United States Department of Labor

Employees Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Stone Mountain, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0210

Issued: July 3, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 9, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 25, 

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

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss and 

schedule award compensation, effective October 2, 2015, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2), for 

refusing an offer of suitable work.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 4, 2011 appellant, then a 51-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 4, 2011 she sustained a right knee injury when she 

tripped on a box in a hallway at work and fell to the ground, landing on her knees. She stopped 

work on February 4, 2011.

On April 1, 2011 OWCP accepted that appellant sustained contusions of both knees and 

lower legs. Appellant received disability compensation on the daily rolls beginning 

March 22, 2011.

On March 7, 2012 Dr. Phillip Langer, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

performed an OWCP approved right knee surgery including anterior cruciate ligament

reconstruction, partial medial and lateral meniscectomy, chondroplasty with patella debridement, 

and arthroscopic removal of loose bodies.3 

On September 9, 2012 Dr. Langer released appellant to regular-duty work without 

restrictions and, on September 10, 2012, she returned to such work for the employing 

establishment. Appellant was seen on December 3, 2012 by Dr. Jeff Traub, an attending Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Traub provided work restrictions, including no standing, stair 

climbing, mail truck driving, or mail delivery, and recommended that she have a 15- to 20-minute 

break every 2 hours. On December 7, 2012 appellant returned to a sedentary light-duty job at the 

employing establishment in accordance with these restrictions. 

In early 2013, Dr. Traub advised that appellant had failed conservative treatment and 

recommended that she undergo right total knee arthroplasty. Appellant stopped work on

March 26, 2013 and he performed an OWCP-approved right total knee arthroplasty on that date.4

On May 8, 2013 OWCP expanded the accepted conditions to include lateral meniscus tear 

of the right knee, aggravation of right knee osteoarthritis, right knee sprain, and loose body of the 

right knee.

In February 2014, OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Eric S. Furie, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. It requested that he evaluate the nature of 

her right knee condition and provide an opinion on her ability to work. 

 

3 Appellant received disability compensation on the periodic rolls beginning April 8, 2012. 

4 Appellant received total disability compensation on the daily rolls beginning March 26, 2013 and on the periodic 

rolls beginning May 5, 2013. 
3

In an April 8, 2014 report, Dr. Furie detailed the medical history of appellant’s right knee 

condition and discussed the physical examination findings regarding her right knee, noting that 

she had 110 degrees of motion in the knee. He diagnosed right knee osteoarthritis (status 

postsurgery) and right knee medial collateral ligament sprain, and he determined that she could 

work eight hours per day with restrictions, including lifting up to 25 pounds on a frequent basis 

and up to 50 pounds on an occasional basis. 

On June 6, 2014 the employing establishment offered appellant a full-time modified 

position as a sales solution team member. The position involved contacting customers by 

telephone (intermittently for six to eight hours per day), engaging in light data inputting 

(intermittently for four hours), answering the telephone (intermittently for six to eight hours), and 

engaging in back office administrative assistance duties (intermittently for eight hours). The 

physical requirements of the position included sitting in an office chair with a supportive back and 

occasionally standing (intermittently for eight hours), simple grasping and pushing/pulling a 

computer mouse (intermittently for four to eight hours), fine manipulation of a keyboard 

(intermittently for four to eight hours), and speaking on the telephone (intermittently for six to 

eight hours). 

In a June 13, 2014 report, Dr. Christopher R. Edwards, an attending Board-certified 

internist, indicated that appellant was at maximum medical improvement (MMI) with respect to 

her back condition.

5

 He noted that she underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) on 

June 10, 2014 which showed that she could return to restricted-duty work and he posited that she 

could in fact return to restricted-duty work at the sedentary-to-moderate level.6 

On June 16, 2014 Dr. Traub advised that appellant came in for follow-up treatment and 

reported doing fairly well with respect to her right knee. He discussed her June 10, 2014 FCE, 

noting that the evaluators assessed her right knee and back conditions and placed her in a sedentary 

work category. 

In a December 12, 2014 report, Dr. Traub indicated that appellant presented for follow-up 

treatment and reported that she was off work “not because of [appellant’s] knee, but because of 

her back.” He noted that she was status post right total knee replacement and indicated that “the 

condition has resolved.” Dr. Traub advised that appellant was at the sedentary work level and 

noted, with respect to her right knee, she could return to work with restrictions of no lifting more 

than 10 pounds and no stooping, kneeling, or squatting. He indicated that, “[Appellant] is not 

currently working because of her back and not because of her knee.”

