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.

3

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the December 3, 2014 decision. Since 

the Board’s jurisdiction 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). Appellant may submit that evidence to OWCP along with a request for reconsideration. 
2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss and compensation benefits effective September 23, 2013 as she no longer had any 

residuals or disability causally related to her accepted employment injuries; and (2) whether 

appellant has established continuing disability causally related to her federal employment after 

September 23, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 2, 2012 appellant, then a 49-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) and alleged that on October 1, 2012 she experienced pain in her right 

shoulder while scanning parcels. The employing establishment controverted her claim alleging 

that there was no medical evidence to support her injury. Appellant stopped work on 

October 4, 2012. 

Appellant was initially treated by Dr. A. Akintoye, a Board-certified internist, for 

complaints of severe neck pain radiating into her right arm with numbness and tingling. In a 

November 15, 2012 report, Dr. Akintoye related that the pain began in October 2012 and 

described her work duties. Upon examination, he observed cervical spine tenderness and marked 

pain and restriction of cervical motion. Dr. Akintoye also noted muscle spasms of the rightsided paraspinal and trapezius muscle and hyperesthesia to touch of the entire right arm. He 

stated that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s neck showed a disc 

herniation/extrusion at C5-6 with significant displacement and compression of her spinal cord. 

Dr. Akintoye diagnosed cervical disc herniation, spinal cord compression, spinal cord 

displacement, spinal stenosis, cervical radiculopathy and disc protrusion, and right shoulder 

sprain. He opined that appellant’s medical conditions were directly caused by the October 1, 

2012 work injury and that she was unable to work due to the fact that she was unable to lift with 

her right arm. 

On November 27, 2012 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for displacement of cervical 

intervertebral disc without myelopathy and right shoulder sprain. It paid appropriate medical and 

disability compensation benefits. 

In a March 12, 2013 report, Dr. Jeff Traub, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

examined appellant for a follow up of an October 2012 work injury. He noted that in 

November 2012 an MRI scan examination revealed a herniated disc at the C5-6 level. Dr. Traub 

reported that appellant was out of work and observed by the employing establishment of 

performing activities outside her physical limitations. He noted that appellant was unable to 

complete a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) because her blood pressure was too high and 

she could not continue. Upon examination, Dr. Traub observed swelling and muscle spasm in 

her neck. He noted that all the rest of appellant’s complaints were subjective. Dr. Traub 

reported that objectively, she had a herniated disc at C5-6 with some degenerative changes as 

shown by the MRI scan. He explained that “more likely than not these degenerative changes and 

even the herniated dis[c] likely preceded [appellant’s] injury at work. The injury at work at most 

aggravated a preexisting condition....” Dr. Traub recommended that appellant remain off work 

until an FCE could be performed. 
3

On April 25, 2013 OWCP referred appellant, along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) and the medical record, to Dr. Alexander N. Doman, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, for a second opinion examination to determine the extent of her accepted employmentrelated injuries and any continuing disability. The SOAF noted that an investigation had been 

conducted by the employing establishment’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and surveillance 

video evidence was obtained, which demonstrated her ability to perform various physical 

activities without limitation. These activities included wearing a satchel bag over appellant’s 

body, carrying shopping bags and apparel, fully extending a trunk lid, reaching onto roof of car, 

pumping gas into her tank, turning over a trash container, and pulling the trash container behind 

her. 

In a May 29, 2013 report, Dr. Doman provided results of an examination on 

May 21, 2013. He reviewed appellant’s medical record, the SOAF, and the video surveillance 

tape and provided an accurate history of the October 1, 2012 injury. Upon examination, 

Dr. Doman observed no evidence of swelling of her neck or shoulder with no neurologic deficits. 

Deep tendon reflexes were normal. He also noted full range of motion of the left and right 

shoulder with no evidence of rotator cuff weakness or shoulder instability and reported that 

x-rays of the right shoulder revealed normal acromioclavicular (AC) joint and that x-rays of the 

cervical spine showed evidence of degenerative disc disease at C4 to C6. 

