United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Egg Harbor Township, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0805

Issued: July 13, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 28, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

November 29, 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. 

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective June 17, 2016 because she no longer had 

 

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

residuals of the accepted conditions; and (2) whether appellant established that she had any 

continuing employment-related disability or condition after June 17, 2016 due to the accepted 

conditions. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 15, 2014 appellant, then a 55-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that she injured her left ankle, left knee, and lower back when she slid and 

twisted her left lower extremity while delivering mail that day. She did not fall. Appellant returned 

to part-time modified duty on July 25, 2014, based on the opinion of Dr. Joseph S. Harhay, an 

attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed sprain and strain of medial collateral 

ligament of left knee, lumbar sprain and strain, and left ankle sprain and strain. On August 14, 

2014 OWCP accepted a sprain and strain of the medial collateral ligament of left knee, lumbar 

sprain and strain, and left ankle sprain and strain. Appellant received continuation of pay followed 

by intermittent wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls commencing August 30, 2014. 

Appellant continued treatment with Dr. Harhay, who also diagnosed lumbago and tear of 

the medial cartilage or meniscus of left knee. A February 18, 2015 lumbar spine magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan demonstrated disc bulging from T12 through L4 with a small rightsided herniation superimposed upon a bulge at L1-2, and a central herniation at L5-S1. The report

noted that, when compared with a prior study done on April 18, 2013, the findings were unchanged 

with the exception of retrolisthesis at L2-3.

Appellant began treatment with Dr. Michael J. Mehnert, a Board-certified physiatrist. In 

reports dated March 3 and June 15, 2015, Dr. Mehnert provided physical examination findings. 

He diagnosed low back pain, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, and acute left knee 

pain. On March 3, 2015 Dr. Mehnert advised that appellant’s left knee pain was causally related 

to the July 2014 employment injury. He advised that he did not think she required work restrictions 

for her lumbar spine due to the employment injury. Dr. Mehnert recommended a left knee MRI 

scan and chronic pain management. On June 3, 2015 he noted that the lumbar MRI scan 

demonstrated a new retrolisthesis at L2-3, but no evidence of acute herniation or nerve root 

compression. 

On July14, 2015 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Stanley R. Askin, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation. The questions provided Dr. Askin included 

whether the medical evidence indicated that appellant sustained other medical conditions caused 

by the July 15, 2014 employment injury.

By letter dated August 11, 2015, counsel noted that he had not been forwarded 

correspondence regarding scheduling a second opinion evaluation, and requested copies of the 

referral letter and the statement of accepted facts (SOAF).

Dr. Askin ordered a left knee MRI scan that was performed on August 31, 2015. This scan 

demonstrated blunting of the inner margin of the body of the lateral meniscus, likely related to an 

inner margin tear. 
3

In a September 8, 2015 report, Dr. Askin noted that he had examined appellant on 

August 7, 2015. He described the July 15, 2014 work injury and appellant’s current complaints of 

back and left knee pain and that she related a history of back pain dating back to 1991. He noted 

his review of the SOAF and the medical record. Left knee examination showed effusion and 

tenderness with no instability, patellar tracking abnormality, or ligamentous laxity present. 

Straight leg raising was negative to 90 degrees seated and sensation was preserved to light touch 

throughout both lower extremities. Back examination demonstrated pain at the sacral level and 

iliac spine tenderness with no muscle spasm. Spine range of motion was limited due to pain. 

Appellant had a mildly antalgic gait, favoring her left leg. Dr. Askin advised that the accepted 

ankle condition had resolved. He indicated that the February 18, 2015 MRI scan of the lumbar 

spine revealed gross degenerative disc disease involving all lumbar discs. Regarding the 

August 31, 2015 left knee MRI scan, Dr. Askin advised that the study did not reveal significant 

pathology such as effusion or significant internal derangement that would explain appellant’s

complaints or that were deserving of intervention. He indicated that there was nothing in the MRI 

scan indicating that the accepted condition was persistent. Dr. Askin opined that the July 15, 2014 

work injury likely temporarily aggravated appellant’s preexisting back condition, but that a 

material change did not occur, and that the available medical evidence did not indicate that she 

sustained any other medical condition due to the July 15, 2014 injury, noting that there was no 

significant meniscal tear present, and that arthroscopic surgery was not needed. He recommended 

that appellant lose weight and stop smoking. Dr. Askin concluded that she had reached maximum 

medical improvement (MMI) and could return to her date-of-injury job or any position that was 

less onerous. 

