United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.D., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MARKET SQUARE, 

Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0272 

Issued: April 25, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, 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 November 16, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 7, 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 properly terminated appellant’s medical benefits, 

effective March 10, 2016, as she had no further residuals of her February 14, 2014 work injury; 

 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 met her burden of proof to show that she required medical treatment 

after March 10, 2016 due to her employment injury; and (3) whether appellant has established 

that her claim should be expanded to include additional conditions resulting from the 

February 14, 2014 work injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 14, 2014 appellant, then a 39-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that date, she sustained injuries to her neck, back, and left 

knee after she slipped on ice and fell down stairs. She stopped work on February 14, 2014. 

OWCP accepted the claim for neck sprain, sprains of the thoracic and lumbar spine, and sprains 

of the left knee and leg.3 It paid compensation for total disability from April 2 until October 6, 

2014, when appellant resumed full-time modified employment. 

In a progress report dated June 4, 2015, Dr. William Beatie, an attending orthopedic 

surgeon, discussed appellant’s history of a work injury on February 14, 2014 and noted that an 

electromyogram (EMG) showed right radiculopathy at L5. He diagnosed cervical sprain/strain, a 

C5-6 disc herniation, thoracic sprain/strain, lumbosacral strain/sprain with right L5 

radiculopathy, an L4-5 disc herniation, left knee sprain/strain, and left knee patellofemoral 

arthritis. Dr. Beatie found that appellant could continue to perform her modified employment. 

He related, “It is my professional opinion, based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty that 

the injuries sustained by [appellant] are causally related to the injury at work on 

February 14, 2014.” 

OWCP, on May 20, 2015, referred appellant to Dr. Willie E. Thompson, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination. It requested that he address 

whether she had residuals of her accepted conditions, the extent of any disability, and whether 

she sustained additional conditions as a result of her work injury. 

In a report dated June 19, 2015, Dr. Thompson reviewed the history of injury and 

discussed appellant’s complaints of continued pain in her neck and back with periodic numbness 

of the legs and arms. On examination he found a negative straight leg raise with no motor or 

sensory deficits of the lumbar spine, no muscles spasms or tenderness of the cervical spine, full 

strength of the upper extremity, and no loss of motion, effusion, or instability of the left knee. 

Dr. Thompson noted that there were “no imaging studies available for review,” but noted that an 

EMG showed findings “suggestive of a right L5 radiculopathy.” He diagnosed a sprain/strain of 

the neck, back, and left knee. Dr. Thompson opined, “At this point in time there are no objective 

residuals related to the injury of February 14, 2014. Examination of the cervical spine, lumbar 

spine and left knee failed to reveal any evidence of objective pathology.” Dr. Thompson found 

no evidence of disability and that appellant could resume her usual employment. 

By letter dated July 20, 2015, OWCP requested that appellant’s treating physician, 

Dr. Beatie, and Dr. Sofia Lam, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, review Dr. Thompson’s report 

and provide any differing opinion regarding appellant’s injury-related condition and disability. 

 3

 OWCP had previously accepted lumbosacral strain due to an October 5, 2004 injury, assigned File No. 

xxxxxx349. 
3

Dr. Beatie, on July 23, 2015, disagreed with Dr. Thompson’s opinion that appellant could 

resume her usual employment. He related, “[Appellant] did not comment on her objective 

findings of a disc herniation at C5-6 or the disc herniation at L4-5. In his impressions and 

recommendations, these important [magnetic resonance imaging] (MRI) [scan] findings were not 

discussed.” 

In an August 18, 2015 report, Dr. Lam described her treatment of appellant for workrelated neck and back injuries. She diagnosed “cervical and lumbar/thoracic sprain and strain, 

discogenic lumbar radiculopathy with the main focus in the right L4-5, S1 nerve root 

distribution, lumbar facet syndrome and discogenic cervical radiculopathy with the main focus in 

the right C5, C6 nerve root distribution.” Dr. Lam provided examination findings and discussed 

her planned treatment of appellant by facet joint injection. 

On September 9, 2015 OWCP advised appellant of its proposed termination of her wageloss compensation and medical benefits as the opinion of Dr. Thompson represented the weight 

of the evidence and established that she had no further employment-related condition or 

residuals. 

