United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.W., Appellant 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION & 

REVIEW, Mount Pleasant, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0728 

Issued: June 14, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Lonnie L. Boylan, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 3, 2015 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

December 23, 2014 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 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective October 1, 2013; and (2) whether 

appellant met her burden of proof to establish continuing employment-related residuals or 

disability after the termination of her compensation benefits. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

On appeal, appellant’s representative contends that OWCP failed to provide the impartial 

medical examiner with a definition of temporary or permanent aggravation or contribution and a 

proper statement of accepted facts (SOAF). 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 7, 2012 appellant, then a 53-year-old legal assistant, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that her advanced tricompartmental osteoarthritis was 

employment related. She related that her left knee had been replaced on January 15, 20112 and 

she returned to work in March 2011 with accommodations that included a seat close to a printer, 

scanner, and bathroom.3 On September 15, 2011 appellant claimed that she was moved to a new 

seat which aggravated her deteriorating condition. She stopped work on January 6, 2012. 

On January 24, 2012 appellant underwent arthroscopic surgery performed by 

Dr. Michael D. Austin, an orthopedic surgeon, to repair a tear of the medical meniscus of her 

right knee.4 

On April 23, 2012 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for an aggravation of localized 

unspecified osteoarthritis of the lower right knee and aggravation of a tear of the medial 

mensicus of the right knee. It authorized Dr. Austin’s January 24, 2012 right knee surgery. 

On June 21, 2012 Dr. Austin released appellant to return to work with restrictions, three 

days a week for two months. Appellant worked with these restrictions until August 6, 2012. She 

filed several claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave without pay for the period 

commencing August 12, 2012.5

In support of her claims, appellant submitted a July 10, 2012 report by Dr. Cochran who 

noted appellant’s history of injury, provided examination findings, and diagnosed right knee pain 

secondary to internal derangment with underlying end-stage osteoarthritis that was likely 

irritated by her work duties. He recommended right knee total replacement surgery. In work 

status reports dated July 10 and 17, 2012, Dr. Cochran reiterated his diagnosis of right knee pain, 

diagnosed right knee swelling, and indicated that appellant was scheduled to undergo right knee 

total replacement on August 27, 2012. He advised that she was unable to work from August 6 to 

November 27, 2012. On September 20, 2012 Dr. Cochran diagnosed localized osteoarthrosis of 

the lower leg and ordered physical therapy and medical equipment following appellant’s 

postsurgical total right knee arthroplasty. 

 2

 The record indicates that appellant’s nonemployment-related left knee total replacement surgery was performed 

on January 13, 2011 by Dr. Jason M. Cochran, an attending orthopedic surgeon. 

3

 Appellant began work at the employing establishment on August 23, 2010. 

4

 Previously, on November 30, 2010, Dr. Austin performed nonemployment-related right knee arthroscopic 

surgery to repair a partial tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus and degenerative arthritis of appellant’s 

right knee. 

5

 OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental payment rolls for various periods between 

October 20, 2011 and August 11, 2012. 
3

In a September 5, 2012 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of her 

recurrence claim. It requested additional evidence in support of the claim and afforded her 30 

days to respond to its inquiries. 

By letter dated September 6, 2012, OWCP notified appellant of an October 8, 2012 

appointment for a second opinion with Dr. Emmanuel N. Obianwu, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon. In an October 8, 2012 report, Dr. Obianwu reviewed the SOAF and medical record. 

He provided findings on physical and x-ray examination and diagnosed tricompartmental 

arthritis of the right knee and status post total left knee arthroplasty. Dr. Obianwu found that 

appellant had sustained a temporary aggravation of her right knee osteoarthritis and medial 

meniscus tear in 2011, “which no longer exists.” He found that her medial meniscus tear was not 

related to a traumatic problem, but rather it was degenerative. Dr. Obianwu opined that 

appellant’s employment did not cause any significant aggravation of her preexisting 

osteoarthritis of the right knee. He related that her January 24, 2012 arthroscopic right knee 

surgery may have aggravated her underlying condition. Dr. Obianwu did find a material 

worsening of appellant’s aggravation of right knee osteoarthritis on August 6, 2012 based on his 

review of the medical records, especially since she was working just three days a week. He 

concluded that she could work eight hours a day with restrictions in a postion that did not require 

physically demanding activities. Dr. Obianwu further concluded that a right knee total 

replacement was required. 

