United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Portland, OR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0817

Issued: April 26, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

John Eiler Goodwin, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 27, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a

November 16, 2016 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 

 

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 Appellant timely requested oral argument before the Board. By order dated January 29, 2018, the Board exercised 

its discretion pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a) and denied the request finding that the arguments on appeal could 

adequately be addressed based on the case record. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 17-0817 

(issued January 29, 2018). 
2

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of the claim.4

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP met its burden of proof to reduce appellant’s compensation

based on its determination that the constructed position of dispatcher, security services represented 

his wage-earning capacity. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.5 The facts of the case as presented in the 

Board’s prior order are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows. 

On August 3, 2005 appellant, then a 56-year-old transportation security screener, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on August 1, 2005, he experienced low back 

pain while lifting bags in performance of his federal employment duties. OWCP accepted the 

claim for lumbosacral sprain/strain. It subsequently expanded acceptance of the claim to include 

lumbosacral intervertebral disc degeneration and derangement of the posterior horn of the right 

medial meniscus. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation and medical benefits on the 

supplemental rolls commencing October 15, 2005 and on the periodic rolls as of 

January 22, 2006.6 

In 2012, appellant was referred for vocational rehabilitation services. Based on his 

experience, education, medical restrictions, and a labor market survey, the rehabilitation counselor 

determined that appellant was capable of earning wages as a dispatcher, radio (emergency) a 

position listed in the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and bearing 

the DOT #379.362.010. Although appellant participated in a job search, the efforts did not result 

in job placement. By decision dated May 2, 2012, OWCP reduced his compensation based on the 

constructed position of dispatcher, radio (emergency). However, by decision dated July 18, 2012, 

an OWCP hearing representative set aside the May 2, 2012 decision and remanded the case for 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 The record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its November 16, 2016 decision. 

The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1). Therefore, the Board is precluded from considering this evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.

5 Order Granting Motion for Remand and Cancelling Oral Argument, Docket No. 14-1024 (issued 

August 26, 2014). 

6 Appellant also has an accepted claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome under OWCP File No. xxxxxx025 which 

is not part of the combined case record. He underwent OWCP-approved right carpal tunnel release on October 27, 

2008 and left carpal tunnel release February 23, 2009. Appellant subsequently underwent carpal tunnel releases on 

December 16, 2013 for the right side and January 29, 2014 for the left side. In an August 12, 2014 report, Dr. Marc 

Suffis, Board-certified in emergency medicine and a specialist in occupational medicine, opined that appellant had 

reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) for his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and performed an impairment 

examination. OWCP administratively combined the present current claim, File No. xxxxxx299, with File Nos. 

xxxxxx106, xxxxxx183, and xxxxxx243, which had been accepted for cervical and/or lumbar strains, and subsequent 

aggravation. OWCP File No. xxxxxx243 was designated as the master file.
3

further development. Compensation for total disability was reinstated and further development 

with vocational rehabilitation services was obtained. 

By decision dated December 19, 2012, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation based on 

the constructed position of ambulance dispatcher, Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 43-

5031,

7 which was the equivalent to DOT #379.362-010. However, on March 5, 2013, an OWCP 

hearing representative set aside the December 19, 2012 decision and remanded the case for further 

development. Compensation for total disability was reinstated and further development with 

vocational rehabilitation services was obtained. 

By decision dated July 11, 2013, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation based on the 

constructed position of customer service representative, DOT # 239.362-014. By decision dated 

January 10, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s July 11, 2013 decision.

On March 31, 2014 appellant appealed to the Board. The Board issued an Order Granting 

Motion for Remand and Cancelling Oral Argument on August 26, 2014.

8

 In an August 6, 2014 

motion, the Director of OWCP had requested that the Board remand the case, acknowledging that 

OWCP had not properly supported its finding that the selected position was medically suitable. 

The Director also noted that there was an issue with regard to the wage rate used for the selected 

position. The Board granted the Director’s motion, set aside OWCP’s January 10, 2014 decision,

and remanded the case for additional development to be followed by a de novo decision. 

On remand, OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with Dr. Louis F. 

Kretschmer, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to determine appellant’s disability status. The 

updated statement of accepted facts (SOAF) noted appellant’s accepted work-related conditions 

including the accepted bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome under OWCP File No. xxxxxx025. 

