United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.J., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, New Orleans, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0639 

Issued: September 1, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Debra Hauser, 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 January 30, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 27, 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 met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective November 13, 2016, because the accepted lumbar 

sprain and neck sprain had resolved with no residuals. 

On appeal counsel asserts that the employment injury caused additional conditions. She 

questioned whether the referee physician was properly selected. Counsel also maintained that 

the statement of accepted facts (SOAF) was insufficient and that the referee’s report was 

speculative and of insufficient rationale to meet OWCP’s burden. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. The facts as presented in the Board’s 

prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts of the prior appeals are 

set forth below. 

On April 27, 2005 appellant, a 59-year-old nurse, sustained employment-related lumbar 

and neck strains while lifting a patient. She received compensation for temporary total disability 

on the periodic rolls. Appellant retired effective June 30, 2006 and on July 20, 2006 received a 

voluntary separation incentive payment in the amount of $25,000.00, with a net payment of 

$16,760.01. 

Appellant returned to a modified position as a clerk in the appointment center at the 

employing establishment on December 5, 2011. On January 17, 2012 OWCP reduced her 

compensation to reflect her earnings. On February 12, 2012 appellant began a position as a 

modified utilization review nurse.3

 

On March 2, 2012 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) claiming four 

hours of wage loss for a physician visit, and four hours of leave without pay on 

February 29, 2012. On March 15, 2012 she filed additional claims for compensation for the 

period March 1 to 29, 2012, indicating that she stopped work on her physician’s orders. 

In a March 15, 2012 decision, OWCP found that appellant’s earnings as a nurse, 

beginning February 12, 2012, fairly and reasonably represented her wage-earning capacity with 

zero loss. In an April 27, 2012 decision, it found that her actual earnings as an appointment clerk 

for the period December 5, 2011 to February 12, 2012 fairly and reasonably represented her 

wage-earning capacity and reduced her compensation, effective December 5, 2011, when she 

 3

 Both positions were identified as transitional assignments with sedentary duties consisting of data entry, 

scanning and answering telephones. The specific duties were different including that in the clerk position appellant 

was responsible for scheduling, canceling and rescheduling patient appointments, and in the nurse position she was 

to review clinical data and documentation in the computerized patient record system. The annual salary for the clerk 

position was $36,384.00 and for the nursing position $78,212.00. 
3

assumed the position. OWCP determined that appellant’s wage-earning capacity was 42 

percent.4 

On August 6, 2012 appellant filed a recurrence claim (Form CA-2a). She indicated that 

her modified duties of sitting and typing data into a computer for eight hours a day caused 

excruciating pain in her neck, shoulders, low back, and legs, and that the pain became so severe 

on February 28, 2012 that she stopped work. Appellant resigned from the employing 

establishment effective March 12, 2012, stating that it was for medical reasons. She began 

treatment with Dr. Patrick H. Waring, Board-certified in anesthesiology and pain medicine. 

In a February 21, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim, finding that 

the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her accepted conditions had 

worsened. On April 30, 2013 counsel appealed the February 21, 2013 decision to the Board. 

She continued to submit reports from Dr. Waring who diagnosed lumbar disc disease, lumbar 

spondylosis, and lumbar disc displacement. 

By order dated November 4, 2013, the Board found that OWCP should have adjudicated 

appellant’s recurrence claim beginning February 28, 2012 under the standard of whether she had 

established that the March 15, 2012 loss of wage-earning capacity (LWEC) determination should 

be modified. The Board remanded the case to OWCP for proper adjudication, to be followed by 

an appropriate merit decision to preserve her appeal rights.5 

In a February 26, 2014 decision, OWCP found that appellant had not met her burden of 

proof to modify the LWEC decision. In an August 21, 2014 decision, the Board found that, as 

she had not been performing the utilization review nurse position for 60 days when OWCP 

issued the March 15, 2012 decision, the decision was erroneous on its face. Accordingly, the 

Board reversed the March 15, 2012 LWEC decision and remanded the case for proper 

adjudication of appellant’s claims for wage loss beginning March 1, 2012.6 

Subsequent to the Board’s August 21, 2014 decision, appellant elected FECA 

compensation, effective March 1, 2012. She was paid wage-loss compensation retroactive to 

March 1, 2012 and was placed on the periodic compensation rolls. 

Medical evidence relevant to the issue in this case includes a July 29, 2005 magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine that was unremarkable except for 

straightening of the normal lordotic posture which could be due to muscle spasm or positioning. 

