United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SOUTHEASTERN 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Southeastern, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1481 

Issued: May 2, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

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 July 11, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 23, 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. 

 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

ISSUES 

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

wage-loss compensation effective November 15, 2015; and (2) whether appellant met her burden 

of proof to establish continuing disability after November 15, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts of the prior appeal are 

incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts follow. 

On March 14, 2001 appellant, then a 42-year-old distribution clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis were 

due to her repetitive work duties. On February 12, 1991 she first became aware that her claimed 

conditions were due to repetitive activities, particularly work performed on flat sorting and letter 

sorting machines from 1985 to 1991. On June 13, 2001 OWCP accepted the claim for bilateral 

medial neuropathy and brachial plexopathy. 

The employing establishment offered appellant a part-time modified sign painter/letterer 

position based on an October 23, 2006 medical opinion of Dr. Scott M. Fried, an attending 

osteopath. Appellant accepted the offer and returned to work on October 25, 2006. She 

continued working in this position and, by decision dated July 30, 2007, OWCP determined that 

the position fairly and reasonably represented her wage-earning capacity.4

On September 7, 2010 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP 

hearing representative. In a September 30, 2010 decision, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review denied the request because it was not requested within 30 days of the July 30, 2007 

decision. Appellant appealed to the Board. In a November 17, 2011 decision, the Board 

affirmed in part and remanded in part the September 30, 2010 decision.5 The Board found that 

OWCP had properly denied appellant’s hearing request as untimely filed. The Board further 

found, however, that OWCP had abused its discretion by failing to set forth its reasons for failing 

to grant a discretionary review of the written record. 

Thereafter, OWCP received reports from Dr. Fried regarding appellant’s conditions and 

disability. On May 20, 2014 Dr. Fried examined appellant and diagnosed Dupuytrens secondary 

to use of a paper cutter, contusions and abrasions of the hands and right knee post a June 30, 

2004 fall, contusion of the right hand, wrist, and forearm due to a May 18, 2013 motor vehicle 

accident, right and left flexor tenosynovitis, sympathetically mediated pain syndrome of the left 

arm, cervical strain and sprain status post the May 18, 2013 accident, bilateral posterior occipital 

neuralgia, right and left median neuropathy, neurogenic right brachial plexopathy/cervical 

 3

 Docket No. 11-645 (issued November 17, 2011). 

4

 On August 20, 2010 appellant stopped work due to temporary aggravation of major depressive disorder which 

had been accepted as work related by OWCP in her claim for a June 26, 1990 injury assigned File No. xxxxxx133. 

OWCP paid compensation for partial disability. Appellant returned to work on September 1, 2010. 

5 Supra note 3. 
3

radiculopathy, and left brachial plexopathy/cervical radiculopathy with long thoracic neuritis. 

He found that she remained symptomatic and limited and could not return to her regular work 

activities due to her work injury. Dr. Fried recommended continued medical treatment. 

On July 9, 2014 OWCP referred appellant, together with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF), a set of questions, and the medical record, to Dr. Willie E. Thompson, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination. In an August 15, 2014 report, 

Dr. Thompson detailed appellant’s history, reviewed the medical record, and provided findings 

on examination. He found no clinical data to support her accepted conditions of bilateral 

brachial plexus lesions and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Thompson opined that 

appellant had no residuals of her January 1, 1991 employment-related injuries. He concluded 

that she could immediately return to her usual job duties with no restrictions. 

On August 21, 2014 OWCP determined a conflict in medical opinion existed between 

Drs. Fried and Thompson regarding appellant’s residual disability. It referred her, together with 

a SOAF, a set of questions, and the medical record, to Dr. Richard J. Mandel, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon for an impartial medical examination. 

The record contained a copy of an ME023 Appointment Schedule Notification dated 

September 24, 2014 which indicated that appellant was scheduled to see Dr. Mandel on 

November 6, 2014. A bypass history report dated September 24, 2014 indicated that no bypasses 

were made and that Dr. Mandel was located 3.13 miles from appellant’s zip code. This 

documentation provides that, “This report serves as certification that the Medical Management 

Application [MMA] in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS) was 

used to schedule this appointment.” 

