United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DOWNTOWN 

STATION, Trenton, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0094 

Issued: September 1, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 24, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 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 to consider the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation, effective November 9, 2015. 

 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 services 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

On appeal counsel argues that the opinion of OWCP’s referral physician was insufficient 

to meet OWCP’s burden of proof to terminate wage-loss benefits. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 16, 2013 appellant, then a 49-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 10, 2013 he developed post-traumatic stress due to 

hearing several gunshots near where he was delivering mail. He also alleged that the back 

window of his postal vehicle near where he had been standing was shattered by a gunshot. 

Appellant stopped work on August 12, 2013 and has not returned. OWCP accepted the claim for 

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and panic disorder without agoraphobia. Appellant 

received compensation benefits on the supplemental rolls as of September 30, 2013 and on the 

periodic rolls as of August 24, 2014. 

On August 1, 2014 appellant was referred for a second opinion evaluation with 

Dr. Richard W. Cohen, a Board-certified psychiatrist, for an evaluation to clarify treatment and 

appellant’s work capacity. 

In an August 14, 2014 report, Dr. Cohen, based upon the statement of accepted facts and 

appellant’s examination, diagnosed major depressive disorder, PTSD, and panic disorder. He 

noted that these conditions were improving at the time of his examination. Dr. Cohen related 

that appellant continued to have mild impairment with daily living activities, remained 

dependent on his wife, continued to have moderately impaired social functioning, and continued 

to have preoccupation with the events of August 10, 2013. He also reported that appellant had a 

long episode of decompensation, which he noted was improving. Dr. Cohen opined that 

appellant had not yet reached maximum medical improvement, but that in three months he could 

return to the date-of-injury job at the employing establishment with no restrictions or limitations. 

He concluded that, while appellant continued to have residuals from his accepted employment 

injury in the form of panic attacks, flash backs, and fears these residuals were becoming less 

intense. 

On a September 14, 2014 OWCP-5a form, Dr. Cohen indicated that appellant was 

capable of working eight hours, but not as a letter carrier. He further noted that appellant could 

return to his job as a letter carrier in three months.3

On January 23, 2015 OWCP referred appellant back to Dr. Cohen for a follow-up 

evaluation. 

In a February 6, 2015 report, Dr. Cohen diagnosed greatly improved PTSD and panic 

disorder without agoraphobia, and moderate residual distress from the accepted August 10, 2013 

employment injury. He concluded that appellant had no continuing decompensation from the 

accepted August 10, 2013 employment injury. Under current status, Dr. Cohen reported that 

appellant was not currently having nightmares about the event, he continued to have less intense 

flashbacks twice a month, and appellant was less fearful and less dependent on his wife when 

going outside. He also reported that appellant related that his panic attacks were less intense and 

 3

 OWCP received this form on May 26, 2015. 
3

not as frequent. In support of this conclusion, Dr. Cohen observed no marked or moderate 

functional limitations with appellant’s concentration, social functioning, or daily living activities. 

A mental status examination revealed goal-oriented answers, a blunted affect, suppressed and 

anxious mood, fair judgement and proverbs/abstract insight, no suicidal thoughts, and no thought 

disorder. Dr. Cohen noted that appellant had a mild impairment in social functioning, mild 

impairment in his daily living activities, and had mild issues with persistence, pace, and 

concentration. Based on the mental status examination, and medical history, he concluded that 

appellant could return to work at the employing establishment with no restrictions. With respect 

to continued treatment, Dr. Cohen recommended that appellant’s medication management be 

terminated within three months and that appellant be weaned off his current medication. 

In response to OWCP’s specific questions, Dr. Cohen opined that appellant’s accepted 

PTSD and anxiety disorder with agoraphobia were both greatly improved, that appellant had 

reached maximum medical improvement, and that appellant could return to work. Dr. Cohen 

opined that there were only psychiatric limitations, which had improved to the point where 

appellant could return to work without limitations or restrictions. In an attached work capacity 

evaluation form for psychological/psychiatric conditions (Form OWCP-5a), Dr. Cohen noted 

that appellant was capable of working eight hours and was compentent to perform his usual work 

duties. 