On September 16, 2015 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits. It found that the weight of the medical opinion evidence rested with the 

opinion of Dr. Askin who advised that she had no residuals or disability due to the July 15, 2014 

employment injury. 

In September 28, 2015 correspondence, counsel disagreed with the proposed termination, 

asserting that Dr. Askin’s opinion was contradictory and speculative.

In an October 12, 2015 treatment note, Dr. Mehnert noted that appellant had a history of 

prior problematic lumbar spine issues, in particular that her pain had increased since a fall on 

July 15, 2014. He reported that a left knee MRI scan showed blunting of the medial aspect of the 

left lateral meniscus, but did not clearly show evidence of a tear or other internal derangement and 

that a lumbar MRI scan demonstrated disc bulging at multiple levels with slight listhesis at L2-3, 

a right-sided herniation at L1-2, and a central herniation at L5-S1 with facet arthropathy. 

Dr. Mehnert performed physical examination and diagnosed low back pain, other lumbosacral disc

degeneration, lumbar facet joint syndrome, and left knee pain. He advised that appellant could 

continue modified duty. Dr. Mehnert also provided an October 12, 2015 duty status report (Form 

CA-17) in which he advised that she could work two to four hours daily with no climbing, 

kneeling, bending, stooping, twisting, pushing, pulling, simple grasping, fine manipulation, 

reaching above the shoulder, driving a vehicle, operating machinery, working in temperature 

extremes or high humidity, and no exposure to chemicals, solvents, fumes, or noise. On 

November 11, 2015 he performed a lumbar epidural injection. 
4

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

opinions of Dr. Harhay and Dr. Askin regarding whether a causal relationship existed between 

appellant’s current condition and the July 15, 2014 employment injury and whether she continued

to have employment-related disability. It referred her to Dr. Ian Blair Fries, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial medical evaluation. Dr. Fries was asked if appellant had a 

concurrent work-related aggravation of an existing condition.3

In a February 26, 2016 report, Dr. Fries noted the history of injury, medical treatment as 

related by appellant, and his review of the SOAF and the medical record. He described her

complaints of constant lower lumbar spine pain bilaterally, that radiated down the left thigh and 

was aggravated by bending, stooping, squatting, and twisting, and also constant left knee pain, 

aggravated by climbing stairs and standing for several hours with an occasional give-way feeling. 

Orthopedic examination demonstrated that appellant was 60.5 inches tall and weighed 212 pounds. 

She wore a knee brace and walked with a slight limp. Knee extension was limited and lumbar 

spine range of motion was limited by pain. Gentle percussion caused lower lumbar spine pain, 

and there was lumbosacral interspace tenderness on examination. Seated straight leg raising was 

to 90 degrees bilaterally and appellant was unable to cross either leg due to low back pain, and her 

obese physique. Supine straight leg raising was 90 degrees on the right and 80 degrees on the left 

without provoked symptoms. Flexing her hips aggravated appellant’s back pain. Left knee 

examination was stable to varus and valgus stress, but was limited by pain. There were no findings 

about the left ankle, with no swelling, full range of motion, no instability or tenderness, and no 

complaints. Thigh, knee, and calf circumferences were equal bilaterally. Dr. Fries reviewed xrays taken on the date of injury, July 14, 2015, advising that the lumbar spine demonstrated 

multilevel degenerative changes, but no evidence of trauma. The left knee showed normal 

alignment, no joint space narrowing, and no evidence of trauma or effusion, and unremarkable soft 

tissues; the left ankle was unremarkable with no evidence of trauma. Dr. Fries also reviewed the 

August 31, 2015 left knee MRI scan. This showed mild signal changes in the posterior horn of the 

medial meniscus, but no tear and no evidence of trauma. Dr. Fries also reviewed a copy of images 

from the lumbar spine February 18, 2005 MRI scan, and indicated that these demonstrated 

significant degenerative changes at every level of the lower thoracic and lumbosacral spine with 

degenerative retrolisthesis of L2 on L3, significant narrowing of the L5-S1 disc with an associated 

small protrusion, and disc bulges at every level. 