 

5

In his June 13, 2014 report, Dr. Edwards mentioned that appellant underwent back surgery in 2013. The record 

contains a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) which notes that, under claims other than the present claim, OWCP 

accepted a left shoulder strain in 2002 and a herniated disc at L3-4 in 2013. The SOAF also indicates that appellant 

had undergone OWCP-approved spinal fusion surgery at L3-4 and L4-5 on November 7, 2013 and the present case 

record contains a report of this surgery which was performed by Dr. Edwards. 

6 The record contains a copy of the FCE appellant underwent on June 10, 2014. 
4

On January 7, 2015 Dr. Traub determined that the duties of the position of sales solution 

team member offered on June 6, 2014 were within appellant’s medical restrictions and, therefore, 

she was capable of working in the position.

In January 2015, appellant began participating in a vocational rehabilitation program 

designed to return her to work. Her vocational rehabilitation counselor indicated that the medical 

evidence of record showed that appellant was capable of engaging in sedentary work activity on a 

full-time basis.

In a February 23, 2015 duty status report (Form CA-17), an individual with an illegible 

signature indicated that appellant could work for eight hours per day with restrictions of lifting no 

more than 10 pounds, sitting for no more than two hours, standing for no more than 10 minutes at 

a time, and driving for no more than 30 minutes. Appellant could not climb, kneel, bend, stoop, 

or twist. 

On April 17, 2015 the employing establishment again offered appellant a full-time 

modified position as a sales solution team member. This modified position involved the same 

duties as the position offered on June 6, 2014, except that she would not be required to engage in 

back office administrative assistance duties. The physical requirements were the same as the 

previously offered position, except that the new position restricted appellant from lifting more than 

two pounds (a duty which would be performed intermittently for four to eight hours). The position 

was characterized as sedentary in nature and allowed appellant to alternate between sitting and 

standing as necessary.7

On April 17, 2015 appellant refused the position of sales solution team member offered by 

the employing establishment.

In an April 21, 2015 report, Dr. Feroze Yusufji, an attending Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant presented and complained of lower back pain and numbness and 

weakness in her right lower extremity. He indicated that, upon physical examination, she exhibited 

tenderness to palpation and limited range of motion of the lumbar spine. Dr. Yusufji diagnosed 

several back conditions, including disc displacement, lumbar radiculitis, and lumbosacral 

spondylosis.8 He indicated that appellant was restricted from driving for more than 30 minutes 

and advised that she could sit for up to 2 hours at a time with 10- to 15-minute breaks between 

sitting periods, during which she could stand and move about. Dr. Yusufji recommended that she

undergo electromyogram (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) testing for her right lower 

extremity. 

 

7 The offered position was located in Stone Mountain, GA, and the record contains the result of an internet search 

showing that the work location was approximately 36 miles from appellant’s residence. 

8 Dr. Yusufji indicated that a computerized tomography (CT) scan with myelogram from an unspecified date 

showed some residual involvement at L4-5 on the right and he noted “I feel [that appellant] has involvement at L5-S1 

level on the right now with most likely an extruded disc.” The record contains a report of July 23, 2013 CT 

scan/myelogram testing which shows large anterior extradural defects at L2-3 through L5-S1 with an acquired spinal 

stenosis at L4-5 secondary to additional facet joint hypertrophy and ligamentous hypertrophy bilaterally. 
5

In a return to work notice dated April 21, 2015, Dr. Yusufji noted that appellant could work 

with restrictions including a maximum of 30 minutes driving at one time and 2 hours of sitting at 

a time until her next appointment on May 7, 2015.

In an April 22, 2015 letter, received by OWCP on May 7, 2015, appellant indicated that 

she was refusing the position of sales solution team member offered on April 17, 2015 because the 

position violated the driving restrictions of Dr. Yusufji. She noted that her residence was 

approximately a 50-minute drive from the site of the offered position.

In an April 30, 2015 letter, OWCP advised appellant of its determination that the position 

of sales solution team member offered by the employing establishment was suitable. It discussed 

the medical evidence of record noting that it showed that she could work as a sales solution team 

member. OWCP addressed appellant’s concerns about driving and sitting and indicated that she 

could take a break while driving to and from work, that she could take public transportation, and 

that the offered job allowed her to alternate between sitting and standing as necessary. It informed 

appellant that her entitlement to wage-loss and schedule award compensation would be terminated 

if she did not accept the position or provide good cause for not doing so within 30 days of the date 

of the letter.