In a November 6, 2014 report, Dr. Mandel reviewed the medical record and noted 

appellant’s history, which included sorting mail and using a letter and flat mail sorting machines 

when she began working at the employing establishment in 1985. Appellant had numbness and 

tingling in both hands in 1991. Also, in 1991 she worked in a clerk sign painter/letterer position 

which included using a label maker, cutting labels, cleaning the case surface, and applying 

labels. Appellant continued to have numbness and tingling in both hands, mainly in the thumb 

through long fingers. On examination, she had a completely normal cervical spine. There was 

no tenderness, tightness, spasm, or fibrosis of the cervical musculature. Range of motion was 

full in flexion, extension, rotation, and lateral bending. Spurling’s and L’hermitte’s tests were 

negative. Adson’s and Tinel’s tests were negative bilaterally for brachial plexopathy and 

thoracic outlet syndrome. A Roo’s test was mildly positive on the left at 15 seconds and was 

negative on the right. There was no trapezial tenderness, tightness, or spasm. 

On examination of the shoulder girdle, Dr. Mandel found no deformity, atrophy, 

swelling, induration, or erythema. Active and passive range of motion was full and unrestricted. 

There was no associated crepitus with range of motion. The impingement sign, adduction sign, 

push off test, and relocation test were negative. There was no localized tenderness and no 

instability of the acromioclavicular joint or glenohumeral joint. Shoulder girdle muscle strength 

was 5/5. Glenohumeral and scapulothoracic excursion and rhythm were normal. There was no 

scapular winging. A distal neurovascular examination was intact. 
4

On examination of the arms, Dr. Mandel reported no visible atrophy. Arm and forearm 

circumferences were equal bilaterally at 123⁄4 inches and 101⁄2 inches. There was no alteration or 

abnormality in skin color, temperature, sweating pattern, or hair distribution. There was no 

thenar atrophy, hand swelling, or fasciculations. Appellant had full range of motion of the wrists 

and digits. Tendon function was preserved. There was no carpal instability. Froment’s crossfinger and Wartenberg’s tests were negative. Watson and Finkelstein tests were negative. Wrist 

grind and shake tests were negative. Pulses were +2 and Allen’s tests were negative. Grip 

strength was 40, 55, and 42 pounds on the right and 38, 70, and 45 pounds on the left. Other 

motor findings were 5/5. Neurologic examination of the arms revealed normal sensory testing 

using monofilaments over all digits and in the distribution of the superficial radial nerve. Tinel’s 

test was negative bilaterally. Carpal tunnel compression and Phalen’s tests were positive on the 

left and negative on the right. Tinel’s was negative over the course of the ulnar and radial nerves 

and over the course of the median nerve more proximally. Median innervated thenar strength 

was normal. There was no intrinsic weakness or atrophy. Upper extremity reflexes were +2 and 

symmetrical. 

In response to OWCP’s series of questions, Dr. Mandel advised that there were no 

objective abnormalities on examination to substantiate appellant’s complaints. There were 

subjective findings of a positive carpal tunnel compression test and positive Phalen’s test on the 

left, but no diagnostic evidence of left carpal tunnel syndrome. Sensory testing using SemmesWeinstein monofilaments, was normal and indicated that, if median neuropathy was present, it 

was very mild. There were no subjective or objective abnormalities on the right side to suggest 

ongoing carpal tunnel syndrome or neuropathy. Roo’s test was subjectively positive on the left 

at 15 seconds which was suggestive, but not diagnostic of left thoracic outlet syndrome. 

Dr. Mandel noted that appellant had no preexisting disability. He also noted a history of a 2013 

motor vehicle accident in the medical record, but indicated that she did not tell him about this 

accident. Dr. Mandel opined that the only ongoing diagnosis related to the accepted injuries was 

minimal left carpal tunnel syndrome. He opined that appellant may work full time without 

restrictions except for a Futuro-type wrist support on the left while performing her work 

activities. Dr. Mandel advised that appellant required periodic checkups with her treating 

physician every three to four months. Appellant did not need physical or occupational therapy or 

injections. Dr. Mandel concluded that, if appellant’s symptoms increased in the future, then 

upper extremity electrodiagnostic testing would be indicated. 