A lumbar spine MRI scan of that day revealed a herniation at L5-S1 which appeared less 

 4

 OWCP procedures in effect at the time OWCP issued the wage-earning capacity determination provided that 

OWCP could make a retroactive wage-earning capacity determination if the claimant worked in the position for at 

least 60 days, the position fairly and reasonably represented his or her wage-earning capacity, and the work stoppage 

did not occur because of any change in his injury-related condition affecting the ability to work. Federal (FECA) 

Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reemployment: Determining Wage-Earning Capacity, Chapter 2.814.7(a) 

(July 1997); Selden H. Swartz, 55 ECAB 272 (2004). 

5

 Docket No. 13-1261 (issued November 4, 2013). On December 3, 2013 the Board issued an erratum, noting 

that appellant was represented by counsel. 

6

 Docket No. 14-0970 (issued August 21, 2014). 
4

pronounced than on a previous 2001 examination, lumbar facet arthrosis, and subtle bulging at 

L4-5.7 A July 2, 2008 cervical spine MRI scan showed straightening of the cervical lordosis 

with subtle scoliosis and disc pathology at C3-4 and C4-5 without neurocompression. A lumbar 

spine MRI scan that day demonstrated mild facet disease without neurocompression on 

descending or exiting nerve roots. A March 3, 2015 MRI scan of the lumbar spine demonstrated 

degenerative changes in combination with disc and facet pathology, and bilateral renal cysts. 

In reports dated August 27, 2014 and March 16, 2015, Dr. Waring noted appellant’s 

complaint of back pain, provided physical examination findings, and diagnosed cervical 

spondylosis without myelopathy, thoraco-lumbosacral radiculitis, lumbosacral spondylosis 

without myelopathy, lumbar disc displacement without myelopathy, and localized osteoarthrosis 

in the pelvic region. He advised that she was totally disabled due to spinal disability and 

provided cervical and lumbar physical restrictions. 

In July 2015, OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Simon Finger, an orthopedic surgeon, for a 

second opinion. In an August 7, 2015 report, Dr. Finger noted the history of injury, his review 

of the medical record including MRI scan findings and her complaint of chronic neck, hip, and 

radiating back pain. His examination demonstrated that appellant could heel and toe walk and 

could minimally squat. Straight leg raises were negative. Lower extremity and cervical spine 

range of motion was full. Lumbar spine range of motion was somewhat limited. Dr. Finger 

opined that, while appellant was injured on April 27, 2005 and could have temporarily 

aggravated preexisting lumbar degenerative disc disease on April 27, 2005, the accepted 

conditions had resolved, and her degenerative spine condition was age related. He indicated that 

she needed no further orthopedic care for the work-related conditions and was at maximum 

medical improvement regarding the accepted conditions. 

On August 11, 2015 Dr. Joseph Francis Sejud, an emergency medicine specialist, noted 

appellant’s report of the employment injury, the accepted conditions of cervical and lumbar 

strains, and that she had been unable to work since and had retired. He reported limited range of 

motion of the neck and lumbar spine with no lumbar paraspinal tenderness or muscle spasm 

found on examination. 

In a September 24, 2015 report, Dr. Joseph B. Boucree, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted the history of injury and appellant’s complaint of radiating neck and back pain 

which had recently worsened. Examination demonstrated paraspinal cervical and lumbar 

tenderness with moderate restriction of cervical and lumbar spine range of motion. Sensory was 

intact to light touch and pinprick through the upper and lower extremities. Right shoulder 

strength was limited, and there was bilateral trochanteric tenderness present on hip examination. 

Straight leg raising produced bilateral back pain, and gait was slightly antalgic. Dr. Boucree 

reviewed x-ray and MRI scan reports. He diagnosed degenerative disc disease of the cervical 

and lumbar spines, osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine with radiculopathy, bilateral lumbar 

radiculopathy, hip and shoulder bursitis, arthropathy of lumbar facet joint, herniated lumbar 

intervertebral disc, and neural foraminal stenosis of the lumbar spine. 