By letter dated October 24, 2012, OWCP requested that Dr. Obianwu clarify his 

October 8, 2012 medical opinion as to when the temporary aggravation of appellant’s right knee 

osteoarthritis had ceased, whether she continued to have an aggravation of her right medial 

meniscus tear condition, and whether her work restrictions were solely due to her preexisting 

work-related knee conditions. 

In a November 13, 2012 supplemental report, Dr. Obianwu clarified that the 

employment-related temporary aggravation of appellant’s preexisting right knee osteoarthritis 

resolved six weeks after her January 24, 2012 knee surgery. He related that the right knee 

medial meniscus tear had resolved with the performance of the medial mensicus repair surgery. 

Dr. Obianwu concluded that appellant’s work restrictions were solely due to her preexisting 

nonwork-related right knee osteoarthritis. 

By letter dated November 15, 2012, OWCP asked appellant’s treating physician, 

Dr. Cochran, to review Dr. Obianwu’s reports and provide an opinion as to whether appellant’s 

accepted employment-related right knee conditions had resolved. In an undated report, 

Dr. Cochran opined that appellant’s continuing pain was an acute and chronic irritation of her 

preexisting condition. He related that he did not know whether appellant’s right knee condition 

would be deemed work related or an aggravation of a preexisting condition. Dr. Cochran 

advised that he supported appellant pursuing the matter as a work-related injury. 

On November 30, 2012 OWCP found a conflict in medical opinion between Dr. Obianwu 

and Dr. Cochran regarding whether appellant had any residuals of her work-related conditions, 
4

her capacity for work, and the need to undergo right knee total replacement surgery.6

 By letter 

dated January 30, 2013, it referred her, together with a SOAF, the medical record, and a list of 

questions, to Dr. James B. Wessinger, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial 

medical examination. 

In a February 19, 2013 report, Dr. Wessinger noted appellant’s history of injury and 

reviewed the medical record. He related that appellant had a desk job which required her to be 

sedentary 75 percent of the time. Appellant was up and about getting files and using the copy 

machine 25 percent of the time. She occasionally carried files weighing three to five pounds. 

Appellant complained about postoperative right knee pain. 

On physical examination of the right knee, Dr. Wessinger noted that she walked without 

a cane or limp. He found a mild valgus deformity in the standing position. Range of motion was 

-10 degrees with further flexion to 95 degrees versus 5 degrees of hyperextension on the left with 

further flexion to 105 degrees. The right knee surgical scar had healed nicely. The knee was 

stable and there was no tenderness. The right quadricep was one-half inch larger with minor 

swelling present. There was no effusion. Dr. Wessinger provided an impression of status post 

right knee arthroscopy two times with ultimate total knee replacement due to severe arthritis. He 

did not find there to be a relationship between appellant’s severe knee arthritis and her federal 

employment. Dr. Wessinger reviewed the right knee surgical reports of Dr. Austin and 

Dr. Cochran and found no evidence of any significant acute pathology in the right knee. He 

noted that torn menisci were commonly degenerative in nature in the presence of arthritis. 

Dr. Wessinger opined that appellant’s job did not cause, significantly aggravate, or accelerate her 

underlying right knee arthritis which required a total knee replacement. He concluded that she 

had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) regarding her total knee replacement, 

but she could return to her job in early April 2013 with possible restrictions. 

On March 8, 2013 OWCP requested that Dr. Wessinger respond to the questions it sent 

with appellant’s referral. In a March 15, 2013 addendum report, Dr. Wessinger referenced the 

examination findings in his prior report dated February 19, 2013 and reiterated his diagnoses. 

He advised that diagnostic testing was unnecessary. Dr. Wessinger noted that a September 30, 

2010 x-ray, performed within one month of appellant’s hire, revealed severe patellofemoral 

arthritis and advised that this finding did not support a work-related condition. He noted that 

Dr. Austin’s November 30, 2010 arthroscopic surgery report found bare bone in the 

patellofemoral joint. Dr. Wessinger related that it was virtually impossible for a joint to 

degenerate to this extent in a three-month period. Based on his physical examination and review 

of the medical record and SOAF, he reiterated his opinion and rationale regarding causal 

relationship, appellant’s work capacity, and need for the January 24, 2012 right knee surgery. 