Dr. Doman opined that appellant’s work-related cervical and right shoulder conditions 

had resolved and were no longer active. He noted that according to the surveillance video she 

had no difficulty with activities of a broad nature. Dr. Doman further explained that there was 

no reasonable likelihood that the work duties appellant described had resulted in injury. He 

pointed out that the x-rays showed no objective evidence of any ongoing shoulder difficulty. 

Dr. Doman stated that appellant was not currently disabled from employment due to the work 

injury and was capable of performing the duties of a processing mail clerk. 

On June 17, 2013 a copy of Dr. Doman’s report was sent to Dr. Traub. 

On June 27, 2013 appellant underwent an FCE by Dana L. Davis, a physical therapist, 

who determined that appellant was capable of performing her job with restrictions of lifting, 

carrying, or pushing no more than 15 pounds, no pulling or reaching above shoulder, and limited 

repeated bending. 

On June 24, 2013 appellant submitted claims for disability (Form CA-7) to OWCP, 

which were received on July 2, 2013. In support of her claims, she included a copy of 

Dr. Doman’s May 29, 2013 report. 

On August 9, 2013 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s compensation and medical 

benefits based on Dr. Doman’s May 29, 2013 report, which found that her employment-related 

injuries had resolved and that she was capable of returning to work. It determined that the 

weight of medical evidence rested with Dr. Doman who determined that she no longer suffered 

residuals of her October 1, 2012 employment-related injuries and was able to return to work. 

In an August 17, 2013 report, Dr. Traub stated that appellant was not cleared for work 

because her FCE was not approved and noted that he clearly authorized her to return to light duty 

with restrictions of no repetitive overhead motion and no lifting greater than 15 pounds. He 
4

reported that she had muscular spasm in her trapezius muscles and he opined that surgery would 

not be beneficial for her. Dr. Traub stated that he was going to fill out and fax the paperwork 

again to OWCP. 

In August 27 and September 5, 2013 work capacity evaluations, Dr. Traub indicated that 

appellant was not capable of returning to her usual job and required restrictions of no lifting 

more than 15 pounds and no repetitive lifting. He noted that she reached maximum medical 

improvement. 

In a September 5, 2013 statement, appellant noted that on October 1, 2012 she injured her 

neck and shoulder at the employing establishment as a result of lifting and moving heavy 

equipment. She related that, due to the injury, she experienced pain, swelling, and muscle 

spasms in her neck and shoulder. Appellant stated that her physician, Dr. Traub, authorized her 

to return to work with restrictions. 

By decision dated September 23, 2013, OWCP finalized the termination of appellant’s 

compensation and medical benefits effective September 23, 2013. It determined that the weight 

of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Doman’s May 29, 2013 report, which determined that 

her employment-related injuries had resolved and that she was capable of returning to full duty. 

On November 21, 2013 OWCP received appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 

In a letter dated February 10, 2014, appellant through counsel, Paul H. Felser, requested 

copies of the surveillance video that had been provided to Dr. Doman for his second opinion 

examination. Mr. Felser alleged that OWCP’s termination was improper because OWCP had 

failed to provide copies of the investigative materials to appellant. 

On March 11, 2014 OWCP sent a copy of the surveillance video to appellant’s counsel. 

On April 2, 2014 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. Appellant 

contended that she wanted to rescind her request for an oral hearing and request reconsideration. 

She reported that her claim was denied because the physician had failed to provide medical 

documentation. Appellant believed, however, that her physician had submitted documentation 

after Dr. Doman’s report. She contended that a conflict in medical evidence existed and that she 

should have been given a referee opinion. Appellant noted that she was providing additional 

medical documentation from another medical physician regarding her injuries. She also 

resubmitted the June 27, 2013 FCE report. 

In a March 24, 2014 report, Dr. Zouheir Shama, a general surgeon, related that appellant 

had worked for the postal service since 1993 and described her duties as a distribution clerk. He 

provided an accurate history of the October 1, 2012 injury and reviewed the medical treatment 

she received. Dr. Shama noted that appellant’s compensation benefits were terminated after 

Dr. Doman’s second opinion examination and review of a videotape by the OIG. 

