United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1152 

Issued: October 19, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 4, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 10, 2015 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 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

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from September 10, 2015, the date of the decision on appeal, was 

March 8, 2016. Since using March 10, 2016, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the 

U.S. Postal Service postmark is March 4, 2016, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3

 The record also contains a July 6, 2015 decision finding that appellant received an overpayment of 

compensation. Appellant appealed the July 6, 2015 overpayment to the Board on January 4, 2016. The Board will 

consider his appeal of the July 6, 2015 OWCP decision under Docket No. 16-0441. 
2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP properly reduced appellant’s compensation under 

5 U.S.C. § 8113(b) to reflect his wage-earning capacity had he continued to participate in 

vocational rehabilitation; and (2) whether OWCP properly modified its determination of his pay 

rate for compensation purposes in its reduction of his compensation for failing to participate in 

vocational rehabilitation. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 9, 2004 appellant, then a 50-year-old screener, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on August 3, 2004 he strained a muscle in his shoulder and arm when 

lifting a bag. OWCP accepted the claim for right shoulder strain, cervical strain, 

acromioclavicular joint arthritis, and tendinitis of the right shoulder, cervical discogenic disc 

disease at C5-6, reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the right upper extremity, causalgia, and 

psychogenic pain. It paid wage-loss compensation beginning September 21, 2004 using a dateof-injury pay rate. Appellant returned to modified employment on December 13, 2004 but 

sustained a recurrence of disability on March 26, 2005. 

On April 13, 2005 the employing establishment offered appellant a position as a modified 

lead transportation security screener with an annual salary of $39,158.00 in the “F” Band. The 

position required no lifting over 20 pounds or reaching above the right shoulder level. Appellant 

accepted the position and returned to work on May 7, 2005.4

On September 4, 2005 appellant stopped work as the employing establishment no longer 

had work available within his restrictions. OWCP paid him wage-loss compensation beginning 

October 30, 2005. 

OWCP referred appellant on February 21, 2006 for vocational rehabilitation. Appellant 

underwent vocational testing on May 26, 2006. On October 13, 2006 OWCP closed vocational 

rehabilitation services as the medical evidence of record established that appellant was totally 

disabled. 

In a report dated March 22, 2008, Dr. Joseph P. Conaty, an orthopedic surgeon and 

OWCP referral physician, diagnosed degenerative disc disease with osteophytic spur formation 

at C5-6 and C6-7 and a right shoulder strain/sprain with postinjury adhesive capsulitis. He found 

that appellant could work with restrictions on the right arm or reaching up to two hours per day, 

reaching over the shoulder for one hour per day, pushing and pulling up to 15 pounds for two 

hours per day, and lifting up to 10 pounds for two hours per day. In a work restriction evaluation 

dated May 16, 2008, Dr. Conaty found that appellant could push, pull, and lift up to 10 pounds 

for 2 hours per day, reach up to 4 hours with the right arm, and reach above the shoulder with the 

right arm up to 30 minutes. 

 4

 By decision dated May 9, 2005, OWCP found that appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the 

amount of $471.74 because he returned to work on December 17, 2004 but received compensation through 

December 25, 2004. It found that he was at fault in creating the overpayment. 
3

OWCP referred appellant to the rehabilitation counselor on June 5, 2008 for vocational 

rehabilitation. The counselor contacted companies regarding positions in the areas of customer 

service, dispatcher, and security guard. In a July 21, 2008 report, she recommended that OWCP 

approve a direct placement plan for appellant in either customer service or as a security guard 

and noted that he would need “40 hours of training to receive his security guard card.” 

On August 25, 2008 OWCP requested that Dr. Nicole Pham-Bailey, an attending 

physiatrist, and Dr. Conaty address whether appellant could work as a security guard or customer 

service employee. 