Dr. Beatie, in a report dated October 1, 2015, noted that appellant had no pain in her 

neck, arm, back, leg, or left knee before the February 14, 2014 employment injury. He related, 

“The mechanism of injury is consistent with the cervical disc herniation with the radiculitis and 

the lumbar disc herniation with the left L5 radiculopathy. The mechanism of injury is also 

consistent with the left knee sprain and strain.” Dr. Beatie concluded that the diagnoses were 

causally related to the February 14, 2014 employment injury. 

On November 9, 2015 appellant submitted MRI scan studies of the cervical and lumbar 

spine and left knee dated July 10, 2014 and the results of January 6, 2015 electrodiagnostic 

testing to OWCP. The MRI scan of the cervical spine revealed a “[p]osterior annular tear and 

subtle central disc herniation at C5-6 with minimal indentation upon the ventral subarachnoid 

space.” The MRI scan study of the lumbar spine showed an L4-5 central disc herniation and 

bulge with mild compression of the thecal sac. The MRI scan study of the left knee showed 

patellofemoral arthritis and “marrow edema in the lateral femoral condyle which can be seen 

with bone contusion.” The EMG and nerve conduction velocity study revealed findings 

“suggestive of right L5 radiculopathy.” 

By letter received November 9, 2015, appellant requested that OWCP expand acceptance 

of her claim to include cervical and lumbar herniated discs with radiculopathy, noting that she 

did not have an injury to her back and neck before the February 14, 2014 incident. 

OWCP determined that a conflict arose between Dr. Thompson and Dr. Beatie regarding 

appellant’s current condition and disability. It indicated that Dr. Beatie found additional 

employment-related conditions, including cervical and lumbar disc herniations, and 

patellofemoral arthritis. OWCP referred appellant to Dr. William H. Simon, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial medical examination. It requested that he address whether 

she had residuals of her accepted employment injury and provide the relationship between any 

diagnoses and the February 14, 2014 injury. 
4

In a report dated December 9, 2015, Dr. Simon reviewed appellant’s history of injury and 

her symptoms of neck pain, headaches, and low back pain. On examination, he found normal 

range of motion of lumbar and cervical spine without tenderness. Dr. Simon further found 

normal lower extremity range of motion with intact sensation. He reviewed the medical reports 

of record and the results of diagnostic testing. Dr. Simon noted that OWCP had not accepted a 

C5-6 cervical disc herniation, lumbar and cervical radiculopathy, an L4-5 disc herniation, and 

patellofemoral arthritis due to the February 14, 2014 employment injury. He diagnosed cervical 

degenerative disc disease and lumbar degenerative disc and joint disease by MRI scan study, and 

left knee patellofemoral arthritis. Dr. Simon found no objective evidence of the accepted 

conditions and noted that the only objective findings of disc abnormalities were the MRI scan 

studies and the EMG finding of L5 radiculopathy, which were not accepted as work related. He 

concurred with Dr. Thompson that appellant had “no objective residual of any of the accepted 

injuries sustained on February 14, 2014, namely a strain and sprain of the cervical, thoracic, and 

lumbar spines and a sprain and strain of the knee.” Dr. Simon advised that soft tissue injuries 

resolved within weeks or months and opined that she did not require treatment for her work 

injury after September 2014. He found no disability due to the work injury, but noted that 

appellant had limitations due to preexisting disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine. 

OWCP, on January 25, 2015, notified appellant of its proposed termination of her wageloss compensation and medical benefits based on the opinion of Dr. Simon, the impartial medical 

examiner. 

In a February 4, 2016 progress report, Dr. Beatie related, “It is imperative that these 

diagnoses [C5-6 and L4-5 disc herniations] be added as well as the radiculopathy at L4-5 and S1. 

There is no reason to doubt these injuries did not occur at the time of [appellant’s] fall on 

February 14, 2014. The mechanism of injury is consistent with these diagnoses.” Dr. Beatie 

opined that appellant could continue working modified duty. 