Dr. Fries diagnosed chronic low back pain with multilevel spinal degeneration and longterm opioid maintenance since before the work injury, with no clear evidence of radiculopathy, 

probable early arthritis of the medial compartment of the left knee, and gross exogenous obesity. 

He advised that appellant’s left ankle complaints had fully resolved. Dr. Fries opined that, while 

appellant maintained that her back pain worsened after the July 15, 2014 incident, he found no 

objective findings to confirm a permanent injury on that date, noting that he was not provided a 

medical record prior to the employment injury. With regard to the left knee, he indicated that the 

MRI scan findings were likely degenerative and inconsistent with her complaint location. 

Dr. Fries found only subjective findings on his examination with no evidence of ligamentous 

 

3 Counsel was copied on the referral letter. The record contains an ME023 appointment scheduling form, copies of 

screen shots, and a bypass log, indicating that, prior to the selection of Dr. Fries, one physician was bypassed because 

he had passed away.
5

instability and no pain on stress of the medial collateral ligament. He advised that appellant had 

reached MMI, and the accepted conditions of left knee medial collateral ligament sprain, left ankle 

sprain, and lumbar sprain had all resolved and did not require further treatment. Dr. Fries 

concluded that, given the combination of chronic back and left ankle pain, and her obesity, it was 

unlikely she could return to unrestricted work duties, but could work a full eight-hour day with 

three hours of sedentary-type work. On an attached work capacity evaluation form (OWCP-5c) 

he advised that appellant could perform medium work for eight hours a day with permanent 

restrictions of no climbing with walking, standing, twisting, bending, and stooping limited to five 

hours daily. 

By June 17, 2016 decision, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits, effective that day. It found that the weight of the medical evidence rested with 

the opinion of Dr. Fries, the impartial medical examiner who advised that the accepted conditions 

had resolved.

Appellant, through counsel, timely requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. In a treatment note dated August 10, 2016, Dr. Natacha S. Falcon, a Boardcertified physiatrist, noted taking over care of appellant from Dr. Mehnert. She described the 

history of injury, appellant’s history, and her complaint of back and left knee pain. Following 

examination Dr. Falcon diagnosed lumbar facet joint syndrome, other intervertebral disc 

degeneration of the lumbar region, axial low back pain, lumbar facet joint pain, disc bulges at L3-

4 and L4-5, and L5-S1 moderate degenerative disc disease. She recommended left knee evaluation 

by a sports medicine physician and continued Dr. Mehnert’s restrictions.

During the hearing, held on October 5, 2016, appellant testified regarding her work history, 

the employment injury, and her subsequent medical care. She stated that she suffered a back injury 

at home in 2013 and was still seeing a pain management specialist on July 15, 2014, the date of 

injury, but that her back pain increased on that date and had never lessened. Appellant additionally 

described continued problems with her left knee. She related that she continued to work modified, 

part-time duty. Counsel maintained that, because the appointment notice with Dr. Askin was not 

forwarded to counsel, his report should be excluded and in the alternative, it was of insufficient

rationale to establish a medical conflict. He also asserted that the employment injury caused 

aggravation of preexisting lumbar conditions and a likely medial meniscus tear. Counsel 

concluded that, since Dr. Askin’s report should be excluded, Dr. Fries’ report was also insufficient 

to meet OWCP’s burden to terminate or, in the alternative, a conflict in medical evidence had been 

created requiring referral for a new impartial evaluation.

Following the hearing, appellant forwarded an August 10, 2016 duty status report in which

Dr. Falcon advised that appellant could sit, stand, and walk for 10 minutes per day, could not 

climb, kneel, bend, stoop, twist, push, or pull, could drive a vehicle 20 minutes, and could lift and 

carry 5 to 10 pounds for 5 to 6 hours daily. In an October 19, 2016 treatment note, Dr. Dennis 

Nutini, Board-certified in physiatry and sports medicine, noted seeing appellant for left knee pain. 