Dr. Conaty reevaluated appellant on September 15, 2008. In a report dated 

September 17, 2008, he reviewed the job descriptions for the positions of security guard and 

customer service worker. Dr. Conaty found that appellant could work in customer service, but 

would have difficulty performing the reaching required of a security guard due to his adhesive 

capsulitis. He opined that appellant could perform the remaining duties of the security guard 

position. Dr. Conaty advised that appellant could push, pull, and lift up to 10 pounds for 2 hours, 

reaching for 2 hours, and reach above the right shoulder for 30 minutes. 

On September 23, 2008 an OWCP rehabilitation specialist requested that the 

rehabilitation counselor identify two positions that did not require extensive reaching and 

handling. 

The rehabilitation counselor contacted companies that had open positions in the areas of 

surveillance system monitor and information clerk. She also completed job classifications for 

the positions. The position of surveillance system monitor was classified as sedentary requiring 

no lifting or reaching and the specific vocational rehabilitation required only a short 

demonstration of 30 days. The rehabilitation counselor found that appellant met the preparation 

because he had previously owned a business, had computer skills, and tested well. She also 

determined that the position was reasonable available within his commuting area. 

On October 13, 2008 the rehabilitation counselor recommended a plan for appellant to 

receive training with a goal of returning to work as a surveillance monitor or information clerk. 

She prepared a job search plan and agreement for his signature. 

On October 14, 2008 Dr. Pham-Bailey related that she did not believe that appellant 

could work light duty as a security guard but could perform sedentary work as a customer service 

representative. She generally concurred with Dr. Conaty’s work restrictions. Dr. Pham-Bailey 

advised that appellant could not lift, push, or pull over 10 pounds with the right arm for more 

than 15 minutes an hour or reach above shoulder level with the right arm. 

OWCP authorized appellant’s two-week training to receive his unarmed guard card. 

Appellant, on October 22, 2008, notified OWCP that he would not refuse a job within his 

restrictions if it was “equal to, in stature and pay, the job [he] had at [the employing 

establishment] before” his injury. He asserted that he would not “be forced to accept anything 

that would be an insult to my intelligence and my dignity.” 
4

On October 23, 2008 the rehabilitation counselor advised that appellant returned 

unsigned the forms regarding his rehabilitation plan that she sent by registered mail. 

The rehabilitation counselor advised OWCP’s rehabilitation specialist that she met with 

appellant on October 31, 2008 to discuss the rehabilitation plan and advised him of the date he 

began his training. The specialist informed her that he would not proceed with vocational 

rehabilitation until OWCP provided a response to his October 22, 2008 letter. Appellant also 

refused to seek a job unless it was at his former salary. 

By letter dated November 12, 2008, OWCP informed appellant that the rehabilitation 

counselor indicated that he had refused to participate in the training program for the positions of 

surveillance system monitor and information clerk. It advised him to contact OWCP to make 

arrangements to participate in the training program or provide his reasons for refusing the 

training in writing with supporting evidence. OWCP notified appellant that if he refused to 

cooperate in the training without good cause his compensation would be reduced to reflect his 

wage-earning capacity had he participated. 

In a November 25, 2008 response, appellant related that he would not participate in 

vocational rehabilitation as none of the physicians found that he had reached maximum medical 

improvement. He contended that Dr. Conaty’s report was insufficient to show that he could 

work. Appellant maintained that OWCP had to provide him with limited duty at the employing 

establishment. 

In a decision dated December 18, 2008, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation under 

5 U.S.C. § 8113(b) as he failed without good cause to participate in vocational rehabilitation. It 

found that had he undergone vocational rehabilitation he would have had the capacity to perform 

the duties of a surveillance system monitor. In applying the formula set forth in Albert C. 

Shadrick,

5

 it used a pay rate date of September 4, 2005. Based on its calculations, OWCP found 

that he was entitled to net compensation of $786.78 each four weeks.6 

Appellant requested an oral hearing, which was held on November 5, 2009. In a 

February 1, 2010 decision, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the December 18, 2008 

decision. She found that appellant failed to show good cause for failing to participate in 

vocational rehabilitation and thus OWCP properly reduced his compensation under section 

8113(b). The hearing representative determined that the medical evidence of record was 

sufficient to show that he was able to work within the restrictions of the position. 