On January 7, 2015 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

based on Dr. Mandel’s report. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit additional evidence or 

argument if she was in disagreement with the proposed action. 

In a January 14, 2015 letter, counsel disagreed with the proposed termination of wageloss benefits. He requested an explanation as to how Dr. Mandel was selected from the MMA. 

Counsel argued that the SOAF provided to Dr. Mandel was deficient as the physician believed 

that appellant could return to work, but did not demonstrate an awareness of her date-of-injury 

clerk position which required repetitive work duties and lifting up to 70 pounds. He maintained 

that this was important since Dr. Mandel found that she still had residuals of her left carpal 

tunnel syndrome and needed to wear a brace on her left arm. Counsel thus contended that 

Dr. Mandel’s report could not carry the weight of the medical evidence. 
5

In letters dated January 19 and 22, 2015, Dr. Fried requested an extension of time to 

respond to the proposed notice of termination. 

By decision dated February 24, 2015, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation effective March 8, 2015. It accorded special weight to Dr. Mandel’s November 6, 

2014 report. 

Appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative in a letter dated March 3, 2015. In February 12 and May 4, 2015 reports, 

Dr. Fried noted appellant’s history of injury, medical treatment, and examination findings. His 

review included Dr. Thompson’s August 15, 2014 report and Dr. Mandel’s November 6, 2014 

report. Dr. Fried disagreed with the physicians’ findings and restated his opinion that appellant 

had ongoing objective evidence of bilateral brachial plexus and bilateral median nerve carpal 

tunnel involvement which limited her to working four hours a day with restrictions. He 

concluded that she could never return to her full regular repetitive work duties. In a May 4, 2015 

prescription, Dr. Fried diagnosed bilateral median nerve lesion and bilateral brachial plexus 

lesion. He also ordered a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). 

By decision dated May 18, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative reversed the 

February 24, 2015 decision. She found that Dr. Mandel’s opinion was deficient as it was not 

based on a complete SOAF regarding appellant’s date-of-injury job duties and it was unclear as 

to whether appellant could perform her regular work duties without restrictions. The hearing 

representative directed OWCP to update its SOAF to include a description of appellant’s date-ofinjury regular work duties and obtain a supplemental report from Dr. Mandel regarding whether 

appellant’s accepted work injuries would allow her to work without restrictions. 

On remand, OWCP prepared an updated SOAF dated July 7, 2015 that included a 

description of appellant’s job duties as a distribution clerk who used a multi-position letter 

sorting machine (MPLSM) provided by the employing establishment. It identified this position 

as her date-of-injury position. The duties and responsibilities of the position included reading 

the address of each piece of mail as it was positioned by the machine, depressing a proper 

combination of keys to enable the machine to divert each letter to the proper bin, and a high 

degree of manual and visual coordination and close visual attention for sustained periods. It also 

included serving for a portion of time on a rotational basis as a loader or sweeper-tyer, or culling 

mail to remove that which was nonmachinable, loading consoles, removing mail from 

distribution boxes in the back of the machine, verifying sorted mail for accuracy of sorting, tying 

mail in bundles, and traying and/or dispatching as required. The position required possible 

qualification on one or more distribution schemes, as essential to the assignment and 

performance of manual distribution. 

In a July 16, 2015 supplemental report, Dr. Mandel reviewed additional medical records, 

including Dr. Fried’s reports and diagnostic test findings, the description of appellant’s 

distribution clerk MPLSM position, and the updated SOAF. He related that his review of these 

additional records did not change his previously expressed opinions. Dr. Mandel related that his 

opinion remained the same, that appellant had fully recovered from her accepted bilateral 

brachial plexopathy condition and that she had ongoing minimal left carpal tunnel syndrome. He 

further related that it was his continued opinion that despite her left carpal tunnel syndrome, she 
6

was capable of returning full time to her preinjury job as a distribution clerk. Dr. Mandel noted 

that his previous comments regarding ongoing treatment were unchanged. 

In reports dated July 1 and August 3, 2015, Dr. Fried provided examination findings and 

reviewed FCE results. He reiterated his prior opinion that appellant could not return to her 

original job. 