Dr. Shama reported that appellant complained of pain in the right shoulder, neck, and 

right arm. Upon examination, he observed tenderness of her right shoulder over the bicipital 

groove. Abduction of the right arm was 120 (normal 180) and revealed pain with movement. 

Dr. Shama diagnosed cervical strain, shoulder strain, and displacement of cervical intervertebral 

disc. He opined that, based on a review of appellant’s job duties, physical examination, and past 
5

injury, she required further treatment because her job was aggravating her pain by lifting, placing 

weight, or moving the shoulder. Dr. Shama reported that he reviewed the OIG surveillance 

video tape and explained that the activities identified on the tape did not amount to an eight-hour 

shift at work and the continual use of her extremities consistent with work. He stated that 

appellant would benefit from physical therapy and medications for pain. 

By decision dated April 21, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the September 23, 2013 

termination decision. 

In a May 1, 2014 MRI scan of the right shoulder, Dr. Johnny Alexander, a Boardcertified diagnostic radiologist, reported a normal MRI scan of the right shoulder. 

In a May 1, 2014 MRI scan of the cervical spine, Dr. Alexander observed multilevel 

degenerative changes including prominent diffuse disc bulge with superimposed protrusion, 

prominent broad-based disc herniation resulting in mild compression of anterior aspect of the 

cord and mild central canal, and mild bilateral foraminal stenosis without nerve root compression 

at C6-7. 

On May 14 and June 24, 2014 OWCP received appellant’s requests for reconsideration. 

In a May 13, 2014 report, Dr. Shama described appellant’s October 1, 2012 employment 

injury and noted that her claim was accepted for displacement of cervical intervertebral disc and 

right shoulder sprain. He reported that he had not diagnosed pain, but that pain was the 

mechanism by which she described the nature of her injury. Dr. Shama stated that although he 

based a portion of his conclusion on appellant’s subjective complaints he also performed a 

physical evaluation and requested additional diagnostic testing. He related that the MRI scan of 

the cervical spine revealed bulging disc at C4-5, mild central canal stenosis at C5-6 and C6-7, 

broad-based disc herniation at C6-7, and mild bilateral foraminal stenosis at C6-7. Dr. Shama 

diagnosed cervical disc displacement and sprain AC joint. 

Dr. Shama advised that, upon examination of appellant and review of the May 1, 2014 

MRI scan, he believed that she still suffered residuals of her October 1, 2012 injury. He 

explained that the cervical pain was radicular and was being transferred to her right shoulder and 

neck. Dr. Shama noted that appellant was required to utilize her shoulders and neck in 

performing the scanning duties at the postal service and that, although she was seen using her 

right shoulder to close the trunk of her vehicle or do minimal lifting, these functions did not last 

longer than seconds. He explained that his review of the videotape demonstrated that any 

prolonged carrying or lifting was not done with the right shoulder, but with the left. Dr. Shama 

reported that appellant did not violate any reasonable medical restrictions by the momentary use 

of her right shoulder. He opined that she was not able to perform any prolonged duties using her 

right hand and shoulders. Dr. Shama stated that appellant’s pain associated with her neck was 

radicular in nature and transferred pain to her right shoulder. 

Appellant submitted a May 22, 2014 letter from the employing establishment providing 

information and the proper forms on how to file a complaint for discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission. 

In a June 15, 2014 statement, Samuel L. Lovett, appellant’s then representative, requested 

that appellant’s OWCP benefits be restored. He reported that, although she had been removed 
6

from her employment, there was no evidence that she attempted to defraud the employing 

establishment or violated any postal regulations, rules, policy, or restriction violation. 

Mr. Lovett stated that the surveillance video by OIG did not show any workplace or restriction 

violations by appellant. He contended that OWCP and OIG violated her due process when they 

made a decision in her workers’ compensation case based on photos and videos that she did not 

have an opportunity to discredit or explain. Mr. Lovett alleged that, even if appellant was 

removed from employment “for cause,” it should have no effect on her OWCP compensation 

benefits. 

In a June 24, 2014 report, Dr. Shama stated that appellant was examined for follow up of 

her October 1, 2012 employment injury. He noted her complaints of right shoulder, right arm, 

and neck pain. Upon examination, Dr. Shama observed limited range of motion and provided 

range of motion findings for the right shoulder and cervical spine. He reported that appellant 

continued to experience pain in movement and sometimes during and after physical therapy. 