On January 29, 2010 Dr. Pham-Bailey related that appellant could perform sedentary 

employment as a customer service employee with occasional lifting up to 10 pounds and 

frequent reaching if he had an ergonomic work station but could not work as a security guard 

occasionally handling up to 20 pounds with frequent reaching.7

 She advised that she could not 

 5

 5 ECAB 376 (1953); codified by regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 10.403. 

6

 By decision dated January 16, 2009, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award of 17 percent permanent 

impairment of the right upper extremity. 

7

 The record contains progress reports dated 2008 to 2015 describing treatment rendered for conditions including 

appellant’s right shoulder, neck, back, and right knee. 
5

comment on other positions as she did not have a job description. Dr. Pham-Bailey found that 

appellant could lift, push, and pull up to 10 pounds with the right arm for 15 minutes per hour 

but perform no overhead reaching. 

Appellant, on January 26, 2011, requested reconsideration. He maintained that he 

cooperated with vocational rehabilitation and that his injury remained disabling. Appellant noted 

that he had obtained disability retirement from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He 

questioned why he required training when he had been working in the security field. Appellant 

also challenged his pay rate. 

By decision dated April 25, 2011, OWCP denied modification of the February 1, 2010 

decision. It found that he had not demonstrated good cause for failing to cooperate with 

vocational rehabilitation or that he was not medically able to participate in vocational 

rehabilitation. 

Appellant continued to provide medical evidence. On November 11, 2010 Dr. PhamBailey opined that appellant could not push, pull, or lift over 10 pounds with the right arm or 

preform overhead work. She advised that the restrictions were permanent. 

In a January 5, 2012 status report, Dr. John Norton, an occupational medicine specialist, 

diagnosed thoracic outlet syndrome, reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the upper limb, and 

myofascial pain syndrome. He found that appellant could perform modified duty. 

On April 12, 2012 appellant again requested reconsideration. He maintained that a 

physician reexamined him in July 2010 and found that his condition worsened. Appellant also 

indicated that SSA found him totally disabled and that Dr. Pham-Bailey determined that he had 

permanent work restrictions. He advised that the medical evidence did not show that he could 

work as a security guard and that the training center only trained security guards. Appellant also 

challenged his pay rate. 

By decision dated August 13, 2012, OWCP denied modification of its April 25, 2011 

decision. It noted that the work restrictions set forth by Dr. Pham-Bailey and Dr. Conaty were 

within the physical duties required for the surveillance system monitor position. OWCP also 

found that appellant had not indicated that he was going to cooperate with vocational 

rehabilitation. 

On July 23, 2013 Dr. Norton diagnosed complex regional pain syndrome, cervical disc 

degeneration, and myofascial pain syndrome. 

Appellant, on August 13, 2013, again requested reconsideration. He argued that he 

should be paid at an “F” band rate as he was promoted on October 2, 2004. Appellant noted that 

March 26, 2004 was the date of his recurrence of disability. 

OWCP on May 20, 2014 notified appellant of its proposed modification of the 

December 18, 2008 loss of wage-earning capacity determination. It found that it had 

inaccurately calculated his September 4, 2005 weekly pay rate as it had not included eight hours 

of Sunday premium pay and 25 hours of night shift differential. OWCP also determined that it 
6

had not applied the formula applicable to performance based pay systems, or pay banding, prior 

to calculating his pay rate. 

In a decision dated June 20, 2014, OWCP modified its December 18, 2008 loss of wageearning capacity determination as it had incorrectly calculated his pay rate. It further determined 

that appellant had not established a basis to alter its finding that he had failed without good cause 

to undergo vocational rehabilitation. In another decision dated June 20, 2014, OWCP vacated in 

part and denied modification in part the August 13, 2012 decision as it used an inaccurate pay 

rate in its loss of wage-earning capacity determination.8

 

Appellant again requested reconsideration on June 19, 2015. He advised that he did not 

refuse to attend security guard school, but instead the training facility did not teach courses in 

surveillance system monitoring. Appellant spoke with an individual at the training center who 

indicated that he could receive a guard card at the end of training. He argued that his pay rate 

should be the higher rate he received when he returned to work in December 2004. Appellant 

also maintained that his condition had worsened based on an April 14, 2005 magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan and Dr. Norton’s July 2013 report finding that he was permanently disabled. 