In a December 22, 2014 report, Dr. Kretschmer opined that appellant was partially disabled 

as a result of the multiple level degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and was able to work 

with a lifting restriction of no greater than 40 pounds on a repetitive basis. In his December 22, 

2014 work capacity evaluation, Form OWCP-5c, he indicated that appellant’s accepted conditions 

were at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and that appellant could perform his date-ofinjury position. In a January 8, 2015

9

corrected Form OWCP-5c, Dr. Kretschmer indicated that 

appellant was not capable of performing his usual job, but could work with permanent restrictions 

of no repetitive lifting over 40 pounds.

Following Dr. Kretschmer’s examination, OWCP referred appellant’s file to vocational 

rehabilitation services for updated Labor Market Surveys (Form CA-66) and wage information for 

 

7 The SOC is derived from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET), which was developed under the 

sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. The DOT is replaced by the 

O*NOET Database as a new system of occupational information that reflects current occupations in both government 

and non-government positions.

8 Supra note 5. 

9 The form notes a date of January 8, 2014. However, this appears to be a typographical error as Dr. Kretschmer’s 

second opinion examination was in December 2014
4

the positions of receptionist, customer service representative and dispatcher, security services, 

which were previously identified as vocationally appropriate for appellant. 

On February 6, 2015 the vocational rehabilitation counselor provided updated CA-66

forms for the identified positions which were identified in the sedentary to light-duty categories. 

For the position of dispatcher, security services (DOT # 372.167-010), the physical demand was 

listed as light duty, which required frequent lifting of 10 pounds and occasional lifting of no greater 

than 20 pounds, and involved frequent reaching, handling, fingering activities from 1/3 to 2/3 of 

the time. The position involved dispatching security personnel to the client’s site for private, 

protective-service. The duties of the position required reading posted orders to ascertain personnel 

requirements and notifying guards of work assignments and changes in instructions by telephone. 

The position also required posting assignment information on a dispatch board, compiling and 

recording data, issuing regular and special equipment to guards, and may include interviewing

applicants and recommending hiring of guards. 

The vocational rehabilitation counselor noted that appellant met the specific vocational 

preparation requirement of one to two years as he had extensive prior experience and skill in related 

security positions and would be entering the position as a skilled employee.

10

 The vocational 

rehabilitation counselor indicated that King County was used to determine the average annual 

wage of $46,906.00 annually ($22.07 per hour) and job availability, which demonstrated that the 

job was being performed in sufficient numbers so as to make it reasonably available to appellant 

within his commuting area. The rehabilitation specialist further opined that, given appellant’s 

extensive prior experience and skill in related security positions, he would be capable of 

reemployment as a skilled employee capable of earning above entry level wages. The specialist 

further opined that the dispatcher, security services position was within his physical limitation of 

lifting no more than 40 pounds and that contact with employing establishments revealed that the 

physical requirements of the position more appropriately matched that of a sedentary limitation. 

In a February 23, 2015 report, Dr. Suffis indicated that appellant’s chronic low back pain 

with degenerative disc disease had been at MMI for a while and that there had been no change in 

his condition. He noted that appellant had previous permanent restrictions.

On April 15, 2015 OWCP requested clarification from Dr. Kretschmer. It specifically

asked him to confirm that the conditions of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right knee 

derangement of posterior horn of medial meniscus, as outlined as accepted work-related conditions 

in the SOAF, were also considered in determining appellant’s work-related disability. 

On June 10, 2015 Dr. Kretschmer reexamined appellant. In a report of the same date, he 

opined that all of appellant’s work-related accepted conditions in OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx243,

xxxxxx813, xxxxxx106, and xxxxxx0245 had resolved and were no longer disabling. 

Dr. Kretschmer noted that, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx025, Dr. Suffis found that appellant had 

reached MMI for the accepted bilateral carpal tunnel condition on December 20, 2006. He

 

10 The vocational rehabilitation counselor had found that, through his work as an airline security representative and 

supervisor, appellant had met the necessary skills. He had demonstrated the ability to use a computer for his regular 

job tasks and thus met the computer skill requirement. The counselor additionally had worked in highly stressful 

environments, which was a required temperament for radio (emergency) dispatcher. 
5

reviewed the positions of dispatcher, security services and customer service representative and 

opined that, taking into account all claims and conditions accepted, appellant was capable of 

performing those positions without specific restrictions. In a June 24, 2015 work capacity 

evaluation form (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Kretschmer opined that appellant had reached MMI and 

was capable of returning to his usual job. He noted that this included all claims and conditions 

accepted.