Paravertebral muscle spasms of the cervical spine were moderate. Dr. Shama related that an 

MRI scan of the cervical spine revealed degenerative spine with central canal stenosis. He 

reported that appellant’s diagnosis remained the same. 

In an August 19, 2014 report, Dr. Shama conducted a follow-up examination of 

appellant’s cervical spine. He noted the positive MRI scan findings for degenerative spine and 

provided range of motion findings. Dr. Shama stated that he was dealing with a cervical spine 

with central canal stenosis as last seen on the latest MRI scan. He reported that appellant showed 

improvement with physical therapy. 

In a decision dated September 5, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the termination 

decision. 

On September 16, 2014 appellant again requested reconsideration. She stated that her 

claim was closed because of a misrepresentation of her medical condition in a surveillance tape 

by the OIG. Appellant pointed out that both Drs. Traub and Shama had reviewed the 

surveillance video, evaluated her, and determined that she still had residuals of her employmentrelated injury. She alleged that her case should be reopened or at least sent to a referee opinion 

due to a conflict in medical reports. Appellant noted that she was submitting new medical 

evidence to address the issue of causal relationship. 

In a September 16, 2014 report, Dr. Shama stated that he was responding to the 

September 5, 2014 denial decision. He noted that appellant had worked as a distribution clerk 

for the employing establishment since 1993 and described her work duties. Dr. Shama related 

that on October 1, 2012 she sustained a work-related injury that was accepted for cervical disc 

displacement and right shoulder sprain. He reported that appellant’s compensation was 

terminated after a second opinion examiner, who reviewed a surveillance video of her by the 

OIG, concluded that her injuries had resolved. 

Dr. Shama stated that he treated appellant and ordered an MRI scan, which confirmed his 

objective medical findings upon examination that she continued to have residuals as a result of 

her on-the-job injury. He explained that she worked as a distribution clerk whose duties 

consisted of lifting, bending, stooping, carrying, pushing, and pulling. Dr. Shama reported that 

as a result appellant was required to use her shoulders when she distributed mail in a repetitive 
7

nature. He stated that she was required to perform the lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, and 

sorting duties on a daily basis. Dr. Shama opined that appellant’s work aggravated the injury to 

her neck and shoulder. He concluded that she continued to have residuals of her October 1, 2012 

employment injury and was not able to perform the repetitive work with her shoulder. 

Dr. Shama explained that there were positive objective findings from the May 1, 2014 MRI scan 

and these were confirmed during his examination, which demonstrated that appellant was unable 

to perform repetitive distribution of mail. He recommended that she see an orthopedic surgeon 

to determine whether surgical intervention was needed. 

By decision dated October 10, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the termination 

decision. 

On November 3, 2014 appellant again requested reconsideration. She alleged that 

OWCP had not met its burden of proof to terminate her claim because Dr. Doman’s second 

opinion report clearly showed that his opinion was entirely influenced by the OIG surveillance 

video. Appellant also noted that although Dr. Traub reported her degenerative changes he also 

concluded that her injury at work aggravated her preexisting condition and was thus 

compensable. She also questioned why OWCP decided to place the special weight of medical 

opinion on the physician to whom she had the least exposure as opposed to Drs. Traub and 

Shama who treated her repeatedly. 

Appellant resubmitted Dr. Traub’s March 12, 2013 medical report and May 1, 2014 MRI 

scan reports. 

In an October 27, 2014 report, Dr. Shama stated that he was responding to the 

October 10, 2014 denial decision. He again reviewed appellant’s employment duties and 

provided an accurate history of the October 1, 2012 employment injury. Dr. Shama noted that 

his claim had been accepted for cervical disc displacement and right shoulder sprain. He also 

related that OWCP’s second opinion physician decided that appellant’s injuries had resolved 

based on a surveillance video by the OIG. 