Dr. Wessinger found that Dr. Austin’s surgical finding of bare bone degenerative changes did not 

materially alter appellant’s knee pathology in a manner that would have required total right knee 

replacement. He agreed with Dr. Obianwu that her employment did not cause the need for a 

total knee replacement and that any restrictions required in the future were not work related. 

 6

 On January 2, 2013 appellant underwent a right knee total arthroplasty performed by Dr. Cochran. OWCP did 

not authorize her surgery. On January 14, 2013 Dr. Cochran released appellant to return to regular-duty work. 
5

Dr. Wessinger questioned appellant’s resultant disability. He concluded that any future 

treatment would be based on her nonoccupational degenerative condition. 

By decision dated April 12, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disablity commencing August 6, 2012. It found that the weight of the medical evidence rested 

with the impartial medical opinion of Dr. Wessinger. 

On April 22, 2013 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephone hearing with an 

OWCP hearing representative. 

In a July 10, 2013 notice, OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits based on Dr. Wessinger’s impartial medical opinion. It 

afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence or argument regarding the proposed 

termination. 

In an August 5, 2013 letter, appellant disagreed with the proposed action, contending that 

the reports of Dr. Obianwu and Dr. Wessinger were contradicted by the facts of her case. She 

contended that the physicians’ opinions were based on diagnostic test results related to the left 

knee rather than the right knee. Appellant also contended that neither physician had reviewed 

the condition of her right knee prior to her injury or need for right knee replacement. 

Appellant submitted diagnostic test results dated September 30 and October 5, 2010 from 

Dr. Austin, Dr. Roger W. Hynes, a radiologist, and Dr. Mohammad Naveed, a Board-certified 

radiologist, which addressed her left and right knee conditions. Dr. Austin’s October 11, 2010 

and January 10, 2011 reports and progress notes also addressed appellant’s right knee conditions 

and medical treatment, including the need for arthroscopic surgery.7

 

In a May 15, 2013 report, Dr. Vicki E. Chessin, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

released appellant to return to work the next day, four hours a day until her next evaluation in 

two weeks. On May 28, 2013 she noted that appellant was seeking social security disability due 

to impairment from her degenerative arthritis which affected knees, and shoulders, resulting in 

multiple prior surgeries including, bilateral knee replacements. It also caused pain, stiffness, 

deformity, and swelling in her hands and fingers. Appellant provided examination findings and 

opined that there was no surgical remedy. Dr. Chessin advised that medications were ineffective 

and appellant was unable to work at her prior job, or any job in the future. She anticipated that 

her degenerative arthritis would only progress. In a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) 

dated May 28, 2013, Dr. Chessin advised that appellant was unable to perform her usual job or 

work eight hours a day with restrictions. She noted that appellant had unsuccessfully attempted 

to work four hours a day. 

On July 23, 2013 Dr. Cochran reported appellant’s history and examination findings. He 

reiterated his diagnosis of preexisting degenerative arthritis. Dr. Cochran noted appellant’s 

complaint that her right knee was functioning well prior to a change in her work status. He 

advised that she had an apparent flare-up that was possibly related to her meniscal tear which 

required total knee arthroplasty. Dr. Cochran noted that there were no complications during this 

 7

 Appellant also provided a March 13, 2013 bilateral hand x-ray report. 
6

procedure and appellant subsequently had a functional outcome. He noted, however, that she 

had reported an inability to work after August 6, 2012 as she had difficulty lifting her leg from 

the gas pedal to the brake while driving. Appellant also reported pain and a fear of falling from 

instability. 

In a September 13, 2013 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

April 12, 2013 denial of recurrence of disability. The hearing representative found that 

Dr. Wessinger’s impartial medical opinion remained the weight of the medical evidence. 