In a September 23, 2015 notice, OWCP again proposed to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation based upon the medical opinion of Dr. Mandel which established that she was 

no longer disabled for work due to her accepted employment injuries. 

On October 14, 2015 counsel disagreed with the proposed termination. He asserted that 

Dr. Mandel’s reports were not well rationalized as he did not explain how appellant could return 

to her repetitive duties as a distribution clerk while she still had carpal tunnel syndrome residuals 

that required her to wear a wrist splint at work. He also noted that Dr. Mandel’s report was 

speculative as the physician recommended additional EMG testing. 

In an October 27, 2015 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

effective November 15, 2015. It found that the special weight of the medical evidence rested 

with Dr. Mandel’s impartial opinion. 

Counsel requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative by 

November 4, 2015 letter. In reports dated November 30 and December 17, 2015, Dr. Fried 

reiterated his prior bilateral upper extremity and cervical diagnoses and disagreement with 

Dr. Mandel’s opinion. He also restated his opinion that, although appellant could not perform 

her regular work activities, she could perform a part-time modified job with restrictions based on 

FCE results. Dr. Fried advised that it would be dangerous for her to return to her regular work 

activities. In a March 3, 2016 report, Dr. Fried examined appellant and again opined that she 

could not perform her regular work activities. 

At the February 17, 2016 hearing, counsel argued that the July 7, 2015 SOAF was 

deficient as it did not contain a description of appellant’s sign painter/letterer position. He also 

argued that OWCP had not properly selected Dr. Mandel as the referee physician because the file 

lacked appropriate documentation for the use of the MMA. Appellant testified that when she 

began working at the employing establishment in 1985 she worked in manual letters and flats. 

Later, she worked on a flat sorter machine for four years and one to one and one-half years on a 

letter sorting machine and then she went back to the flat sorter machine for a few months. 

Appellant later worked as a sign painter/letterer. She testified that when she worked on the 

machines, she lifted tubs of mail that she loaded and unloaded onto ledges and a conveyor belt. 

Appellant noted keying one zip code per second for one-half hour on a letter machine. 

By decision dated March 23, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed as 

modified the October 27, 2015 termination decision. He affirmed that the special weight of the 

medical evidence rested with the impartial medical opinion of Dr. Mandel and established that 

appellant’s employment-related disability had ceased.6

 The hearing representative found that 

 6

 OWCP’s hearing representative noted that appellant had elected to receive retirement benefits from the Office of 

Personnel Management effective February 7, 2016. 
7

Dr. Fried’s supplemental reports did not outweigh the weight accorded to Dr. Mandel’s opinion. 

He modified the earlier decision to allow for continued medical benefits based on Dr. Mandel’s 

recommendation for periodic check-ups by a treating physician.7 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Under FECA, once OWCP has accepted a claim it has the burden of justifying 

termination or modification of compensation benefits.8

 OWCP may not terminate compensation 

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

employment.9

 Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.10

Section 8123(a) of FECA 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.11 The implementing regulations 

state 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.12

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.13

A physician selected by OWCP to serve as an impartial medical specialist should be 

wholly free to make a completely independent evaluation and judgment. In order to achieve this, 

OWCP has developed specific procedures for the selection of the impartial medical specialist 

designed to provide adequate safeguards against any possible appearance that the selected 

physician’s opinion was biased or prejudiced. The procedures contemplate that the impartial 

medical specialist will be selected on a strict rotating basis in order to negate any appearance that 

preferential treatment exists between a particular physician and OWCP.14

 7

 OWCP’s October 27, 2015 termination decision, however, did not terminate appellant’s medical benefits. 

8 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Vivien L. Minor, 37 ECAB 541, 546 (1986). 

9 Charles E. Minniss, 40 ECAB 708, 716 (1989). 

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

11 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). 

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.321. 

13 S.R., Docket No. 09-2332 (issued August 16, 2010); Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006); Gloria J. 

Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 

14 D.A., Docket No. 09-936 (issued January 13, 2010); Raymond J. Brown, 52 ECAB 192 (2001). 
8

The MMA, which replaced the Physicians’ Directory System (PDS), allows users to 

access a database of Board-certified specialist physicians and is used to schedule referee 

examinations. The application contains an automatic and strict rotational scheduling feature to 

provide for consistent rotation among physicians and to record the information needed to 

document the selection of the physician.15

The claims examiner is not able to determine which physician serves as the impartial 

medical specialist. A medical scheduler inputs the claim number into the application, from 

which the claimant’s home zip is loaded. The scheduler chooses the type of examination to be 

performed (second opinion or impartial referee) and the applicable medical specialty. The next 

physician in the roster appears on the screen and remains until an appointment is scheduled or 

the physician is bypassed. If the physician agrees to the appointment, the date and time are 

entered into the application. Upon entry of the appointment information, the application prompts 

the medical scheduler to prepare an ME023 appointment notification report for imaging into the 

case file. Once an appointment with a medical referee is scheduled, the claimant and any 

authorized representative are to be notified.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained bilateral medial neuropathy and brachial 

plexopathy due to her federal employment. 

On February 24, 2015 OWCP terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss 

compensation finding that she had no disability causally related to her accepted employment 

injuries. It had relied on the November 6, 2014 report of Dr. Mandel, who served as an impartial 

medical specialist. On May 18, 2015 OWCP’s hearing representative reversed the February 24, 

2015 decision and remanded the case to OWCP for further development of the factual and 

medical evidence regarding appellant’s date-of-injury work duties and capacity to work without 

restrictions. In an October 27, 2015 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation effective November 15, 2015. It did not terminate her medical benefits. OWCP 

relied upon Dr. Mandel’s opinion, including his July 16, 2015 supplemental report. The Board 

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

benefits. 

OWCP found a conflict in medical opinion between appellant’s treating physician, 

Dr. Fried, and OWCP’s referral physician, Dr. Thompson, regarding whether appellant had any 

continuing disability causally related to her accepted employment injuries and therefore referred 

her to Dr. Mandel to resolve the conflict pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). 

Before OWCP and on appeal before the Board, counsel contended that Dr. Mandel was 

improperly selected as the impartial medical specialist. Contrary to his argument, the Board 

finds that OWCP properly utilized the MMA in selecting Dr. Mandel as an impartial medical 

 15 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, OWCP Directed Medical Examinations, Chapter 3.500.5 

(May 2013); see also R.C., Docket No. 12-468 (issued October 25, 2012). 

16 Id.
9

specialist. OWCP utilized the MMA as evidenced by the September 24, 2014 ME023 form, 

provided information that no additional physicians were selected or bypassed through the MMA, 

and included documentation that the MMA was used to schedule the appointment with 

Dr. Mandel. The Board finds, therefore, that OWCP properly selected Dr. Mandel as an 

impartial medical specialist.17 

The Board further finds that Dr. Mandel’s impartial medical opinion is entitled to special 

weight and establishes that appellant no longer has any disability due to the accepted 

employment injuries. In a November 6, 2014 report, Dr. Mandel reviewed the SOAF and the 

medical file and noted essentially normal findings on examination. He opined that appellant had 

minimal left carpal tunnel syndrome causally related to her accepted injuries, but could perform 

her work duties on a full-time basis without restrictions. Dr. Mandel advised that the only caveat 

was that she had to wear a left wrist support while performing work duties. On May 18, 2015 an 

OWCP hearing representative found that Dr. Mandel’s opinion was deficient because it was not 

based on a complete SOAF which described the physical demands of appellant’s previous job at 

the employing establishment. As noted, she remanded the case for OWCP to undertake further 

development of the evidence regarding these matters. 

In his July 16, 2015 supplemental report, Dr. Mandel provided a well-rationalized 

opinion that appellant’s accepted work injuries had resolved sufficient to return to full-time work 

without restrictions. While he restated that appellant had minimal left carpal tunnel syndrome, 

he found that she had fully recovered from the accepted bilateral brachial plexopathy and had the 

capacity to return to her preinjury position of distribution clerk on a full-time basis. Dr. Mandel 

noted reviewing the updated SOAF dated July 7, 2015 which included a description of the 

position and additional medical evidence of record. He also noted that his previous comments 

regarding appellant’s ongoing treatment were unchanged. Despite residuals of symptoms from 

the accepted conditions, Dr. Mandel found that appellant could perform the regular work duties 

of her position. 