He noted that appellant had an employment injury on July 15, 2014 and that left knee x-rays that 

day did not show degenerative changes or decreased joint space on the left. Dr. Nutini reviewed 

the August 31, 2015 MRI scan and advised that he felt that it was consistent with a likely tear. On 

examination, he noted an antalgic gait with full range of knee motion bilaterally, trace effusion on 

the left with tenderness to palpation over the left medial joint line, a positive McMurray’s, negative 
6

Lachman’s, and no pain or laxity with varus/valgus stress testing. Dr. Nutini diagnosed other tear 

of medial meniscus, current injury, left knee. He recommended modified duty with no frequent 

bending, stooping, kneeling, squatting, or climbing.

By decision dated November 29, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

June 17, 2016 decision. She found that, while OWCP neglected to send the notice of an 

appointment with Dr. Askin to counsel, it had informed him of the appointment, and counsel did 

not note objections regarding the examination or argue that a new second opinion examination 

should be arranged prior to the hearing. The hearing representative noted that Dr. Fries gave a 

rationalized opinion that the accepted conditions had resolved without residuals, that there was no 

evidence that appellant sustained other injuries on July 15, 2014, and was based on an accurate 

and complete factual and medical background. She concluded that his report constituted the 

weight of the medical evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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.4 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.5 

The right to medical benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of 

entitlement to compensation for disability.6 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, 

OWCP must establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition 

which requires further medical treatment.7

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.8 The implementing regulation 

states 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.9 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, 

 

4

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

5

Id.

6 See T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007).

7 See I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).

8 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see Y.A., 59 ECAB 701 (2008). 

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.321.
7

the opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based upon a proper factual 

background, must be given special weight.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to justify its termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits.

The Board initially notes that, while counsel was not notified of the second opinion 

evaluation appointment with Dr. Askin, counsel’s correspondence dated August 11, 2015 supports 

that he had actual knowledge of the scheduled evaluation. The Board has held that where, as here, 

a representative had actual knowledge of a scheduled examination, the lack of proper notice was 

harmless error.11 Herein, as counsel merely maintained that Dr. Askin’s opinion was contradictory 

and speculative prior to the June 17, 2016 termination, but did not assert that his report should be 

excluded until the October 5, 2016 oral hearing, OWCP’s failure of notification is deemed 

harmless error, and Dr. Askin’s report need not be excluded.12

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left medial collateral ligament strain, lumbar sprain, 

and left ankle sprain. It terminated her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits on June 17, 

2016 based on the opinion of Dr. Fries who advised that the accepted conditions had resolved.

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

opinions of Dr. Harhay and Dr. Askin regarding whether a causal relationship existed between 

appellant’s current condition and the July 15, 2014 employment injury and whether she continued 

to have employment-related disability. It referred her to Dr. Ian Blair Fries, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial evaluation. Dr. Fries was asked if appellant had a concurrent 

work-related aggravation of an existing condition.13

In his comprehensive February 26, 2016 report, Dr. Fries described the relevant facts and 

evaluated the course of appellant’s employment-related conditions. He noted that appellant had 

preexisting back pain that had remained worse since the July 15, 2014 injury, but found no 

objective findings to confirm permanent injury at the time of his examination. Dr. Fries further 

advised that appellant had no significant imaging findings to explain her continued left knee 

symptoms, and that the minor lateral meniscus findings were most likely degenerative and 

inconsistent with her complaints. He found no instability and no pain on stress of the medial 

collateral ligament and concluded that any residuals of appellant’s accepted conditions had 

 

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

11 I.H., Docket No. 09-0141 (issued August 6, 2009).

12 See P.C., Docket No. 16-1714 (issued October 18, 2007).

13 Counsel was copied on the referral letter. The record contains an ME023 appointment scheduling form, copies 

of screen shots, and a bypass log, indicating that, prior to the selection of Dr. Fries, one physician was bypassed 

because he had passed away. 
8

resolved, and any disability was due to a combination of chronic pain and appellant’s weight, and 

not to the accepted conditions.

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

which he clearly advised that appellant’s accepted conditions had resolved without residuals. 

Dr. Fries’ well-rationalized opinion, therefore, constitutes the special weight accorded an impartial 

examiner with regard to appellant’s accepted conditions.