In an October 1, 2013 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits effective that date, finding that the weight of the medical evidence rested 

with the opinion of Dr. Wessinger.8

On September 26, 2014 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration 

of the October 1, 2013 termination decision. He contended that Dr. Wessinger’s reports were not 

rationalized and not entitled to the weight of the medical evidence. The representative cited the 

Board’s decision in Patricia E. McNally9 and contended that OWCP did not provide 

Dr. Wessinger with a definition of aggravation or contribution when it asked him to state 

whether the aggravation of appellant’s right knee osteoarthritis was temporary or permanent. He 

asserted that Dr. Wessinger’s reports were not based on a complete and proper factual and 

medical background as he did not mention Dr. Obinawu’s October 8, 2012 x-rays of both knees 

and the SOAF did not accurately quantify the percentage of time appellant performed the 

physical requirements of her position. 

In a December 23, 2014 decision, OWCP addressed appellant’s arguments and denied 

modification of the October 1, 2013 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

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

termination or modification of an employee’s benefits.10 It may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability had ceased or that it was no longer related to the 

employment.11 OWCP’s burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized 

medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.12 The right to 

 8

 In an October 4, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a right lower extremity schedule award. It 

found that a June 26, 2013 report from Dr. Mitchell Z. Pollack, an emergency medicine physician, who opined that 

appellant had 23 percent impairment of the right leg, was based on her right knee total arthroplasty which had not 

been accepted or authorized. This decision was affirmed by an OWCP hearing representative on April 8, 2014. By 

decision dated December 1, 2015, the Board affirmed the hearing representative’s April 8, 2014 decision. See 

Docket No. 14-1921 (issued December 1, 2015). 

9

 Docket No. 05-338 (issued May 5, 2005). 

10 S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003). 

11 Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); Vivien L. Minor, 37 

ECAB 541 (1986). 

12 See Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988). 
7

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

disability compensation.13 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.14

Section 8123(a) of FECA provides that if there is a disagreement between the physician 

making the examination for the United States and the physician of an employee, the Secretary 

shall appoint a third physician (known as a referee physician or impartial medical specialist) who 

shall make an examination.15 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.16 When there exists 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.17

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits on October 1, 2013. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for an aggravation of localized unspecified 

osteoarthritis of the lower right knee and aggravation of a tear of the medial mensicus of the right 

knee. It terminated her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective October 1, 2013 

finding that the accepted employment-related conditions had resolved without residuals or 

disability based on the opinion of the impartial medical examiner, Dr. Wessinger. 

OWCP had referred appellant to Dr. Wessinger to resolve a conflict in medical opinion 

between Dr. Cochran and Dr. Obianwu as to whether she had any continuing employmentrelated residuals and disability and need for right knee surgery. Dr. Cochran, the treating 

physician, opined that appellant’s right knee condition and need for total right knee arthroplasty 

were due to factors of her employment and she remained totally disabled for work. 

Dr. Obianwu, an OWCP referral physician, opined that appellant had no work-related residuals 

or disability, that she could perform her usual job with restrictions, and that her total right knee 

replacement was not necessitated by work factors. OWCP properly referred appellant to 

Dr. Wessinger to resolve the conflict under 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). 

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

677 (2005). 

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

15 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see R.S., Docket No. 10-1704 (issued May 13, 2011); S.T., Docket No. 08-1675 (issued 

May 4, 2009). 

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.321. 

17 Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 
8

In his February 19, 2013 report, Dr. Wessinger reviewed appellant’s history, the 

statement of accepted facts, and provided findings on examination. He determined that 

appellant no longer had residuals of her accepted employment-related right knee injuries. 

Dr. Wessinger reported essentially normal examination findings for the right knee with the 

exception of mild valgus deformity in the standing position, diminished range of motion, and a 

right quadricep that was one-half inch larger with minor swelling present. He reported that 

appellant was status post right knee arthroscopy two times with ultimate total knee replacement 

for severe arthritis. Dr. Wessinger found no evidence of any significant acute pathology in 

appellant’s right knee based on his review of the right knee surgeries performed by Dr. Austin 

and Dr. Cochran. He explained that torn menisci were commonly degenerative in nature in the 

presence of arthritis. Dr. Wessinger concluded that appellant’s job did not cause, significantly 

aggravate, or acelerate her underlying right knee arthritis. He further concluded that, although 

she had not reached MMI from her right knee total replacement, she could return to her regular 

job in early April 2013 and possibly with restrictions. 