In late-April 2015, OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination to

Dr. Alexander N. Doman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to further evaluate her capacity to 

work. It provided him with a current SOAF.

9

Appellant submitted a May 7, 2015 narrative report of Dr. Yusufji which contained 

findings similar to those contained in his April 21, 2015 narrative report and a July 22, 2013 EMG 

and NCV testing report showing findings suggestive of an abnormality in the right S1 nerve root 

distribution, but no dysfunction involving the deep peroneal/tibial nerves and no 

polyneuropathy/myopathy. In a May 16, 2015 letter, an employing establishment official 

indicated that she had been accepted for Office of Personnel Management (OPM) disability 

retirement effective May 8, 2015. Other documents show that appellant elected to receive OPM 

benefits beginning August 31, 2015. 

By letter dated May 14, 2015, appellant indicated that she was refusing the position of sales 

solution team member offered on April 17, 2015 due to an attached May 14, 2015 note of

Dr. Robert Friedman, an attending Board-certified neurosurgeon. In the attached note,

Dr. Friedman indicated that she was seen on May 14, 2105 and should not “work at all” until her 

follow-up appointment on June 30, 2015.

 

9 The SOAF provided to Dr. Doman listed all of appellant’s accepted conditions and approved surgeries. In other 

referral documents provided to him, OWCP advised that the work location of the position of sales solution team 

member offered to her was approximately 36 miles from her residence. It further advised that the position of sales 

solution team member would allow appellant to alternate between sitting and standing positions throughout the day. 
6

In a report dated July 10, 2015, Dr. Doman discussed appellant’s factual and medical 

history.

10

 He detailed the prior findings on physical examination/diagnostic and the prior surgical 

procedures. Dr. Doman indicated that x-rays of the right knee showed well-fixed total knee 

components without evidence of loosening and that x-rays of the lumbar spine showed solid 

lumbar fusion with pedicle screw fixation at L3 through L5. He detailed the findings of the 

physical examination he conducted on July 8, 2015, noting that appellant had good range of motion 

of the right knee (from 0 to 110 degrees), and did not have right knee instability or signs of 

muscular atrophy. With respect to the physical examination of her back and lower extremities,

Dr. Doman reported that the lumbar spine showed a well-healed surgical scar, straight leg raise 

testing was negative, deep tendon reflexes were normal, and there were no signs of muscular 

atrophy. He indicated that appellant could not perform her regular work as a city carrier due to 

ongoing back pain following her lumbar spine surgery. However, Dr. Doman found that she could 

perform full-time work in a sedentary-type job per the work restrictions contained in an attached

work capacity evaluation form (Form OWCP-5c). He noted that he had reviewed the work 

requirements of the position of sales solution team member offered by the employing 

establishment and indicated that appellant could perform the position. Dr. Doman noted that she

would not have difficulty in driving the 36 miles to and from work, even if she had to drive more 

than one hour at a time. In an attached Form OWCP-5c dated July 8, 2015, he indicated that 

appellant could walk or stand for two hours at a time and that she could engage in lifting for up to 

three hours. 

The vocational rehabilitation counselor assigned to appellant closed her vocational 

rehabilitation file effective September 9, 2015. The counselor had determined that the position of 

sales solution team member was medically and vocationally suitable for appellant. 

In a September 16, 2015 letter, OWCP advised appellant that her reasons for not accepting 

the position of sales solution team member offered by the employing establishment were 

unjustified.11 It advised her that her entitlement to wage-loss and schedule award compensation 

would be terminated if she did not accept the position within 15 days of the date of the letter. 

Appellant did not accept the offered position within the allotted period.

By decision dated October 2, 2015, OWCP terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss 

and schedule award compensation effective October 2, 2015, because she refused an offer of 

suitable work. It found that the evidence of record showed that she was medically and vocationally 

capable of performing the position of sales solution team member and that she had not shown good 

cause for refusing the position. OWCP found that the weight of the medical opinion evidence 

regarding appellant’s ability to work as a sales solution team member rested with the wellrationalized opinion of Dr. Doman, OWCP’s referral physician, and determined that she did not 

 

10 Dr. Doman indicated that he had reviewed surveillance video from October and November 2014 which was 

obtained by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the employing establishment. He noted that the surveillance 

video showed appellant’s ability to drive and walk without difficulty. The record contains OIG reports detailing the 

contents of the surveillance video from October and November 2014. Appellant was observed engaging in such 

activities as driving, walking, and briefly participating in bowling. 

