United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Romulus, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1960 

Issued: March 17, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

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 September 29, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 19, 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. 

ISSUES 

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

compensation benefits as of December 22, 2014; and (2) whether appellant has established 

continuing disability caused by residuals of his accepted lower back condition following the 

termination of compensation benefits on December 22, 2014. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 15, 2013 appellant, a 51-year-old transportation security officer, injured his 

lower back when he slipped and fell on a wet surface. He filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1), which OWCP accepted for acute exacerbation of lumbar degenerative disc disease. 

OWCP commenced payment for total disability on the periodic rolls as of February 9, 2014. 

In a report dated February 4, 2014, Dr. Maury R. Ellenberg, Board-certified in physical 

medicine and rehabilitation, noted that appellant was experiencing severe back pain, right lower 

extremity pain, and some right leg pain, with a possible radicular component. He reported that 

his goal was to return appellant back to work. Dr. Ellenberg scheduled appellant to undergo a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of his lumbar spine, in addition to an electromyelogram 

(EMG). 

The February 19, 2014 MRI scan of the lumbar spine demonstrated extensive artifacts 

from metallic hardware stemming from a previous L5-S1 fusion. This limited the evaluation of 

the L4-5 and L5-S1 disc space levels. The study also found a small-to-moderate broad-based 

disc herniation centrally and eccentric to the right L4-5 level, which, along with degenerative 

changes, led to marked spinal stenosis at L4-5 and mild-to-moderate bilateral neural foramen 

narrowing. 

In a February 25, 2014 report, Dr. Ellenberg advised that appellant had an L5-S1 fusion 

procedure in approximately 2000. He noted that on physical examination appellant displayed a 

large amount of pain behavior and reaction. Dr. Ellenberg reported that an EMG test of 

appellant’s lumbar paraspinals and lower extremities showed some positive waves in both 

lumbar paraspinals around the areas of the scar from the 2000 surgery. These were normal 

findings related to the 2000 surgery. Dr. Ellenberg reported that appellant had lumbar disc 

displacement with no definitive findings of radiculopathy in his lower extremities. He diagnosed 

a broad-based L4-5 disc protrusion, diffuse centrally and slightly to the right. Dr. Ellenberg 

opined that these findings did not correspond with the lower back symptoms appellant displayed 

on examination. He asserted that, while appellant did have some spinal stenosis at L4-5, this did 

not correspond well with his current symptom complex. 

To determine appellant’s current condition and ascertain whether he still suffered 

residuals from his accepted conditions, OWCP referred him for a second opinion examination 

with Dr. Emmanuel N. Obianwu, Board-certified in orthopedic surgery. In a June 6, 2014 report, 

Dr. Obianwu reviewed the medical history and the statement of accepted facts, reported findings 

on examination, and concluded that appellant had no residuals from the July 15, 2013 

employment injury. He noted that Dr. Ellenberg, appellant’s treating physician, did not believe 

that the description of the broad-based L4-5 disc protrusion reflected appellant’s current 

symptomatology. Dr. Obianwu made the following diagnoses: status post fusion L5 to S1 with 

pedicle screws, 2000; multilevel mild-to-moderate degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L3-4; 

spinal stenosis at L4-5; lumbar spondylosis with moderate bilateral neural foramen stenosis; disc 

bulge at L4-5; and overt symptom magnification. 

Dr. Obianwu noted that appellant had experienced low back problems for a long period 

of time, which he attributed to extensive degenerative changes in his lumbar spine. He opined 
3

that appellant did not suffer from any active residuals of the accepted condition of acute 

exacerbation of lumbar degenerative disc disease. 

On examination appellant showed no tightness of the muscles of the lumbar spine and 

had no overt neurologic findings. Dr. Obianwu asserted that his findings indicated that any acute 

exacerbation of the lumbar degenerative disc disease which occurred in July 2013 had subsided 

and resolved. He opined that appellant did not have any residuals of the July 15, 2013 work 

injury. Although Dr. Obianwu found appellant not medically capable of returning to his date-ofinjury job, he determined that was due to his preexisting problems. Dr. Obianwu reported that 

appellant was treated conservatively for a relatively long period of time and that his inability to 

perform the full duties of a transportation security officer had nothing to do with the July 15, 

2013 acute exacerbation of the lumbar degenerative disc disease. 

On November 14, 2014 OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of compensation. 

It found that the weight of the medical evidence, as represented by the opinion of Dr. Obianwu, 

the second opinion physician, established that his accepted acute exacerbation of lumbar 

degenerative disc disease had resolved and that he had no further residuals from the July 15, 

2013 work injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence or legal 

argument in opposition to the proposed termination. 

In reports dated October 2014, Dr. Aaron J. Blanzy, an osteopath and appellant’s primary 

care physician, noted that appellant experienced low back pain and stated findings on 

examination. He found that the pain appellant was experiencing now was worse than that he had 

before his fall. 

By decision dated December 22, 2014, OWCP terminated appellant’s compensation, 

finding that Dr. Obianwu’s referral opinion represented the weight of the medical evidence. 

Appellant, through his counsel, requested an oral hearing, which was held on 

July 1, 2015. 