The Board finds that Dr. Mandel’s opinion is based on a proper factual and medical 

background and is sufficiently well rationalized such that it is entitled to the special weight 

accorded to an impartial medical specialist and establishes that appellant has no continuing 

disability due to her accepted employment injuries. 

Before OWCP and on appeal before the Board, counsel contended that the SOAF 

reviewed by Dr. Mandel was deficient as it did not describe the physical requirements and 

repetitive work duties of appellant’s date-of-injury the sign painter/letterer position or provide 

additional rationale as requested by OWCP regarding whether appellant had any continuing 

employment-related residuals. The Board notes that the updated SOAF identified the physical 

demands of appellant’s date-of-injury position based on the job description submitted by the 

employing establishment. The position description listed work duties that involved the use of 

sorting machines to process mail. While the term sign painter/letterer clerk was used by 

appellant on her occupational disease claim form, she attributed her accepted employment 

injuries to the work she performed on flat sorting and letter sorting machines from 1985 to 1991. 

 17 C.W., Docket No. 12-1211 (issued November 15, 2012); Darlene R. Kennedy, supra note 13. 
10

She continued to attribute her accepted employment injuries to these same work factors during 

her hearing testimony on February 17, 2016. In addition, Dr. Mandel, in his November 6, 2014 

report, provided a history that appellant sorted mail and used a letter and flat mail sorting 

machines when she began working at the employing establishment in 1985 and experienced 

numbness and tingling in both hands in 1991. He also noted her duties when she worked as a 

sign painter. Thus, the Board finds that Dr. Mandel’s opinion was based on an accurate SOAF 

and he was aware of appellant’s duties at the relevant times. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Once OWCP properly terminates appellant’s compensation benefits, the burden shifts to 

appellant to establish that he or she has continuing disability after that date related to his or her 

accepted injury.18 To establish causal relationship between the condition as well as any attendant 

disability claimed and the employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical 

evidence based on a complete medical and factual background, supporting such a causal 

relationship.19 Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to 

establish a causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.20

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

Following the termination of her wage-loss compensation on October 27, 2015 (effective 

November 15, 2015) appellant submitted Dr. Fried’s November 30 and December 17, 2015 and 

March 3, 2016 reports. In these reports, Dr. Fried found that appellant continued to have 

residuals of her accepted employment injuries and, although she was unable to perform her 

regular work duties on a full-time basis, she could perform a part-time modified position with 

restrictions based on the results of an FCE. He reasoned that it would be dangerous for appellant 

to return to her regular work activities. Dr. Fried’s restrictions on appellant’s return to work, 

however, are prophylactic in nature, and the possibility of a future injury does not form the basis 

for the payment of compensation under FECA.21 Moreover, the Board has long held that reports 

from a physician who was on one side of a medical conflict that an impartial medical specialist 

resolved, are generally insufficient to overcome the special weight accorded to the report of the 

impartial medical specialist, or to create a new conflict.22 The Board notes that as Dr. Fried was 

on one side of the conflict resolved by Dr. Mandel, Dr. Fried’s additional reports and 

prescription are of insufficient weight to overcome the special weight accorded to Dr. Mandel’s 

opinion or to create a new medical conflict. The Board finds, therefore, that appellant has not 

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

19 Id.

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

21 See Mary Geary, 43 ECAB 300, 309 (1991); Pat Lazzara, 31 ECAB 1169, 1174 (1980) (finding that 

appellant’s fear of a recurrence of disability upon return to work is not a basis for compensation). 

22 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008). 
11

established continuing disability after November 15, 2015 causally related to the accepted 

injuries.23

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

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

compensation effective November 15, 2015. The Board further finds that appellant has not met 

her burden of proof to establish continuing disability after November 15, 2015. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 23, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 2, 2017 

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 

 23 Virginia Davis-Banks, 44 ECAB 389 (1993); Dorothy Sidwell, 41 ECAB 857 (1990).