OWCP requested a supplemental report from Dr. Wessinger to further respond to the 

questions it had presented.18 On March 15, 2013 Dr. Wessinger reiterated that appellant’s 

underlying right knee arthritis was not causally related or aggravated by her federal employment 

and that although she had not reached MMI regarding her total knee replacement, she was able to 

return to her regular job duties in early April 2013 with restrictions. He advised that these 

restrictions were not work related. Dr. Wessinger further advised that any future treatment 

would be based on appellant’s nonwork-related degenerative right knee condition. He explained 

that his opinion on causal relationship was based on his physical examination and review of the 

medical record and SOAF. Dr. Wessinger related that the September 30, 2010 right knee x-ray 

finding of severe patellofemoral arthritis, within one month of appellant’s hire, did not support a 

work-related condition. He noted Dr. Austin’s November 30, 2010 surgical finding of bare bone 

in the patellofemoral joint and found that it was virtually impossible for a joint to degenerate to 

the extent of appellant’s condition within three months. Dr. Wessinger opined that Dr. Austin’s 

January 24, 2012 right knee surgery was not warranted or work related, explaining that there was 

no evidence of any significant acute pathology in the knee. He noted that torn menisci were very 

commonly degenerative in nature in the presence of arthritis. Dr. Wessinger concluded that this 

surgery did not materially alter appellant’s knee pathology such that total right knee replacement 

was required. He reiterated that the need for total knee replacement was due to preexisting bare 

bone degenerative changes. 

The Board finds that Dr. Wessinger had an accurate knowledge of the relevant facts and 

evaluated the course of appellant’s condition. Dr. Wessinger is a specialist in the appropriate 

field. At the time benefits were terminated, he determined that appellant had no work-related 

residuals or disability for full-time employment and that total right knee replacement surgery was 

not warranted. His opinion as set forth in his February 19 and March 15, 2013 reports is 

probative and reliable evidence. The Board finds that his opinion is entitled to special weight 

 18 When OWCP secures an opinion from an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving a conflict in 

the medical evidence and the opinion from the specialist requires clarification or elaboration, OWCP has the 

responsibility to secure a supplemental report from the specialist. Phillip H. Conte, 56 ECAB 213 (2004). 
9

and constitutes the weight of the medical evidence and is sufficient to justify OWCP’s 

termination of compensation benefits for the accepted conditions. 

The Board further finds that the remaining medical evidence submitted prior to OWCP’s 

termination of compensation does not overcome the weight of Dr. Wessinger’s reports or create 

a new conflict in medical evidence. 

Dr. Chessin provided a May 15, 2013 report releasing appellant to part-time work and her 

May 28, 2013 report found that appellant was totally disabled for work. However, Dr. Chessin 

failed to provide a report opining whether she had any disability causally related to the accepted 

work injuries. The Board has found that medical evidence that does not offer any opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of 

causal relationship.19 

Dr. Cochran’s July 23, 2013 report found that appellant had preexisting degenerative 

arthritis. He opined that a flare-up of her right knee problem was “possibly” related to her 

meniscal tear which required surgery. The Board finds that Dr. Cochran’s opinion on causal 

relationship is speculative in nature, and, thus of little probative value.20 Moreover, the Board 

notes that he was on one side of the conflict that Dr. Wessinger resolved. The Board finds that 

the additional report from Dr. Cochran is insufficient to overcome the weight accorded 

Dr. Wessinger as the impartial medical examiner or to create a new conflict.21

Other medical reports provided by appellant prior to the termination of benefits either 

predate the termination or do not address how any continuing condition or disability is casually 

related to the accepted conditions.22 

Consequently, OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation and 

medical benefits on October 1, 2013. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

It is well established that after termination or modification of benefits, clearly warranted 

on the basis of the evidence, the burden for reinstating compensation benefits shifts to appellant. 

In order to prevail, appellant must establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

 19 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); A.F., 59 ECAB 714 (12, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); 

Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

20 Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001) (while the opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship need not 

be one of absolute medical certainty the opinion must not be speculative or equivocal; the opinion should be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty). 