 7

 A lumbar spine MRI scan dated in 2001 is not found in the case record before the Board. 
5

Dr. Sejud again saw appellant on September 22, 2015. He noted his review of 

Dr. Finger’s report and disagreed with his findings. Dr. Sejud advised that, based on his two 

examinations, appellant had considerable disability which would preclude her from full-time 

employment. He reported lumbar paraspinal tenderness and decreased cervical and lumbar range 

of motion on examination. Dr. Sejud opined that the employment injury was clearly more 

extensive than a lumbar strain. He noted MRI scan findings of a disc herniation and advised that 

appellant required continued orthopedic care. On October 1, 2015 appellant was seen by 

Dr. Jason Pellegrin, a chiropractor, for physical therapy. Dr. Pellegrin diagnosed lumbar 

sprain/strain. 

A November 11, 2015 MRI scan of the cervical spine demonstrated minimal disc bulges 

with no spinal canal narrowing or significant foraminal narrowing. On November 16, 2015 

Dr. Boucree performed an epidural steroid injection. In treatment notes dated January 7 to 

May 12, 2016, he noted review of the November 11, 2015 MRI scan study,8

 reiterated his 

diagnoses, and indicated that appellant had marginal improvement from the steroid injection. 

Physical examination demonstrated cervical and lumbar tenderness with mild restriction of 

cervical and moderate restriction of lumbar spine range of motion.9 

OWCP determined that a conflict in medical evidence had been created between 

Dr. Waring and Dr. Finger regarding appellant’s work capabilities, and in June 2016 referred her 

to Dr. Gordon Nutik, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial evaluation.10 

In a July 21, 2016 report, Dr. Nutik noted the history of injury, his review of the medical 

record including diagnostic studies, appellant’s description of her medical care, and her 

complaints of radiating neck, back, and shoulder pain. His x-ray of the cervical spine that day 

showed no fractures or hypertrophic changes, normal cervical lordosis and patent foramina. Disc 

heights were maintained. X-ray of the lumbosacral spine showed no fractures with normal 

lumbar lordosis. Disc heights were maintained. Degenerative facet changes were seen at L4-5 

and L5-S1 with sclerotic bone changes. Sacroiliac joints and hip joints were patent. 

Osteophytes were present about the right and left acetabulum. Examination of the neck revealed 

a normal cervical lordosis. Dr. Nutik found no pain to palpation about the cervical spine, 

trapezius, or sternomastoid muscles, and there was no spasm of the neck muscles. Neurologic 

examination of the arms revealed normal sensation to light touch and equal muscle testing. No 

atrophy was present. Speed test and impingement sign were negative. Tinel’s test was negative 

at the elbows and wrists. Right wrist examination demonstrated pain about the volar aspect with 

 8

 Dr. Boucree also referenced a November 11, 2015 electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity study that is 

not found in the case record before the Board. 

9

 By decision dated February 22, 2016, OWCP found that an overpayment of compensation in the amount of 

$11,792.76 had been created because appellant received FECA compensation and Social Security Administration 

retirement benefits concurrently for the period April 12, 2012 through May 3, 2016. Appellant repaid the 

overpayment in full. 

10 The record contains an OWCP ME023 and bypass logs. OWCP had initially referred appellant to Dr. Richard 

Meyer, also Board-certified in orthopedic surgery. The bypass logs found in the record document the reasons 

physicians were bypassed until, first, Dr. Meyer was selected and, second, the selection of Dr. Nutik. Dr. Meyer 

was bypassed because he wished to see medical records before an appointment could be made. 
6

no swelling present. Dr. Nutik found no pain to palpation about the thoracic spine or 

paravertebral muscles. Low back examination revealed normal lumbar lordosis with pain to 

palpation laterally to the right hip, and no pain to palpation about the lumbar spine, paravertebral, 

or gluteal muscles, and no spasm of the back muscles. Neurologic examination of the legs 

showed decreased sensation to light touch about the left great toe with equal muscle power 

present, and no right or calf atrophy. The right hip had localized pain. There was no pain to 

palpation about the feet. Dr. Nutik noted that review of records indicated that appellant had a 

prior history of low back complaints before the April 27, 2005 injury, as shown by lumbar spine 

MRI scans in 2001 and 2002 which revealed a disc herniation at L5-S1. He opined that, based 

on the history and review of records, she had soft tissue strains about the neck and lower back 

related to the April 27, 2005 injury which should have resolved and were not actively 

aggravating at the time of his examination. Dr. Nutik advised that, while it was possible that 

there may have been a temporary aggravation of underlying nonspecific degenerative changes 

about the neck and lower back caused by the April 27, 2005 work injury, these should have 

resolved, noting documentation for underlying disc abnormality at the L5-S1 that preexisted the 

April 27, 2005 injury. He noted that appellant had not worked since 2012 and as such was 

deconditioned. Thus, appellant had a poor prognosis for return to gainful activity. Dr. Nutik 

found no objective clinical findings that suggested additional restriction from those found on a 

2011 functional capacity evaluation, which recommended a sedentary work, which she could 

presently perform. 