Following receipt of Dr. Cohen’s report, OWCP received a November 21, 2014 OWCP5a form and November 25, 2014 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) from Dr. Prakash 

Amin, a treating Board-certified psychiatrist. In the November 21, 2014 OWCP-5c form, 

Dr. Amin diagnosed PTSD, depressive disorder, and panic disorder, and found appellant totally 

disabled from any type of work. Dr. Amin noted on the form that appellant was very fearful, 

deathly afraid of any return to work at the employing establishment, and anxious. 

Dr. Amin, in the November 25, 2014 Form CA-20, diagnosed PTSD, panic disorder, and 

depressive disorder. He noted that appellant was last seen on November 21, 2014 and that he 

had been seen every two to three weeks since the injury. Dr. Amin opined that appellant 

remained disabled from returning to work due to his continuing fear of being shot, and anxiety 

regarding a return to work. He reported that appellant had been depressed, afraid of returning to 

work, and fearful of going near a post office since the accepted August 10, 2013 employment 

injury. 

On September 23, 2015 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits 

based upon Dr. Cohen’s February 6, 2015 report. It accorded less weight to Dr. Amin’s 

November 25, 2014 report as there had not been a recent psychological examination and 

Dr. Amin had not provided any rationale for his opinion. 

In a September 28, 2015 OWCP-5a form, Dr. Amin opined that appellant was unable to 

return to work. He explained that appellant was very anxious, depressed and sad. Appellant had 

continuing nightmares and flashbacks of being shot. In support of this opinion, Dr. Amin further 

noted that appellant was very fearful and deathly afraid of any return to work at the employing 

establishment. He also reported appellant was scared to go to his mailbox to pick up his mail 

and continued to be scared of being shot at if he returned to work at the employing 

establishment. 
4

By decision dated November 9, 2015, OWCP finalized the termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation, effective that same date. It found the weight of the medical evidence 

rested with the opinion of Dr. Cohen, an OWCP referral physician, as it was based on a recent 

mental examination and was well rationalized. OWCP noted that appellant’s medical benefits 

were not terminated and would remain open. 

In a November 16, 2015 letter, counsel requested an oral hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative, which was held on March 3, 2016. 

On December 3, 2015 OWCP received an October 28, 2015 report from Dr. Amin. 

Diagnoses included PTSD, panic disorder without agoraphobia, and single episode of major 

depressive disorder. Dr. Amin provided a history of the accepted August 10, 2013 employment 

injury and development of anxiousness, fear, and helplessness. He reported that appellant 

continued to have depressive episodes which lasted two to three hours, two to three times per 

week. Dr. Amin noted that appellant’s new medication resulted in improved mood. However, 

he noted that appellant continued to have PTSD symptoms without any improvement. 

Appellant’s symptoms included avoidance of social activities, requiring his wife to be with him 

when he had to be with people. He also continued to feel discomfort when going outside. 

Dr. Amin concluded that he disagreed with Dr. Cohen regarding appellant’s ability to return to 

his date-of-injury job. He noted that Dr. Cohen did not mention any of appellant’s PTSD 

symptoms including his flashbacks, nightmares, fear, extreme anxiety, and hypervigilance. 

By decision dated May 23, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

termination of appellant’s wage-loss compensation, effective November 9, 2015. However, he 

found there was an unresolved conflict in the medical opinion evidence between Dr. Cohen and 

Dr. Amin on the issue of whether appellant continued to have residuals or disability due to his 

accepted conditions on and after November 9, 2015. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

modification or termination of an employee’s benefits.4

 After it has determined that an 

employee has disability causally related to his federal employment, it may not terminate 

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

the employment.5

 OWCP’s burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized 

medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.6

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained PTSD and panic disorder without agoraphobia 

as a result of the accepted August 10, 2013 employment injury. Appellant stopped work on 

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

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Elsie L. Price, 54 ECAB 734 (2003). 

6 See J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988). 
5

August 12, 2013 and was placed on the periodic rolls for temporary total disability by letter 

dated August 21, 2014. 

OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation, effective November 9, 2015, 

finding that he no longer had disability due to his accepted conditions. It based its termination 

decision on the February 6, 2015 report of Dr. Cohen, OWCP’s referral physician. 

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

compensation, effective November 9, 2015. 