21 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (reports from a physician who was on one side of a medical conflict 

that an impartial specialist resolved, are generally insufficient to overcome the weight accorded the opinion of the 

impartial physician or to create a new conflict). 

22 See cases cited, supra note 19. 
10

substantial evidence that he or she had an employment-related disability or residuals which 

continued after termination of compensation benefits.23

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained an aggravation of localized unspecified 

osteoarthritis of the lower right knee and aggravation of a tear of the medial mensicus of the right 

knee. It properly terminated her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective 

October 1, 2013 based on the opinion of Dr. Wessinger, the referee physician, who found that 

residuals and disability from the accepted employment-related right knee conditions had ceased. 

The burden now shifts to appellant to demonstrate that she continued to have residuals or 

disability for work on and after October 1, 2013 due to the accepted injuries.24

Subsequent to the termination of benefits, appellant did not submit any new medical 

evidence. 

Before OWCP and on appeal before the Board, appellant’s representative contended that 

Dr. Wessinger’s reports were not entitled to the weight of the medical evidence. He cited to 

Patricia E. McNally25 and contended that OWCP did not provide Dr. Wessinger with a definition 

of an aggravation or contribution when it asked him to state whether the aggravation of 

appellant’s right knee osteoarthritis was temporary or permanent in nature. However, the facts in 

the present case can be distinguished from Patricia E. McNally. In Patricia E. McNally, the 

Board found that an impartial medical specialist’s opinion on causal relationship was insufficient 

to resolve the underlying conflict of whether the employee’s work-related injuries aggravated her 

preexisting left knee condition and caused or contributed to the need for surgery. The Board 

found that the physician had not addressed whether the injury-related aggravation or period of 

symptoms was temporary or permanent in the questions provided him and OWCP had not 

requested clarification from him as to whether the aggravation was temporary or permanent. 

In the instant case, Dr. Wessinger did not initially address the question of whether the 

aggravation of appellant’s right knee osteoarthritis was temporary or permanent in nature. 

However, OWCP requested a supplemental report. In response, Dr. Wessinger clearly opined 

that appellant’s federal employment had not caused, significantly aggravated, or accelerated her 

underlying right knee arthritis. He further opined that her January 24, 2012 right knee total 

replacement surgery was not work related and indicated that it was necessitated by her 

preexisting degenerative condition. Thus, the Board finds that the case cited by appellant’s 

representative is not applicable to the instant case. 

Appellant’s representative also contended that Dr. Wessinger’s reports were not based on 

a complete and proper factual and medical background as it did not mention Dr. Obinawu’s 

October 8, 2012 x-rays of both knees and the SOAF did not accurately quantify the percentage of 

 23 See Virginia Davis-Banks, 44 ECAB 389 (1993); see also Howard Y. Miyashiro, 43 ECAB 1101, 1115 (1992). 

24 Virginia Davis-Banks, id. 

25 Supra note 9. 
11

time appellant performed the physical requirements of her positions. Dr. Wessinger provided a 

review of appellant’s medical history. While Dr. Wessinger did not summarize every report in 

the record, this does not mean that these reports were not reviewed. There is no requirement that 

an examining physician must list every medical report reviewed.26 Moreover, the Board notes 

that Dr. Wessinger’s quantification of the time appellant spent performing her work duties was 

based on her description of her work duties. The Board finds that Dr. Wessinger’s reports 

provided sufficient discussion of the medical evidence of record and accurately discussed the 

requirements of appellant’s position. 

On appeal, appellant’s representative further contends that Dr. Wessinger failed to 

provide sufficient medical rationale to support his medical opinion. Dr. Wessinger, however, 

explained the basis for his opinion that appellant no longer had any residuals or disability 

causally related to her accepted employment injuries and, as discussed, his reports represent the 

special weight of the evidence. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits effective October 1, 2013 and that she has failed to meet her 

burden of proof to establish continuing employment-related residuals or disability after the 

termination of her compensation benefits. 

 26 S.N., Docket No. 12-123 (issued June 12, 2012). 
12

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 23, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 14, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board