On September 1, 2016 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss and medical 

benefits. It found that Dr. Nutik’s opinion that she no longer had disability or residuals due to 

the accepted conditions constituted the weight of the medical evidence. 

Appellant, through counsel, disagreed with the proposed termination. Counsel 

questioned whether Dr. Nutik was properly selected, that the SOAF did not contain a discussion 

of medical evidence subsequent to 2011, and maintained that Dr. Nutik’s opinion was conclusive 

and lacked sufficient rationale to meet OWCP’s burden of proof. She further asserted that the 

medical evidence showed not only that appellant continued to suffer residuals and disability due 

to the work injury, but that the evidence was sufficient to warrant a formal upgrade of 

employment-related conditions. 

Dr. Boucree continued to treat appellant. He performed lumbar epidural steroid 

injections on June 17 and August 8 and 29, 2016. 

In a supplemental report, dated October 17, 2016, Dr. Nutik advised that appellant’s soft 

tissue injuries involving the neck and lower back caused by the April 27, 2005 employment 

injury should have resolved, noting that she had a prior chronic lower back problem as 

documented by MRI scans, and that the April 27, 2005 injuries were superimposed on this 

preexisting condition and should have resolved to where she was at her preexisting condition 

where she had chronic low back symptoms. 

By decision dated October 27, 2016, OWCP found that the weight of the medical 

evidence rested with the referee opinion of Dr. Nutik, and finalized the termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits. 
7

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

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

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

employment.11 OWCP’s burden of proof in terminating compensation includes the necessity of 

furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical 

background.12 

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.13 The implementing regulations 

provides 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.14 When there exist 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.15 

ANALYSIS 

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective November 13, 2016. The accepted conditions in 

this case are lumbar and neck sprains. Following retirement in 2006, appellant briefly returned 

to work in December 2011, continuing until she stopped on February 28, 2012. Based on the 

Board’s August 21, 2014 decision,16 she received wage-loss compensation retroactive to 

March 1, 2012 and was placed on the periodic compensation rolls. 

OWCP determined that a conflict in medical evidence had been created between the 

opinions of Dr. Waring, an attending pain management specialist, and Dr. Finger, an OWCP 

referral orthopedic surgeon, regarding appellant’s work capabilities. It referred her, along with a 

SOAF, a set of questions, and the medical record, to Dr. Nutik, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, for an impartial evaluation. 

 11 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 

12 Id.

13 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see Y.A., 59 ECAB 701 (2008). 

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.321. 

15 V.G., 59 ECAB 635 (2008). 

16 Supra note 6. 
8

In a July 21, 2016 report, Dr. Nutik noted the history of injury, his review of the medical 

record including diagnostic studies, appellant’s description of her medical care, and her 

complaints of radiating neck and back, and shoulder pain. X-rays of the cervical and 

lumbosacral spine showed no fractures with degenerative facet changes seen at L4-5 and L5-S1. 

Dr. Nutik found no pain to palpation about the cervical spine, trapezius, or sternomastoid 

muscles, and there was no spasm of the neck muscles. Neurologic examination of the arms 

revealed normal sensation to light touch, equal muscle testing, and no atrophy. Dr. Nutik found 

no pain to palpation about the thoracic spine or paravertebral muscles. Examination of the low 

back revealed normal lumbar lordosis with pain to palpation laterally to the right hip, and no pain 

to palpation about the lumbar spine, paravertebral, or gluteal muscles, and no spasm of the back 

muscles. Neurologic examination of the legs showed decreased sensation to light touch about 

the left great toe with equal muscle power present, and no right or calf atrophy. Localized right 

hip pain was present. Dr. Nutik advised that appellant had a prior history of low back complaints 

before the April 27, 2005 injury, noting that lumbar MRI scans in 2001 and 2002 revealed a disc 

herniation at L5-S1. He opined that, based on the history and review of records, appellant 

sustained soft tissue strains about the neck and lower back related to the April 27, 2005 injury 

which were not actively aggravating at the time of his examination. Dr. Nutik advised that, 

while it was possible that there may have been a temporary aggravation of underlying 

nonspecific degenerative changes of the neck and lower back caused by the April 27, 2005 work 

injury, these should have resolved, noting documentation for underlying disc abnormality at the 

L5-S1 that preexisted the April 27, 2005 injury. He found no objective clinical findings to 

suggest that appellant had restrictions greater than those found on a 2011 functional capacity 

evaluation which recommended a sedentary level of work, which she could perform at present. 