In a decision dated December 3, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its October 10, 

2014 denial decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Pursuant 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

 OWCP’s 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 

 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). 
8

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 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted appellant’s traumatic injury claim for displacement of cervical 

intervertebral disc without myelopathy and right shoulder sprain as a result of an October 1, 2012 

employment injury. Appellant stopped work and received wage-loss disability compensation 

and medical benefits. 

Appellant was initially treated by Drs. Akintoye and Traub who noted that prior to her 

October 1, 2012 employment injury she suffered from a preexisting degenerative cervical 

condition, as confirmed by a November 5, 2012 MRI scan. In a March 12, 2012 report, 

Dr. Traub examined her for a follow up of an October 2012 work injury. He observed swelling 

and muscle spasm in appellant’s neck and reported that she had a herniated disc at C5-6 with 

some degenerative changes, as shown by an MRI scan. Dr. Traub explained that her 

degenerative changes and the herniated disc most likely preceded her injury at work. He opined 

that appellant’s work injury aggravated the preexisting conditions. In an August 17, 2013 report, 

Dr. Traub authorized her to return to light duty with restrictions of no repetitive overhead motion 

and no lifting greater than 15 pounds. 

On April 25, 2013 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Doman for a second opinion 

regarding the status of her accepted conditions. In a May 29, 2013 report, Dr. Doman reviewed 

her history, including the SOAF and the surveillance video tape, and described the October 1, 

2012 employment injury. He conducted an examination and noted no evidence of swelling of 

appellant’s neck or shoulder. Dr. Doman also reported that deep tendon reflexes were normal. 

He observed full range of motion of both shoulders with no evidence of rotator cuff weakness or 

shoulder instability. Dr. Doman stated that review of the OIG surveillance video revealed that 

appellant had no difficulty with activities of a broad nature. He opined that her work-related 

cervical and right shoulder conditions had resolved and were no longer active. Dr. Doman stated 

that appellant was not currently disabled from employment due to the work injury and was 

capable of performing the duties of a processing mail clerk. Accordingly, OWCP terminated her 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective September 23, 2013. 

The Board has held that the weight of the medical opinion is determined by the 

opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy and completeness of the 

physician’s knowledge of the facts of the case, the medical history provided the care of analysis 

manifested and the medical rationale expressed in support of stated conclusions.9

 In this case, 

Dr. Doman discussed the history of injury and explained that there were no objective findings to 

establish that appellant had any continuing employment-related residuals or disability causally 

related to her October 1, 2012 employment injury. The Board finds that his opinion is detailed, 

 7 A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August 5, 2009); T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Kathryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 

677 (2005). 

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

9 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); Ann C. Leanza, 48 ECAB 115 (1996). 
9

well rationalized, and based upon a complete and accurate history and thorough clinical 

examination. Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly accorded the weight of the 

medical evidence to Dr. Doman who found that appellant no longer had any residuals or 

disability from her accepted cervical and right shoulder conditions. 

On appeal, appellant alleges that she was not shown the OIG surveillance video before it 

was shown to her physicians and that Dr. Doman did not conduct an examination of her, but 

made his recommendations based solely on the OIG surveillance video. She also alleges that 

OWCP did not allow her to view the video before it was shown to her physicians. The Board 

notes that appellant would have been aware of the video on or around June 17, 2013 when 

OWCP forwarded a copy of Dr. Doman’s May 29, 2013 report (which discussed the video) to 

appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Traub, prior to the termination. Further, on July 2, 2013 

appellant submitted a copy of Dr. Doman’s report to OWCP in support of her CA-7 form claims 

for disability prior to the September 23, 2013 termination decision. She did not request a copy of 

the surveillance video. Appellant later obtained counsel and he requested a copy of the video on 

February 10, 2014. A copy was provided to counsel on March 11, 2014. OWCP has the 

responsibility to make the claimant aware of videotape evidence it has provided to a medical 

expert. It properly did so here by providing a copy of Dr. Doman’s May 29, 2013 report to 

appellant’s treating physician. The evidence reflects that appellant obtained a copy of that report 

from her treating physician because she included a copy of his May 29, 2013 report (which 

discussed the surveillance video evidence) in her June 24, 2013 submission to OWCP. If she 

requests a copy of the videotape, one should be made available and the employee given a 

reasonable opportunity to offer any comment or explanation regarding the accuracy of the 

recording.10 In this case, appellant did not request a copy of the surveillance video until after the 

termination. Once she requested the video, it was provided to her. The Board finds that OWCP 

properly handled the video evidence. 