In a July 9, 2015 report, Dr. Kretschmer noted that the accepted medial meniscal tear, 

degenerative in nature, had reached a steady state and no further treatment was indicated as of 

June 10, 2015, the date of his examination. He reiterated that he had reviewed the positions of 

dispatcher, security services, and customer service representative and opined that, taking into 

account all claims and conditions accepted, appellant was capable of performing those positions 

without restrictions. 

On July 30, 2015 the vocational rehabilitation counselor provided updated labor market 

data for the positions of dispatcher, security services and customer service representative. She 

indicated that the wage information for the dispatcher position did not include police, fire, and 

emergency. In an August 18, 2015 report and on the July 30, 2015 Form CA-66, the vocational 

rehabilitation counselor opined that based on appellant’s extensive prior experience and skill in 

related security positions, appellant was qualified to enter the dispatcher, security services position 

as a skilled employee capable of earning average wage of $17.36 per hour or $694.40 per week.11

On September 10, 2015 OWCP issued a notice of proposed reduction of appellant’s 

compensation, finding that he was partially disabled from work and that the position of dispatcher, 

security services (DOT # 372.167-010) was medically and vocationally consistent with his medical 

limitations and work experience. It found that he was capable of earning wages at the rate of 

$694.40 per week as a dispatcher, security services and that the position was reasonably available 

within his commuting area. OWCP provided an attachment detailing the application of the 

Shadrick formula.12 Appellant was provided 30 days to submit evidence and argument challenging 

the proposed action. 

In a September 17, 2015 report, Dr. Suffis noted that, while appellant was at MMI for his 

back conditions, appellant could not lift 40 pounds on a regular basis or return to full duty in his 

date-of-injury position. In a September 17, 2015 Form OWCP-5c, he opined that appellant could 

return to work with restrictions of sitting no more than 4 hours, walking and standing no more than 

2 hours, lifting no more than 2 hours, repetitive movements of the wrists for no more than 2 hours, 

and pushing and pulling no more than 30 minutes, a 10-pound weight restriction was also noted.

An August 13, 2015 x-ray report of the bilateral knees was submitted. This indicated that 

the right knee had no changes from the prior study of July 15, 2010, but the degree of degenerative 

joint disease in the left knee was worse than when compared to a prior study of July 15, 2010. 

 

11 On August 21, 2015 the vocational rehabilitation specialist indicated that the dispatch wage was the average wage 

of all the employing establishment contacts and was the only wage that could be supported for security dispatchers. 

12 Albert C. Shadrick, 5 ECAB 376 (1953).
6

On November 2, 2015 OWCP requested that Dr. Suffis review the job classifications for 

the dispatcher, security service and customer service representative positions and determine 

whether, considering the whole person, appellant was able to perform the identified positions. On 

November 9, 2015

13 Dr. Suffis opined that the positions of both dispatcher, security service and 

customer service representative would be within appellant’s physical capabilities so long as 

appellant was allowed to have regular position changes and the sitting, standing and walking 

requirements listed on his OWCP-5c form were maintained. A copy of his September 17, 2015 

Form OWCP-5c was provided.

In a November 16, 2015 report, Dr. Suffis indicated that there was no neurological basis 

for surgical intervention at the present time for appellant’s degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine, 

with probable spinal stenosis. 

By decision dated December 16, 2015, OWCP finalized the notice of proposed reduction 

and reduced appellant’s compensation, effective that date, for the reason that the position of 

dispatcher, security services was medically and vocationally suitable, was reasonably available 

within his commuting area, and represented his wage-earning capacity.

On January 13, 2016 OWCP set aside the December 16, 2015 decision due to a 

typographical error when computing the actual entitlement following the reduction. Accordingly, 

it reissued a notice of proposed reduction based on the position of dispatcher, security services.14 

Appellant was provided 30 days to submit evidence and argument challenging the proposed action. 

No response was received within the time allotted. 

By decision dated February 22, 2016, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation, effective 

January 9, 2016, based on his capacity to earn wages as a dispatcher, security services. It found 

that the evidence of record showed that he was vocationally and physically capable of working as 

a dispatcher, security services. OWCP applied the Shadrick formula to adjust appellant’s

compensation.