Counsel, by letter dated February 11, 2016, disagreed with the proposed termination and 

requested claim expansion to include lumbar radiculopathy and herniated cervical and lumbar 

discs.4

 He maintained that Dr. Thompson had not reviewed the MRI scan studies or addressed 

the positive EMG findings and thus his report was of diminished weight. Counsel argued that a 

conflict did not exist regarding claim expansion at the time of OWCP’s referral of appellant to 

Dr. Simon as Dr. Thompson had not addressed the issue. He further noted that Dr. Simon 

merely noted that the left knee patellofemoral arthritis and lumbar and cervical herniations were 

not accepted. Counsel questioned his diagnoses of preexisting degenerative disc disease given 

appellant’s age and as it was not found on the MRI scans. He also asserted that Dr. Simon had 

not provided rationale for his opinion or addressed whether preexisting conditions were 

aggravated by the fall. 

By decision dated March 10, 2016, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and authorization for medical benefits effective that date. It found that the opinion 

 4

 On February 19, 2016 appellant acknowledged to OWCP that she had been involved in a minor motor vehicle 

accident when her vehicle had been struck from behind on March 19, 2010. She was diagnosed at that time with 

minor neck and back strain. Appellant did not lose time from work or have objective studies. She noted that she 

had forgotten about the incident because it was “so minor.” 
5

of Dr. Simon represented the weight of the evidence and established that she had no further 

employment-related condition or residuals. 

On March 21, 2016 counsel requested an oral hearing. In a duty status report dated 

March 14, 2016, Dr. Gregory A. Nelson, an internist, diagnosed cervical and lumbar sprain and 

listed work restriction. He checked a box marked “yes” indicating that the history provided by 

appellant corresponded to that provided on the form, noting that she had fallen down stairs. 

At the hearing, held on July 14, 2016, counsel reiterated that a conflict did not exist as 

Dr. Thompson had not reviewed the imaging studies and thus had no basis for finding that 

appellant had no objective evidence of a lumbar or cervical condition. He maintained that 

Dr. Simon’s report constituted that of a second opinion examiner and that he did not address the 

issue of claim expansion or provide rationale for his finding that she had a preexisting condition. 

By decision dated September 7, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

March 10, 2016 decision. He found that a conflict existed regarding whether appellant’s 

accepted diagnoses and whether her claim should be expanded. The hearing representative 

found that Dr. Simon resolved the conflict by finding no objective evidence of a disc condition 

on examination. 

On appeal counsel contends that Dr. Thompson addressed only appellant’s accepted 

conditions and thus his opinion did not create a conflict with Dr. Beatie regarding claim 

expansion. He argues that Dr. Simon’s report constituted that of a second opinion examiner. 

Counsel asserts that the physician concluded that the accepted sprains had resolved, but did not 

address the issue of claim expansion, noting only that the additional conditions had not been 

accepted. He also maintains that Dr. Simon failed to explain his diagnosis of degenerative disc 

disease or why he found that it preexisted the work injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of justifying 

modification or termination of an employee’s benefits.5

 It may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability ceased or that it was no longer related to the employment.6

 

OWCP’s burden of proof in terminating compensation includes the necessity of furnishing 

rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.7

 

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

entitlement for disability compensation.8

 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, 

 5 Elaine Sneed, 56 ECAB 373 (2005). 

6 Fred Reese, 56 ECAB 568 (2005); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 

7 Gewin C. Hawkins, 52 ECAB 242 (2001). 

8 T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Pamela K. Guesford, 53 ECAB 727 (2002). 
6

OWCP must establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition 

which require further medical treatment.9

Section 8123(a) provides that, if there is disagreement between the physician making the 

examination for the United States and the physician of the employee, the Secretary shall appoint 

a third physician who shall make an examination.10 The implementing regulations states that, if 

a conflict exists between the medical opinion of the employee’s physician and the medical 

opinion of either a second opinion physician or an OWCP medical adviser, OWCP shall appoint 

a third physician to make an examination. 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.11 In situations where there exist opposing medical reports of virtually equal 

weight and rationale and the case is referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of 

resolving the conflict, the opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based 

upon a proper factual background, must be given special weight.12

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained neck strain, thoracic and lumbar sprains, and left 

knee and leg sprains due to a February 14, 2014 employment injury. It paid her compensation 

for total disability from April 2 to October 6, 2014, when she returned to full-time limited-duty 

work. As appellant was not receiving compensation for total disability at the time of OWCP’s 

termination, it improperly characterized the decision as a termination of wage-loss 

compensation.13 The issue is whether she had residuals from her work injury such that she 

required further medical treatment. 