11 On September 14, 2015 an employing establishment official advised OWCP that the position of sales solution 

team member offered to appellant on April 17, 2015 remained available. 
7

submit rationalized medical evidence showing that she could not perform the position. It advised 

that her retirement was not a valid reason for refusing the position.

Appellant filed a schedule award claim and, on November 24, 2015, OWCP granted her a 

schedule award for 21 percent permanent impairment of her right lower extremity. The award was 

scheduled to run for 60.48 weeks. However, OWCP only paid appellant from August 31 through 

October 1, 2015, the day before the termination of her entitlement to wage-loss and schedule award 

compensation, effective October 2, 2015. 

Appellant, through counsel, requested a telephone hearing with a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. She submitted a December 16, 2015 report from

Dr. Traub who indicated that he obtained x-rays of the right knee which showed no loosening and 

good alignment after right total knee arthroplasty. 

During the hearing held on June 14, 2016, counsel argued that the position of sales solution 

team member was not suitable because it required sitting and driving beyond appellant’s medical 

restrictions.

Appellant submitted a May 7, 2015 note from Dr. Yusufji who indicated that she could 

work with a restriction of not driving for any period longer than 20 minutes until further notice. 

By decision dated August 25, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

October 2, 2015 decision terminating appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss and schedule award

compensation effective October 2, 2015 for refusing suitable work. She found that appellant was 

medically and vocationally capable of performing the position of sales solution team member

offered by the employing establishment. The hearing representative determined that the weight of 

the medical opinion evidence regarding appellant’s ability to work as a sales solution team member 

continued to rest with the opinion of Dr. Doman. She noted that the reports of appellant’s attending 

physicians were not sufficiently well rationalized to show that she could not work as a sales 

solution team member. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of proof to justify

termination or modification of an employee’s compensation benefits.12 Section 8106(c)(2) of 

FECA provides that a partially disabled employee who refuses or neglects to work after suitable 

work is offered to, procured by, or secured for the employee is not entitled to compensation.13 To 

justify termination of compensation, OWCP must show that the work offered was suitable, that 

the employee was informed of the consequences of refusal to accept such employment, and that 

she was allowed a reasonable period to accept or reject the position or submit evidence to provide 

reasons why the position is not suitable.14 Section 8106(c) will be narrowly construed as it serves 

 

12 S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2); see also Geraldine Foster, 54 ECAB 435 (2003).

14 See Ronald M. Jones, 52 ECAB 190 (2000).
8

as a penalty provision, which may bar an employee’s entitlement to compensation based on a 

refusal to accept a suitable offer of employment.15

Section 10.517(a) of FECA’s implementing regulations provide that an employee who 

refuses or neglects to work after suitable work has been offered or secured, has the burden of proof 

to showing that such refusal or failure to work was reasonable or justified.16 Pursuant to section 

10.516, the employee shall be provided with the opportunity to make such a showing before a 

determination is made with respect to termination of entitlement to compensation.17

Before compensation can be terminated, however, OWCP has the burden of proof to 

demonstrate that the employee can work, setting forth the specific restrictions, if any, on the 

employee’s ability to work, and establishing that a position has been offered within the employee’s 

work restrictions and setting forth the specific job requirements of the position.18 The 

determination of whether an employee is physically capable of performing a modified assignment 

is a medical question that must be resolved by medical evidence.19 OWCP procedures provide 

that acceptable reasons for refusing an offered position include withdrawal of the offer or medical 

evidence of inability to do the work or travel to the job.20 

In a suitable work determination, OWCP must consider preexisting and subsequently 

acquired medical conditions in evaluating an employee’s work capacity.21

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss and 

schedule award compensation effective October 2, 2015 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2), for 

refusing an offer of suitable work.