In a report dated July 27, 2015, Dr. Kasra Rowsha, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

found that appellant had an eight percent permanent impairment due to a herniated disc. 

By decision dated September 10, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its June 20, 2014 

decision. It found that appellant had not demonstrated cooperation with vocational rehabilitation 

such that it would remove the sanction of section 8113(b). 

On appeal appellant asserts that OWCP did not address his allegation that the security 

guard school did not teach the position of surveillance system monitor. He notes that Dr. PhamBailey and Dr. Conaty did not review whether he could work as a surveillance system monitor 

and that physicians in March 29, 2013 and July 27, 2015 reports found that he had a permanent 

impairment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Section 8113(b) of FECA provides: 

“If an individual, without good cause, fails to apply for and undergo vocational 

rehabilitation when so directed under section 8104 of FECA, OWCP, after finding 

that in the absence of the failure the wage-earning capacity of the individual 

would probably have substantially increased, may reduce prospectively the 

monetary compensation of the individual in accordance with what would probably 

 8

 In a decision dated June 20, 2014, OWCP also advised appellant of an overpayment of compensation and on 

July 6, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative found that appellant had received an overpayment of compensation. 

As noted, the Board will address this decision under a separate docket number. Supra note 3. 
7

have been his wage-earning capacity in the absence of the failure, until the 

individual in good faith complies with the direction of OWCP.”9

 

Section 10.519 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations details the actions OWCP 

will take when an employee without good cause fails or refuses to apply for, undergo, participate 

in, or continue to participate in a vocational rehabilitation effort when so directed. Section 

10.519(a) provides, in pertinent part: 

“Where a suitable job has been identified, OWCP will reduce the employee’s 

future monetary compensation based on the amount which would likely have been 

his or her wage-earning capacity had he or she undergone vocational 

rehabilitation. OWCP will determine this amount in accordance with the job 

identified through the vocational rehabilitation planning process, which includes 

meetings with the OWCP nurse and the employer. The reduction will remain in 

effect until such time as the employee acts in good faith to comply with the 

direction of OWCP.”10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained right shoulder strain, cervical strain, 

acromioclavicular joint arthritis and tendinitis of the right shoulder, cervical discogenic disc 

disease at C5-6, reflex sympathetic dystrophy of the right upper extremity, causalgia, and 

psychogenic pain due to an August 3, 2004 employment injury. After sustaining periods of 

disability, he stopped work on September 4, 2005 and did not return. 

On March 22, 2008 Dr. Conaty found that appellant could work with limitations on the 

right arm to reach no more than two hours per day and no more than one hour a day above the 

shoulder, pushing and pulling up to 15 pounds for two hours per day, and lifting up to 10 pounds 

for two hours per day. In a work restriction evaluation dated May 16, 2008, he found that 

appellant could push, pull and lift up to 10 pounds for 2 hours per day and reaching above the 

shoulder for 30 minutes. 

Based on Dr. Conaty’s findings, OWCP referred appellant for vocational rehabilitation. 

Initially the rehabilitation counsel identified the position of security guard as within his 

limitations but both Dr. Conaty and Dr. Pham-Bailey, an attending physician, determined that he 

could not perform the reaching required for the position of security guard. Both physicians 

found, however, that appellant could perform sedentary employment and provided lifting 

restrictions of up to 10 pounds. The rehabilitation counselor identified the sedentary position of 

surveillance system worker as within his physical and vocational capabilities. She advised that 

appellant required two weeks of training, which OWCP authorized. The rehabilitation counselor 

prepared a job search plan and agreement for his signature. 