OWCP properly determined that a conflict of medical opinion existed between 

Dr. Beatie, an attending physician who found that appellant had continued residuals of her 

cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and left knee sprains, and Dr. Thompson, a referral physician who 

found that she had no objective findings of the accepted employment injuries. It referred her to 

Dr. Simon for an impartial medical examination. 

Where there exist opposing medical reports of virtually equal weight and rationale and 

the case is referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving the conflict, the 

opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based upon a proper factual 

background, must be given special weight.14 The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Simon, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon selected to resolve the conflict in opinion, is well rationalized 

 9 Id. 

10 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). 

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.321. 

12 R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006); Barry Neutuch, 54 ECAB 313 (2003); David W. Pickett, 54 ECAB 272 (2002). 

13 See O.L., Docket No. 12-1607 (issued January 17, 2013), n. 3; G.U., Docket No. 12-1725 (issued March 14, 

2013); L.E., Docket No. 09-1855 (issued July 2, 2010). 

14 See J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006). 
7

and based on a proper factual and medical history. Dr. Simon accurately summarized the 

relevant medical evidence, provided detailed findings on examination, and reached conclusions 

about appellant’s condition which comported with his findings.15 In a report dated December 9, 

2015, he reviewed the medical evidence of record, including the results of diagnostic studies. On 

examination, Dr. Simon found no objective evidence of the accepted sprains due to the 

February 14, 2014 employment injury. He provided rationale for his opinion by explaining that 

appellant’s soft tissue injuries had resolved by September 2014 and that she required no further 

treatment after that date. As Dr. Simon’s report is detailed, well rationalized and based on a 

proper factual background, his opinion is entitled to the special weight accorded an impartial 

medical examiner.16 OWCP thus met its proof to terminate appellant’s medical benefits for the 

accepted conditions of cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and left knee sprains. 

The remaining evidence submitted prior to OWCP’s termination is insufficient to support 

that appellant had further residuals of her accepted work injury. On February 4, 2016 Dr. Beatie 

advised that her claim should be expanded to include additional conditions. He did not, 

however, find that appellant required additional treatment due to her accepted lumbar, thoracic, 

cervical, and left knee sprain. Additionally, Dr. Beatie was on one side of the conflict resolved 

by Dr. Simon. A medical report from a physician on one side of a conflict resolved by an 

impartial medical examiner is generally insufficient to overcome the weight accorded the report 

of an impartial medical examiner or create a new conflict.17

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

As OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s authorization for medical 

benefits, appellant has the burden of proof to establish continuing employment-related residuals 

after that date due to her accepted employment injury. Appellant must establish by the weight of 

the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that she had residuals of her employment injury 

which continued after the termination of benefits.18

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

Dr. Nelson, in a duty status report dated March 14, 2016, diagnosed a cervical and 

lumbar sprain condition and listed work restrictions. He checked a box marked “yes” indicating 

that the history provided by appellant corresponded to that provided on the form (i.e., that she 

had fallen down the steps). The Board has held, however, that an opinion on causal relationship 

which consists only of a physician checking a box marked “yes” to a medical form question on 

whether the claimant’s condition was related to the history given is of little probative value. 

 15 See Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001). 

16 See Katheryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). 

17 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Michael Hughes, 52 ECAB 387 (2001). 

18 See M.C., Docket No. 16-0724 (issued October 7, 2016); C.B., Docket No. 16-0571 (issued October 4, 2016). 
8

Without any explanation or rationale for the conclusion reached, such report is insufficient to 

establish causal relationship.19

Regarding OWCP’s termination of medical benefits, 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 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3 

Where an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due 

to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is 

causally related to the employment injury.20 To establish causal relationship between the 

condition, as well as any attendant disability claimed and the employment event or incident, the 

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

medical background, supporting such a causal relationship.21 The opinion of the physician must 

be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant,22 must be one of 

reasonable medical certainty23 explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed 

condition and the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.24

Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a disinterested 

arbiter.25 While the claimant has the responsibility to establish entitlement to compensation, 

OWCP shares responsibility in the development of the evidence. It has the obligation to see that 

justice is done.26 Accordingly, once OWCP undertakes to develop the medical evidence further, 

it has the responsibility to do so in the proper manner.27

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision regarding whether appellant 

sustained additional conditions due to her February 14, 2014 employment injury. On June 4, 

2015 Dr. Beatie diagnosed, in addition to the accepted sprains, a cervical disc herniation at C5-6, 

an L4-5 disc herniation, right L5 radiculopathy, and patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee. He 

 19 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 334 (2003) (the checking of a box marked “yes” in a form report, without 

additional explanation or rationale, is insufficient to establish causal relationship). 