The Board thus finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

compensation benefits on September 23, 2013. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

After termination of compensation benefits clearly warranted on the basis of the 

evidence, the burden for reinstating compensation shifts to the claimant. To prevail, the claimant 

must establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that he or she 

had an employment-related disability, which continued after the termination of compensation 

benefits. 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The Board further finds that appellant has not established any continuing residuals or 

disability, after September 23, 2013, causally related to the October 1, 2012 employment injury. 

Following OWCP’s termination decision, she submitted various reports by Dr. Shama dated 

March 24 to October 27, 2014, in which he described her work duties at the employing 

establishment and the October 1, 2012 injury. Dr. Shama noted that he treated appellant for 

 10 J.M., 58 ECAB 478, 486 (2007). 
10

continued complaints of pain in the right shoulder, neck, and right arm. Upon examination, he 

observed tenderness of her right shoulder over the bicipital groove and pain with movement. 

Abduction was 120 degrees. Dr. Shama diagnosed cervical strain, shoulder strain, and 

displacement of cervical intervertebral disc. He opined that appellant required further treatment 

because her job was aggravating her pain. Dr. Shama reported that he reviewed the OIG 

surveillance tape and explained that the activities identified on the tape were not equivalent to an 

eight-hour shift at work and the continual use of her extremities consistent with work. In 

subsequent reports he continued to provide clinical examination findings of limited range of 

motion of the right shoulder and cervical spine. In an October 1, 2012 report, Dr. Shama 

described appellant’s repetitive duties as a distribution clerk and opined that the work aggravated 

the injury to her neck and shoulder. He noted that positive objective findings from the May 1, 

2014 MRI scan and his examination demonstrated that she was unable to perform repetitive 

distribution of mail. Dr. Shama concluded that appellant continued to have residuals of her 

October 1, 2012 employment injury and was not able to perform the repetitive work with her 

shoulder. 

The Board notes that although Dr. Shama attributed appellant’s inability to work to her 

shoulder and cervical conditions, he failed to explain based on medical rationale how she was 

unable to work as a result of her October 1, 2012 employment injury. More specifically, 

Dr. Shama did not address whether her current complaints were related to her accepted 

employment injury or her degenerative cervical condition.11 He fails to adequately explain, 

based on medical rationale, how appellant’s preexisting condition continued to be aggravated as 

a result of the October 1, 2012 employment incident. Rather, Dr. Shama attributes it to the 

repetitive duties of her job. The Board has found that medical evidence that states a conclusion, 

but does not offer any rationalized medical explanation is of limited probative value.12 Appellant 

contends that Dr. Shama’s medical reports establish that she continued to suffer residuals from 

her initial injury and create a medical conflict with Dr. Dorman’s opinion. As noted above, 

however, Dr. Shama’s reports lacked sufficient probative value to establish that appellant’s 

current conditions were causally related to the specific October 1, 2012 employment injury or to 

create a conflict in medical opinion.13 

OWCP also received further diagnostic studies following the termination of 

compensation, including May 1, 2014 MRI scan studies of appellant’s right shoulder and 

cervical spine. The May 1, 2014 MRI scans revealed a normal right shoulder and multilevel 

degenerative changes of the cervical spine. However, these studies provided no opinion 

regarding appellant’s disability status. 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish 

that she continues to suffer residuals of her accepted October 1, 2012 cervical and right shoulder 

injuries. Appellant has not established that she had any continuing disability after 

September 23, 2013. 

 11 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Parts 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3(e) 

(January 2013).

12 J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

13 See T.C., Docket No. 12-444 (issued August 1, 2012); see also B.P., Docket No. 08-1457 (issued February 2, 

2009); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 
11

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 justify termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective September 23, 2013 and she has not 

established her entitlement to continuing disability benefits. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 3, October 14, and September 5, 

2014 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: September 28, 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