 9

 5 U.S.C. § 8113(b); see also T.M., Docket No. 12-1614 (issued March 15, 2013). 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.519(a). 
8

On October 22, 2008 appellant advised OWCP that he would not accept a job that paid 

less or was not of equal status to his date-of-injury position. On October 23, 2008 the 

rehabilitation counselor informed OWCP that he had returned the rehabilitation plan unsigned. 

Appellant advised the rehabilitation counselor on October 31, 2008 that he would not cooperate 

with vocational rehabilitation until OWCP responded to his October 22, 2008 letter and would 

not look for a job of lesser salary that that of his prior position. The Board finds that his actions 

establish that he failed to participate in vocational rehabilitation efforts.11

Prior to adjusting appellant’s compensation, OWCP advised him of the consequences of 

his failure to participate in vocational rehabilitation and provided him 30 days to participate or 

show good cause for his failure. Appellant did not, however, submit evidence showing good 

cause for his failure to participate. He argued that he wanted a position at the same salary and 

prestige as his previous position. The Board has held, however, that a claimant’s dislike for a 

selected position does not constitute good cause for failing to participate in vocational 

rehabilitation.12 Appellant also maintained that Dr. Conaty’s report was insufficient to show that 

he could work as a surveillance system monitor. However, Dr. Conaty determined that he could 

perform sedentary employment, such as that of a surveillance system monitor. The Board thus 

finds that OWCP properly reduced appellant’s wage-earning capacity to reflect what he would 

have earned had he cooperated with vocational rehabilitation. 

The reduction based on appellant’s failure to cooperate remains in effect until he 

complies in good faith with the direction of OWCP. Subsequent to the reduction, he submitted 

medical evidence from Dr. Pham-Bailey and Dr. Norton. Neither physician, however, addressed 

his ability to work at the time his compensation was reduced or provided work restrictions that 

would preclude him from participating in vocational rehabilitation at the time of OWCP’s 

reduction of his compensation.13 Further, on January 29 and November 11, 2010, 

Dr. Pham-Bailey found that appellant could work occasionally lifting up to 10 pounds, which is 

consistent with the physical requirements for the position of surveillance system monitor. On 

January 5, 2012 Dr. Norton generally found that he could work in a modified position. 

On appeal appellant contends that OWCP failed to discuss his allegation that the security 

guard school did not teach the position of surveillance system monitor. The issue, however, is 

not the merits of the training approved by OWCP for vocational rehabilitation but whether he 

cooperated with the vocational rehabilitation effort or established good cause for his failure to 

participate. Appellant refused to sign the rehabilitation plan and award prepared by his 

vocational counselor in October 2008 because he wanted a job at the same pay and prestige as 

his prior position. As noted, dislike for a position does not constitute an acceptable reason for 

failing to participate with vocational rehabilitation.14

 11 See S.M., Docket No. 15-1236 (issued February 18, 2016). 

12 See B.A., Docket No. 11-0686 (issued October 14, 2011). 

13 See generally D.A., Docket No. 14-0365 (issued June 16, 2014). 

14 See supra note 12. 
9

Appellant notes that Dr. Pham-Bailey and Dr. Conaty did not review whether he could 

work as a surveillance system monitor. Both Dr. Pham-Bailey and Dr. Conaty, however, found 

that he could perform sedentary employment lifting up to 10 pounds. The physical requirements 

of a surveillance system monitor were within the restrictions set forth by the physicians. 

Appellant further asserts that physicians in March 29, 2013 and July 27, 2015 reports 

found that he had a permanent impairment. The issue, however, is cooperation with vocational 

rehabilitation rather than whether he has a permanent impairment. Additionally, disability is not 

synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in incapacity to earn 

wages.15

Appellant may request modification of the wage-earning capacity determination 

supported by new evidence or argument, at any time before OWCP. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Section 8105(a) of FECA provides: If the disability is total, the United States shall pay 

the employee during the disability monthly monetary compensation equal to 66 2/3 percent of his 

monthly pay, which is known as his basic compensation for total disability.16 Section 8101(4) of 