Appellant sustained a fall at work on February 4, 2011 and OWCP accepted that she 

sustained contusions of both knees and lower legs, lateral meniscus tear of the right knee, 

aggravation of right knee osteoarthritis, right knee sprain, and loose body of the right knee. OWCP

also authorized right knee surgery including a March 26, 2013 right total knee arthroplasty.22 In 

April 2015, the employing establishment offered appellant a full-time modified position as a sales 

 

15 Joan F. Burke, 54 ECAB 406 (2003); see Robert Dickerson, 46 ECAB 1002 (1995).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.517(a). 

17 Id. at § 10.516.

18 See Linda Hilton, 52 ECAB 476 (2001).

19 Gayle Harris, 52 ECAB 319 (2001).

20 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Job Offers and Return to Work, Chapter 2.814.5a 

(June 2013); E.B., Docket No. 13-0319 (issued May 14, 2013).

21 See G.R., Docket No. 16-0455 (issued December 13, 2016); Richard P. Cortes, 56 ECAB 200 (2004).

22 Under claims other than the present claim, OWCP accepted a left shoulder strain in 2002 and a herniated disc at 

L3-4 in 2013. Appellant underwent OWCP-approved spinal fusion surgery at L3-4 and L4-5 on November 7, 2013. 
9

solution team member. Appellant refused the position and OWCP terminated her entitlement to 

wage-loss and schedule award compensation effective October 2, 2015.

The Board finds that the evidence of record establishes that appellant was capable of 

performing the position of sales solution team member offered by the employing establishment 

and determined to be suitable by OWCP in April 2015. The position involved contacting 

customers by telephone, engaging in light data inputting, and generally answering the telephone. 

The physical requirements of the position included sitting in an office chair with a supportive back 

and occasionally standing (intermittently for eight hours), simple grasping and pushing/pulling a 

computer mouse (intermittently for four to eight hours), fine manipulation of a keyboard and lifting 

up to two pounds (intermittently for four to eight hours), and speaking on the telephone 

(intermittently for six to eight hours). The position allowed alternating between sitting and 

standing as necessary. The evidence of record does not reveal that the position of sales solution 

team member was temporary in nature.23 OWCP properly relied on the opinion of appellant’s 

vocational rehabilitation counselor in determining that appellant was vocationally capable of 

performing the position of sales solution team member.

24

The Board finds that, with respect to appellant’s physical ability to work, OWCP properly 

relied on the opinion Dr. Doman, OWCP’s referral physician, when it made its determination that 

the modified position of sales solution team member offered by the employing establishment was 

suitable. The weight of the medical evidence regarding her ability to work is represented by the 

thorough, well-rationalized opinion of Dr. Doman. Dr. Doman’s July 8, 2015 report shows that 

appellant is capable of working in the position of sales solution team member. 

In his report dated July 10, 2015, Dr. Doman detailed the findings of the physical 

examination he conducted on July 8, 2015, noting that appellant had good range of motion of the 

right knee and did not have right knee instability or signs of muscular atrophy. With respect to the 

physical examination of appellant’s back and lower extremities, he reported that the lumbar spine 

showed a well-healed surgical scar, straight leg raise testing was negative, deep tendon reflexes 

were normal, and there were no signs of muscular atrophy. Dr. Doman indicated that appellant 

could not perform her regular work as a city carrier due to ongoing back pain following her lumbar 

spine surgery. He further indicated, however, that she could perform full-time work in a sedentarytype job per the work restrictions contained in an attached work capacity evaluation form. 

Dr. Doman noted that he had reviewed the work requirements of the position of sales solution team

member offered by the employing establishment and indicated that appellant could perform the 

position. He also indicated that he had reviewed the surveillance materials from the OIG which 

evinced her driving and walking without difficulty. Dr. Doman noted that appellant would not 

have difficulty in driving the 36 miles to and from work, even if she had to drive more than one 

hour at a time. In an attached work capacity evaluation form dated July 8, 2015, he indicated that 

 

23 If the employing establishment offers a claimant a temporary light-duty assignment and the claimant held a 

permanent job at the time of injury, the penalty language of section 8106(c) cannot be applied. See supra note 20 at 

Chapter 2.814.4c(5), 9 (June 2013).

24 See id., at Chapter 2.814.4 (June 2013).
10

she could walk or stand for two hours at a time and that she could engage in lifting for up to three 

hours.