14

The medical evidence appellant submitted before the June 17, 2016 termination of wageloss compensation and medical benefits was insufficient to overcome the weight accorded

Dr. Fries as impartial specialist.

In his October 12, 2015 reports, Dr. Mehnert described physical examination findings and 

noted left knee and lumbar spine MRI scan findings. He diagnosed low back pain, other 

lumbosacral disc degeneration, lumbar facet joint syndrome, and left knee pain and advised that 

appellant could work for two to four hours of modified duty daily. While Dr. Mehnert briefly 

referenced a July 15, 2014 fall at work, appellant did not fall, but merely slipped. Moreover, the 

conditions diagnosed by Dr. Mehnert have not been accepted as employment related. The Board 

has long held that rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence based on a complete 

factual and medical background of reasonable medical certainty and supported by medical 

rationale explaining the opinion offered. Dr. Mehnert based this opinion on an incorrect history 

of injury and did not provide a rationalized medical opinion as to why any diagnosed conditions 

were caused by the July 15, 2014 slip at work.15

The Board, therefore, concludes that Dr. Fries’ opinion that appellant had recovered from 

the accepted conditions is entitled to the special weight accorded an impartial medical examiner,16

and the additional medical evidence submitted is insufficient to overcome the weight accorded him 

regarding whether appellant had residuals of her accepted conditions. OWCP, therefore, properly 

terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective June 17, 2016.17

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

As OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits effective 

June 17, 2016, the burden shifted to her to establish that she had any continuing disability causally 

related to the accepted conditions.18 Causal relationship is a medical issue. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

 

14 See H.A., Docket No. 16-1184 (issued April 20, 2017).

15 See A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August 5, 2009).

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

17 Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001).

18 See Joseph A. Brown, Jr., 55 ECAB 542 (2004).
9

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that the medical evidence of record submitted after the June 17, 2016 

termination is insufficient to establish that she continued to be disabled from work due to the 

accepted conditions. 

Following the termination of wage-loss compensation and medical benefits on July 17,

2016, appellant submitted an August 10, 2016 report in which Dr. Falcon noted that appellant 

slipped at work on July 15, 2014. She recorded appellant’s complaint of back and left knee pain. 

Following examination, Dr. Falcon diagnosed lumbar facet joint syndrome, other intervertebral 

disc degeneration of the lumbar region, axial low back pain, lumbar facet joint pain, disc bulges at 

L3-4 and L4-5, and L5-S1 moderate degenerative disc disease. Dr. Nutini, who saw appellant on 

October 19, 2016, noted that appellant had a work injury on July 15, 2014. He indicated that left 

knee x-rays that day did not show degenerative changes or decreased joint space on the left and 

reviewed the August 31, 2015 MRI scan. Dr. Nutini advised that he felt that appellant likely had 

a tear and diagnosed other tear of medical meniscus, current injury, left knee. He recommended 

modified duty.

Dr. Falcon merely mentioned that a July 15, 2014 work injury occurred when appellant did 

not fall, and Dr. Nutini merely mentioned a work injury on July 15, 2014 without a specific 

description of the injury. Neither physician provided an explanation as to how or why their 

diagnosed conditions, which have not been accepted, were caused by the July 2014 employment 

injury. A medical opinion not fortified by medical rationale is of little probative value.20

As there is no medical evidence of record of sufficient rationale to establish that appellant 

continued to be disabled from work due to the July 15, 2014 work injury, she has not met her 

burden of proof to establish continuing employment-related disability after July 17, 2016.21

On appeal counsel asserts that additional conditions of aggravation of preexisting lumbar 

conditions and a left knee meniscus tear should be accepted. He maintains that the opinions of 

OWCP referral physicians are insufficient to carry the weight of the medical evidence such that 

the termination should be reversed or, in the alternative, a conflict in medical evidence has been 

created. 

CONCLUSION

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

compensation and medical benefits on June 17, 2016. It further finds that she did not establish 

 

19 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

20 S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009).

21 G.H., Docket No. 16-0432 (issued October 12, 2016).
10

continuing employment-related disability after that date causally related to the July 15, 2014 

employment injury. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 29, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 13, 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