Dr. Cohen initially reported on August 14, 2014 that appellant’s period of 

decompensation was improving, and that while appellant continued to have residuals of his 

accepted injury in the form of panic attacks, flash backs, and fears, these residuals were 

becoming less intense. He opined that appellant had not reached maximum medical 

improvement, but that appellant could return to work in three months. OWCP referred appellant 

for a follow up evaluation with Dr. Cohen on January 23, 2015. 

In his February 6, 2015 report, Dr. Cohen diagnosed greatly improved PTSD and panic 

disorder without agoraphobia and moderate distress. He concluded that appellant was capable of 

returning to full-time work without restrictions due to the lack of continuing decompensation 

from the accepted August 10, 2013 employment injury. In support of this conclusion, Dr. Cohen 

reported that appellant’s nightmares had ceased, he had less intense flashbacks, and his panic 

attacks were less frequent and intense. He also explained that appellant was less fearful of going 

outside, and he was less dependent on his wife. Dr. Cohen concluded that appellant’s accepted 

PTSD and anxiety disorder with agoraphobia were both greatly improved, that appellant had 

reached maximum medical improvement, and he could return to work. 

The Board finds that Dr. Cohen’s reports represented the weight of the medical evidence 

at the time OWCP terminated benefits and that OWCP properly relied on his opinion in 

terminating appellant’s wage-loss compensation. 

Dr. Cohen had full knowledge of the relevant facts and the course of appellant’s 

condition. His opinions were based on a proper factual and medical history and on the statement 

of accepted facts. Dr. Cohen’s reports contained a detailed summary of the history of the claim.7

 

Additionally, he addressed the medical records, examined appellant, and reached a reasoned 

conclusion regarding appellant’s conditions.8

 At the time benefits were terminated, Dr. Cohen 

had explained that appellant’s accepted condition had improved and that he was capable of 

returning to work. His February 6, 2015 report is both probative and reliable evidence regarding 

appellant’s current psychiatric condition.9

 Accordingly, the Board finds that Dr. Cohen’s 

 7 See R.G., Docket No. 16-0271 (issued May 18, 2017). 

8 See Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006) (the opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy 

and completeness of the physician’s knowledge of the facts and medical history, the care of analysis manifested, and 

the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion are facts which determine the weight to be 

given to each individual report). 

9 Supra note 7. 
6

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

termination of wage-loss compensation for the accepted conditions. 

Dr. Amin, in OWCP-5a forms dated November 21, 2014 and September 28, 2015 and a 

November 25, 2014 CA-20 form diagnosed PTSD, depressive disorder, and panic disorder, 

which he opined were totally disabling. He reported that appellant was anxious, very fearful, 

deathly afraid of any return to work at the employing establishment. On November 25, 2014 

Dr. Amin reported that he had been seen every two to three weeks since the injury and remained 

disabled due to PTSD, panic disorder and depressive disorder. On October 28, 2015 Dr. Amin 

advised that appellant continued to be disabled due to his accepted psychological conditions of 

depression and anxiety. However, Dr. Amin did not provide any objective findings or medical 

rationale explaining why appellant continued to be disabled from work due to the accepted 

conditions. Thus, his reports are of diminished probative value and insufficient to overcome the 

weight of Dr. Cohen’s report or to create a medical conflict.10 While Dr. Amin provided a more 

detailed report following the termination, the Board notes that the issue of continuing disability 

was remanded by the hearing representative to resolve the new conflict in medical evidence. 

That issue is not ripe for a decision by the Board.11

Counsel argues on appeal that Dr. Cohen’s opinion is insufficient to support OWCP’s 

burden of proof to terminate wage-loss compensation. As discussed above, the Board finds that 

Dr. Cohen’s report was well rationalized and represented the weight of the medical evidence at 

the time that OWCP terminated compensation. 

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 9, 2015. 

 10 See S.S., Docket No. 15-1160 (issued January 11, 2016). The weight of medical evidence is determined by its 

reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale 

expressed in support of the physician’s opinion. James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991). 

11 See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(2) (there will be no appeal with respect to any interlocutory matter decided (or not 

decided) by OWCP during the pendency of a case). F.T., Docket No. 15-1109 (issued June 17, 2016). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated May 23, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 1, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board