20 See C.V., Docket No. 14-1940 (issued May 26, 2015); V.B., Docket No. 12-0599 (issued October 2, 2012). 

21 See P.A., Docket No. 09-0319 (issued November 23, 2009); Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317 (2004).

22 Tomas Martinez, 54 ECAB 623 (2003); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

23 John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003). 

24 Judy C. Rogers, 54 ECAB 693 (2003). 

25 Vanessa Young, 55 ECAB 575 (2004). 

26 Richard E. Simpson, 55 ECAB 490 (2004). 

27 Melvin James, 55 ECAB 406 (2004). 
9

attributed the diagnosed conditions to the work injury on February 14, 2014. In a report dated 

October 1, 2015, Dr. Beatie advised that the cervical and lumbar disc herniations were consistent 

with the mechanism of injury. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Thompson for a second opinion examination. It 

requested that the physician address whether she had any additional conditions due to her 

February 14, 2014 employment injury. On June 19, 2015 Dr. Thompson indicated that he had no 

imaging studies to review, but an EMG showed findings consistent with radiculopathy at L5 on 

the right. He found no objective findings of cervical, lumbar, or knee pathology, but did not 

review the imaging studies or specifically address whether appellant’s claim should be expanded 

to include additional conditions. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Simon after finding a conflict existed regarding whether 

she had residuals of her accepted employment injury. It requested that he explain the 

relationship between any diagnosed conditions and the February 14, 2014 work injury. 

As Dr. Thompson had not addressed the issue of claim expansion, there existed no 

conflict in opinion between appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Beatie, and OWCP’s referral 

physician, Dr. Thompson, regarding whether she sustained herniated cervical and lumbar discs 

and left knee patellofemoral arthritis due to her February 14, 2014 employment injury. 

Dr. Simon’s opinion, consequently, on the issue of claim expansion was that of an OWCP 

referral physician rather than an impartial medical examiner. 

In his December 9, 2015 report, Dr. Simon noted that OWCP had not accepted disc 

herniations at C5-6 and L4-5, cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, or patellofemoral arthritis as 

work related. He diagnosed cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease by MRI scan and 

patellofemoral arthritis of the left knee. Dr. Simon indicated that the MRI scan studies showed 

abnormalities and the EMG study showed L5 radiculopathy, but again noted that these 

conditions were not accepted as work related. He found that appellant had limitations due to 

preexisting cervical and lumbar disc disease. Dr. Simon, however, did not specifically address 

whether she had sustained herniations, radiculopathy, patellofemoral arthritis, or any aggravation 

of a preexisting condition due to her February 14, 2014 employment injury. 

As noted, once OWCP undertakes to develop the medical evidence further, it has the 

responsibility to do in a manner that will resolve the relevant issues in the case.28 Accordingly, 

the Board finds that the case must be remanded to OWCP for further development. On remand, 

OWCP should request that Dr. Simon provide a supplemental opinion clarifying whether 

appellant sustained any additional conditions caused or aggravated by the February 14, 2014 

employment injury. Following this and any other development deemed necessary, OWCP shall 

issue an appropriate decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s medical benefits, effective 

March 10, 2016, as she had no further residuals of her February 14, 2014 work injury. The 

 28 See V.B., supra note 20; Id. 
10

Board further finds that she had not established that she had residuals of her accepted 

employment injury after February 14, 2014. The Board further finds that the case is not in 

posture for decision regarding whether appellant’s claim should be expanded to include 

additional conditions resulting from the February 14, 2014 work injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 7, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed in part and set aside in part and the case is 

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion of the Board. 

Issued: April 25, 2017 

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