On March 14, 2016 OWCP received appellant’s March 10, 2016 request for a hearing 

before an OWCP hearing representative. In a March 12, 2016 letter, counsel argued that the 

selected position of dispatcher, security services required appellant to finger objects frequently 

which contradicted Dr. Suffis’ September 17, 2015 restrictions of no repetitive wrists movements 

for more than two hours in an eight-hour day. In support of his argument, counsel cited to OWCP’s 

Federal (FECA) Procedural Manual Chapter 2.813, Exhibit 1: Physical Demand Definitions, for 

the definition of “repetitive movements of the wrists (fingering)” and “frequently.”

15

 He indicated 

 

13 The letter is dated November 9, 2014. However, this appears to be a typographical error as Dr. Suffis 

electronically signed the letter on November 10, 2015.

14 On January 20, 2016 OWCP received appellant’s request for an oral hearing of its December 16, 2015 decision 

before an OWCP hearing representative. On February 1, 2016 OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review found that 

the case not in posture for a hearing as no final decision had been made on the issue upon which the appeal was 

requested.

15 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Chapter 2.813 

(February 2011). 
7

that repetitive movements involved fingering and since the selected position involved frequent 

fingering for 1/3 to 2/3 of the time, by definition, that amounted to a maximum of 5 hours and 20 

minutes in an 8-hour day. 

In a July 21, 2016 report, Dr. Suffis continued to relate that appellant was at MMI for his 

lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and that he would continue to see him on an as-needed 

basis for administrative needs. 

Chiropractic reports from May 13 through July 12, 2016 were also provided. 

An oral hearing was held on October 6, 2016. Counsel reiterated his arguments that the

selected position was not suitable as it did not meet Dr. Suffis’ work restriction against repetitive 

wrist movements more than two hours a day.

By decision dated November 16, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed 

OWCP’s February 22, 2016 reduction of appellant’s compensation based on his capacity to earn 

wages as a dispatcher, security services. The hearing representative found that Dr. Suffis’

restriction against repetitive wrist movements more than two hours per day did not restrict 

appellant from using his fingers more than two hours per day. The hearing representative 

concluded that fingering movements were distinguishable from wrist movements. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Once OWCP has made a determination that a claimant is totally disabled from work as a 

result of an employment injury and pays compensation benefits, it has the burden of justifying a 

subsequent reduction of benefits.16 Under section 8115(a), wage-earning capacity is determined 

by the actual wages received by an employee if the earnings fairly and reasonably represent his or 

her wage-earning capacity. If the actual earnings do not fairly and reasonably represent his or her 

wage-earning capacity, or if the employee has no actual earnings, his or her wage-earning capacity 

is determined with due regard to the nature of the injury, the degree of physical impairment, his or 

her usual employment, age, qualifications for other employment, the availability of suitable 

employment, and other factors or circumstances which may affect wage-earning capacity in his or 

her disabled condition.17

In determining an employee’s wage-earning capacity based on a position deemed suitable, 

but not actually held, OWCP must consider the degree of physical impairment, including 

impairments resulting from both injury-related and preexisting conditions, but not impairments 

resulting from postinjury or subsequently-acquired conditions. Any incapacity to perform the 

duties of the selected position resulting from subsequently-acquired conditions is immaterial to the 

loss of wage-earning capacity that can be attributed to the accepted employment injury and for 

which appellant may receive compensation.18

 

16 T.O., 58 ECAB 377 (2007).

17 Harley Sims, Jr., 56 ECAB 320 (2005); Karen L. Lonon-Jones, 50 ECAB 293 (1999).

18 See D.P., Docket No. 11-1796 (issued March 23, 2012). 
8

When OWCP makes a medical determination of partial disability and of specific work 

restrictions, it may refer the employee’s case to an OWCP wage-earning capacity specialist for 

selection of a position listed in the DOT or otherwise available in the open market, that fits the 

employee’s capabilities with regard to his or her physical limitations, education, age, and prior 

experience.19 Once this selection is made, a determination of wage rate and availability in the open 

labor market should be made through contact with the state employment service or other applicable 

service. Finally, application of the principles set forth in Albert C. Shadrick20 will result in the 

percentage of the employee’s loss of wage-earning capacity. 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to establish that the constructed 

position of dispatcher, security services represented appellant’s wage-earning capacity.

The constructed position of dispatcher, security services entailed work for private security 

firms, not police, fire, or emergency services. The duties of the position included reading posted 

orders to ascertain personnel requirements and notifying guards of work assignments and changes 

in instructions by telephone. The position also required posting assignment information on a 

dispatch board, compiling and recording data, issuing regular and special equipment to guards, 

and may include interviewing applicants and recommending hiring of guards. 