Following the termination of benefits, appellant submitted handwritten medical notes 

prepared by Dr. Blanzy from December 2014. These notes advised that appellant experienced 

low back pain and stated findings on examination, but are largely illegible. 

By decision dated August 19, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

December 22, 2014 termination decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Under FECA, once OWCP accepts a claim, it has the burden of justifying termination or 

modification of compensation benefits.2 After it has determined that an employee has disability 

causally related to his or her federal employment, OWCP may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related to the 

 2 Gewin C. Hawkins, 52 ECAB 242, 243 (2001); Alice J. Tysinger, 51 ECAB 638, 645 (2000). 
4

employment.3

 This includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence 

based on a proper factual and medical background.4

 

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

entitlement for disability. To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must 

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

requires further medical treatment.5

 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

In this case, OWCP based its decision to terminate appellant’s compensation on the 

opinion of Dr. Obianwu, the OWCP second opinion physician. The Board finds that OWCP met 

its burden of proof. 

Dr. Obianwu, the second opinion physician, in his June 6, 2014 report, found that 

appellant’s accepted acute exacerbation of lumbar degenerative disc disease had ceased and that 

he no longer had any residuals from this condition. He explained that appellant had experienced 

low back problems for a long period of time due to extensive degenerative changes in his lumbar 

spine. Dr. Obianwu opined that these changes, however, were secondary to the underlying 

degenerative changes which had been present for many years. He found that appellant no longer 

suffered residuals of the accepted acute exacerbation of lumbar degenerative disc disease and 

that the acute exacerbation of the lumbar degenerative disc disease which occurred in July 2013 

had subsided and resolved. 

Dr. Obianwu opined that, while appellant was not medically capable of returning to his 

date-of-injury job, this was due to his preexisting problems. 

The Board finds that Dr. Obianwu’s opinion was well rationalized and based on an 

accurate history and examination findings. It established that appellant no longer was disabled 

and had no residuals due to the accepted condition. The Board has held that the opinion of a 

second opinion physician could constitute the weight of the medical evidence to terminate 

compensation benefits if it was of probative value with respect to its conclusions. The opinion 

must be based on a proper factual and medical history and provide medical rationale for the 

opinion that the work-related conditions had resolved by explaining that there were no objective 

medical findings to indicate that the accepted work-related conditions were still active.6

 

Appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Ellenberg, reported on February 25, 2014 that 

appellant had broad-based L4-5 disc protrusion; however, he related that these findings did not 

correlate with appellant’s low back symptoms on examination. He also explained that appellant 

had undergone L5-S1 fusion procedure in 2000, and the EMG findings were related to the 

 3 Mary A. Lowe, 52 ECAB 223, 224 (2001). 

4 See Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988). L.J., Docket No. 14-1682 (December 11, 2015). 

5 Id.; Leonard M. Burger, 51 ECAB 369 (2000). 

6 See C.P., Docket No. 15-0617 (issued August 4, 2015). 
5

residuals of the 2000 surgery. Dr. Ellenberg offered no opinion to substantiate that appellant had 

disabling residuals of the accepted July 15, 2013 injury. Similarly, Dr. Blanzy, in his 

October 14, 2014 report, related that appellant’s pain had worsened; however, he offered no 

opinion as to whether appellant was disabled from residuals of the accepted condition or the 

preexisting condition. These reports are therefore not sufficient to establish a conflict in the 

medical opinion evidence.7

 

Therefore, OWCP properly found that Dr. Obianwu’s second opinion was sufficient to 

establish that any residuals or disability from the accepted July 15, 2013 employment injury had 

resolved.8

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Following a proper termination of compensation benefits, the burden of proof shifts back 

to the claimant to establish continuing employment-related disability.9

 To establish a causal 

relationship between the condition, any attendant disability, and the employment injury, an 

employee must submit rationalized medical evidence based on a complete medical and factual 

background, supporting such a causal relationship.10 Causal relationship is a medical issue and 

the medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical 

evidence.11 To prevail, the claimant must establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence that he had an employment-related disability which continued after 

termination of compensation benefits.12 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The issue of whether appellant has established continuing disability following 

termination is a medical one, based on the medical evidence of record.13 While appellant 

submitted treatment notes from Dr. Blanzy, these notes were primarily illegible and did not 

provide a probative medical opinion as to whether he was disabled or currently required medical 

treatment due to the employment-related condition. A mere conclusion without the necessary 

medical rationale to explain how and why the physician believes that appellant still has residuals 

of the accepted condition is not sufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.14 The medical 

 7 Id. 

8 See V.A., Docket No. 15-1073 (issued November 25, 2015). 

9 Id. 

10 Supra note 7. 

11 See Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208 (2004); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

12 See J.A, Docket No. 15-0908 (issued August 6, 2015). 

13 Supra note 12. 

14 Supra note 7. 
6

evidence must also include rationale explaining how the physician reached his conclusion.15 The 

Board finds that appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish continuing disability 

after December 22, 2014. 

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 

compensation benefits as of December 22, 2014. The Board finds that appellant has failed to 

meet his burden to establish continuing disability after December 22, 2014. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 19, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 17, 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 

 15 See T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (issued February 6, 2009) (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).