In a supplemental report dated October 17, 2016, Dr. Nutik advised that her soft tissue injuries 

involving the neck and lower back caused by the April 27, 2005 employment injury should have 

resolved to her preexisting chronic low back symptoms. 

The Board finds that Dr. Nutik provided a comprehensive, well-rationalized opinion in 

which he advised that, while it was possible that there may have been a temporary aggravation of 

underlying degenerative changes about the neck and lower back caused by the April 27, 2005 

employment injury, these should had resolved and were not actively aggravating at the time of 

his examination. Dr. Nutik noted documentation of preexisting disc abnormality at the L5-S1. 

He found no basis on which to attribute any disability or continuing residuals to the accepted 

conditions. Dr. Nutik’s opinion is therefore entitled to the special weight accorded an impartial 

examiner and constitutes the weight of the medical evidence.17 

The medical evidence appellant submitted prior to the termination was insufficient to 

overcome the special weight accorded Dr. Nutik. In reports dated July 7 and August 12, 2016, 

Dr. Boucree merely described her complaints, reported MRI scan findings, and discussed his 

examinations. He also provided lumbar epidural steroid injections and diagnosed lumbar 

radiculopathy. Dr. Boucree did not discuss the accepted conditions or provide a cause of the 

diagnosed condition. 

 17 See Sharyn D. Bannick, 54 ECAB 537 (2003). 
9

The Board therefore concludes that Dr. Nutik’s opinion that appellant had recovered from 

the accepted lumbar and neck sprains is entitled to the special weight accorded an impartial 

medical examiner,18 and the additional medical evidence submitted is insufficient to overcome 

the weight accorded him as an impartial medical specialist regarding whether appellant had 

residuals of the accepted conditions. Moreover, none of the diagnoses of Dr. Waring, 

Dr. Boucree, or Dr. Sejud have been accepted.19 OWCP therefore properly terminated 

appellant’s compensation effective November 13, 2016.20

On appeal counsel questions whether Dr. Nutik was properly selected. The record 

contains sufficient documentation to support that Dr. Nutik was properly selected as impartial 

medical examiner. As noted,21 the record contains an OWCP ME023 and bypass logs. The 

bypass logs found in the record document the reasons physicians were bypassed until Dr. Nutik 

was selected. Section 3-500 of OWCP procedures provides guidance for selecting impartial 

physicians.22 OWCP followed these procedures in this case and properly selected Dr. Nutik as 

impartial medical examiner.23

Counsel also asserted on appeal that the SOAF was incomplete as it did not list medical 

evidence subsequent to 2011. In securing the opinion of a medical specialist, Section 2.809.3 of 

OWCP procedures provides that a SOAF and development questions are to be prepared by the 

claims examiner for use by the physician.24 The claims examiner is required to set forth the 

relevant facts of the case, including the employee’s date of injury, age, job held when injured, the 

mechanism of the injury, and any conditions claimed or accepted by OWCP.25 The SOAF 

provided Dr. Nutik contained all the required information. Moreover, Dr. Nutik was provided 

with a complete copy of appellant’s case record. The Board finds that there was no error in the 

SOAF.26

Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits based on the opinion of the impartial examiner, Dr. Nutik. 

 18 Id. 

19 The Board notes that OWCP has not rendered a final decision regarding whether additional conditions should 

be accepted. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing final decisions of OWCP issued within 180 days of 

filing an appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(e); see J.B., Docket No. 09-2191 (issued May 14, 2010). 

20 Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001). 

21 Supra note 10. 

22 Supra note 4 at Part 3 -- Medical, OWCP Directed Medical Examinations, Chapter 3.500 (May 2013). 

23 Id.; J.S., Docket No. 16-1097 (issued December 5, 2016). 

24 Supra note 4 at Part 2 -- Claims, Statement of Accepted Facts, Chapter 2.809.3 (September 2009). 

25 Id.; see A.C., Docket No. 09-0389 (issued October 7, 2009). 

26 J.S., supra note 23. 
10

CONCLUSION 

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective November 13, 2016. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 27, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 1, 2017 

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