OWCP relied on the opinion of Dr. Kretschmer, an OWCP second-opinion physician, in 

finding that the constructed position was within appellant’s physical limitations. It later sought 

clarification from Dr. Kretschmer to confirm that the accepted conditions of bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome21 and right knee derangement of posterior horn of medial meniscus were considered. 

Dr. Kretschmer subsequently opined that all of appellant’s work-related, accepted conditions had 

resolved or reached a stable state as of June 10, 2015, the date of his examination, and that he had 

no permanent restrictions. He opined that, taking into account all claims and conditions accepted, 

appellant was capable of performing the selected position. Thus, Dr. Kretschmer’s opinion 

supports that appellant could perform the position of dispatcher, security services. 

On November 2, 2015 OWCP requested that appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Suffis, 

review the position description for dispatcher, security services and determine whether appellant 

could perform the identified position. Dr. Suffis responded on November 9, 2014 that appellant

could perform the position of dispatcher, security services, so long as he was allowed regular 

position changes and the sitting, standing, and walking requirements listed on his OWCP-5c form 

were maintained. He did not relate that appellant would be unable to perform this position due to 

wrist or fingering limitations. 

In a September 17, 2015 Form OWCP-5c, Dr. Suffis opined that appellant could return to 

work, but that he had permanent restrictions of sitting no more than 4 hours, walking and standing 

 

19 Mary E. Marshall, 56 ECAB 420 (2005); James A. Birt, 51 ECAB 291 (2000).

20 5 ECAB 376 (1953); codified by regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 10.403.

21 Impairments that preexisted the employment injury, in addition to injury-related impairments, must be taken into 

consideration in selecting a job within a claimant’s work tolerance. Gary L. Moreland, 54 ECAB 638 (2003).
9

no more than 2 hours, lifting no more than 2 hours, repetitive movements of the wrists no more 

than 2 hours, pushing and pulling no more than 30 minutes, and a 10-pound weight restriction. In 

so far as the restrictions provided by Dr. Suffis on the form are inconsistent with his narrative 

report, the probative value of his opinion is reduced.22

As both Dr. Kretschmer and Dr. Suffis reviewed the position description for a dispatcher, 

security services, and both physicians opined following review of the actual description that 

appellant could perform the duties of this position, the Board finds that OWCP met its burden of 

proof to establish that the constructed position was medically suitable. 

In assessing the claimant’s ability to perform the selected position, OWCP must consider 

not only physical limitations, but also take into account appellant’s work experience, age, mental 

capacity, and educational background.23 The rehabilitation counselor determined that appellant 

had the skills necessary to perform the position of dispatcher, security services for private security 

firms based on his prior work experience and skills learned in prior related security positions. The 

rehabilitation counselor found that the position existed in sufficient numbers within appellant’s

commuting area. The rehabilitation counselor concluded that based on appellant’s education, work 

experience, and transferable skills that he was capable of earning the median wages in the 

identified position as a skilled worker. As the rehabilitation counselor is an expert in the field of 

vocational rehabilitation, OWCP may rely on her opinion in determining whether the job is 

vocationally suitable and reasonably available.24 The Board finds that OWCP considered the 

proper factors, including the availability of suitable employment, appellant’s physical limitations, 

and employment qualifications in determining that he had the capacity to perform the selected 

position.

25

 OWCP also properly determined his loss of wage-earning capacity in accordance with 

the formula developed in Shadrick and codified at 20 C.F.R. § 10.403. It, therefore, correctly 

found that the position of dispatcher, security services reflected appellant’s wage-earning capacity 

effective December 16, 2015.

On appeal counsel contends that the position of dispatcher violates restrictions against 

fingering as Dr. Suffis had precluded repetitive wrist movements for no more than two hours per 

day. As noted herein, the Board finds that the restrictions provided by Dr. Suffis on the form report 

are inconsistent with his narrative report, thus his opinion lacked probative value.

Appellant may request modification of the loss of wage-earning capacity determination, 

supported by new evidence of argument, at any time before OWCP.

 

22 See I.B., Docket No. 11-1796 (issued March 23, 2012). 

23 See S.J., Docket No. 14-1455 (issued October 23, 2014); S.S., Docket No. 13-0011 (issued March 21, 2013).

24 C.S., Docket No. 17-0496 (issued May 25, 2017).

25 Id.
10

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly reduced appellant’s compensation based on its 

determination that the constructed position of dispatcher, security services represented his wageearning capacity.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 16, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 26, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board