FECA defines monthly pay for purposes of computing compensation benefits as follows: [T]he 

monthly pay at the time of injury, or the monthly pay at the time disability begins, or the monthly 

pay at the time compensable disability recurs, if the recurrence begins more than six months after 

the injured employee resumes regular full-time employment with the United States, whichever is 

greater.17 

The formula for determining loss of wage-earning capacity has been codified at section 

10.403(c)-(e) of OWCP’s regulations.18 Under the Shadrick formula, OWCP calculates an 

employee’s wage-earning capacity in terms of percentage by dividing the employee’s actual 

earnings (or constructed earnings) by the current or updated pay rate for the position held at the 

time of injury.19 The employee’s wage-earning capacity in dollars is computed by first 

multiplying the pay rate for compensation purposes, defined in 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(a) as the pay 

rate at the time of injury, the time disability begins or the time disability recurs, whichever is 

greater, by the percentage of wage-earning capacity. The resulting dollar amount is then 

subtracted from the pay rate for compensation purposes to obtain loss of wage-earning 

capacity.20 It has been administratively determined that certain pay elements will be included in 

 15 See Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999). 

16 5 U.S.C. § 8105(a). Section 8110(b) of FECA provides that total disability compensation will equal three 

fourths of an employee’s monthly pay when the employee has one or more dependents. 5 U.S.C. § 8110(b). 

17 Id. at § 8101(4). 

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.403(c)-(e). 

19 Id. at § 10.403(c)-(d). 

20 Id. at § 10.403(e). 
10

computing an employee’s pay rate, including night or shift differential, Saturday premium, 

Sunday premium, holiday and retention pay.21 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

As discussed, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation benefits under section 8113(b), 

effective December 18, 2008, to reflect the amount that he could have earned as a surveillance 

system monitor had he cooperated in vocational rehabilitation. It utilized a recurrent pay rate 

date of September 4, 2005 in determining his wage-earning capacity using the Shadrick formula. 

OWCP subsequently modified its December 18, 2008 decision after finding that it had 

inaccurately calculated appellant’s pay rate for compensation purposes. It determined that it had 

not included Sunday premium pay or night shift differential and had not applied the formula 

applicable to performance-based pay systems. OWCP again used a recurrent pay rate date when 

applying the Shadrick formula. Appellant, however, did not resume regular full-time 

employment with the United States following his August 3, 2004 employment injury. Instead, 

he returned to modified employment on December 13, 2004 and again on May 7, 2005 before his 

September 4, 2005 work stoppage. The Board, therefore, finds that OWCP erroneously used 

appellant’s pay at the time compensable disability recurred on September 4, 2005 in its loss of 

wage-earning capacity determination as he had not returned to his regular employment following 

his injury.22 Appellant’s date of injury is August 3, 2004 and the date disability began is 

August 7, 2004. OWCP should use the pay rate that is the greater of these two days as the 

applicable pay rate date. If the pay rate is the same, the pay rate should be set as the date 

disability begins.23 It should also utilize the pay banding formula and include any applicable 

Sunday premium pay and night differential.24 Accordingly the Board will set aside OWCP’s pay 

rate determination and remand the case for a proper calculation of appellant’s compensation for 

partial disability based on its reduction of his compensation for failure to participate in 

vocational rehabilitation. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly reduced appellant’s compensation for failure to 

participate in vocational rehabilitation under 5 U.S.C. § 8113(b). The Board further finds that 

OWCP erred in determining his pay rate for compensation purposes in its reduction of his 

compensation benefits for failing to participate in vocational rehabilitation. 

 21 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Determining Pay Rates, Chapter 2.900.6b 

(March 2011). 

22 See G.G., Docket No. 13-0770 (issued July 9, 2013). 

23 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Determining Pay Rates, Chapter 2.900.5(a)(3) 

(September 2011). 

24 Id. at Chapter 2.900.6 (b) and 2.900.12(g) (September 2011). 
11

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 10, 2015 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: October 19, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board