The Board has carefully reviewed the opinion of Dr. Doman and notes that it has reliability, 

probative value, and convincing quality with respect to its conclusions regarding the relevant issue 

of the present case. Dr. Doman provided a thorough factual and medical history and accurately 

summarized the relevant medical evidence.25 He provided medical rationale for his opinion by 

explaining that, although appellant’s medical condition (particularly her back condition) prevented 

her from performing her regular work as a city carrier, the objective findings of record showed 

that she could perform a sedentary position such as the position of sales solution team member 

offered by the employing establishment.

26

 The Board notes that Dr. Doman fully considered the 

effects of her preexisting and subsequently-acquired medical conditions in evaluating her work 

capacity.27

The Board finds that, therefore, OWCP has established that the position of sales solution 

team member offered by the employing establishment is suitable. As noted above, once OWCP 

has established that a particular position is suitable, an employee who refuses or neglects to work 

after suitable work has been offered has the burden of proof to show that such refusal to work was 

justified.28 

The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence and argument submitted by appellant in 

support of her refusal of the position of sales solution team member and notes that it is insufficient 

to justify her refusal of the position. 

In an April 21, 2015 narrative report, Dr. Yusufji indicated that appellant was restricted 

from driving for more than 30 minutes and advised that she could sit for up to 2 hours at a time 

with 10- to 15-minute breaks between sitting periods, during which she could stand and move 

about. In a return to work notice dated April 21, 2015, he indicated that she was restricted to a 

maximum of 30 minutes driving at one time and 2 hours of sitting at a time until her next 

appointment on May 7, 2015. In a May 7, 2015 note, Dr. Yusufji indicated that appellant could 

work with a restriction of not driving for any period longer than 20 minutes until further notice. 

The Board notes that the submission of this evidence does not show that appellant was 

unable to work as a sales solution team member because Dr. Yusufji’s various opinions about her

ability to drive are of limited probative value due to their lack of medical rationale. Dr. Yusufji 

did not provide any explanation of why he recommended such restrictions on the amount of time 

she could spend driving. He did not explain how specific findings on physical examination or 

 

25 See Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443, 449-50 (1987); Naomi Lilly, 10 ECAB 560, 573 (1957).

26 The Board notes that, in addition to the fact that Dr. Doman expressly indicated that appellant could work as a 

sales solution team member, the specific work restrictions recommended by him would allow her to work in that 

position.

27 See supra note 21. As noted, OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a left shoulder strain in 2002. The Board 

notes that there is no indication in the record that she had problems with her left shoulder around the time the position 

of sales solution team member was offered in April 2015 or at any point thereafter.

28 See supra note 16.
11

diagnostic testing supported his opinion. The Board has held that a medical report is of limited 

probative value on a given medical issue if it contains a medical opinion which is unsupported by 

medical rationale.29 In addition, the Board notes that, with respect to Dr. Yusufji’s opinion that 

appellant could not sit for more than two hours at a time, it should be noted that the position of sales 

solution team member allowed her to alternate between sitting and standing as necessary.30

In a May 14, 2015 note, Dr. Friedman noted that appellant should not “work at all” until 

her follow-up appointment on June 30, 2015. However, this note is of limited probative value on 

the relevant issue of the present case because he did not provide any medical rationale for his 

conclusion that she could not perform any work. As noted above, the Board has held that an 

opinion lacking adequate medical rationale is of limited probative value.31 

The Board finds that OWCP complied with its procedural requirements prior to terminating 

appellant’s compensation, including providing her with an opportunity to accept the position of 

sales solution team member offered by the employing establishment after informing her that her

reasons for initially refusing the position were not valid.32

For these reasons, OWCP properly terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss and 

schedule award compensation, effective October 2, 2015, because she refused an offer of suitable 

work.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss and 

schedule award compensation, effective October 2, 2015, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2), for 

refusing an offer of suitable work.

 

29 C.M., Docket No. 14-0088 (issued April 18, 2014).

30 Moreover, Dr. Yusufji did not provide any medical rationale in support of his opinion that appellant needed 10-

to 15-minute breaks between sitting periods of two hours.

31 See id. It is noted that appellant retired from the employing establishment in May 2015. However, OWCP 

procedures and Board case law provide that retirement is not a valid reason for refusing an offer of suitable work. See 

supra note 20 at Chapter 2.814.5c(4) (June 2013); Stephen R. Lubin, 43 ECAB 564 (1992).

32 See generally Maggie L. Moore, 42 ECAB 484 (1991); reaff’d on recon., 43 ECAB 818 (1992).
12

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 25, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 3, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board