United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FORT

BENNING COMMISSARY, 

FORT BENNING, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1144

Issued: January 12, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 May 2, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 22, 2016 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.

ISSUE

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective November 23, 2016.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

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

prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.2 

On January 7, 1998 appellant, then a 38-year-old sales store checker, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 6, 1998 she reached and picked up a bag of 

sweet potatoes for weighing and experienced a sharp pain in her lower back. She underwent a 

lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan on January 12, 1998 which was normal. OWCP 

accepted appellant’s claim for acute lumbar strain on May 10, 1999.3

Appellant filed a claim for total disability (Form CA-7) beginning November 14, 1998. 

OWCP denied this claim by decisions dated January 15, 2002 and January 8, 2003. Appellant

subsequently appealed to the Board. By decision dated September 2, 2003,4the Board found that 

she had not met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of total disability commencing

November 14, 1998.

Dr. David Moyerman, a licensed clinical psychologist, examined appellant on 

January 20, 1999. He noted her history of injury and her symptoms including memory 

impairment and suicidal thoughts. Dr. Moyerman diagnosed major depression and generalized 

anxiety disorder. He opined that appellant was totally disabled from work. On June 16, 2004

OWCP accepted her claim for prolonged depressive reaction. It authorized compensation 

benefits from January 5, 1999 through December 3, 2000. 

Appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7) on July 12, 2004. OWCP

denied the claim by decision dated March 8, 2005. Appellant subsequently appealed to the 

Board and, by decision dated August 23, 2005,5the Board affirmed OWCP’s March 8, 2005 

decision.

On September 19, 2005 appellant elected to receive OWCP wage-loss compensation 

benefits, effective January 5, 1999. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation on the 

supplemental rolls from December 4, 2000 to September 3, 2005. It placed appellant on the 

periodic compensation rolls beginning September 4, 2005. 

On April 20, 2009 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation regarding 

her psychiatric condition with Dr. Arthur Holt, a Board-certified psychiatrist. In a report dated 

May 1, 2009, Dr. Holt diagnosed major depression in partial remission without psychotic 

features. He found that appellant’s work injury did contribute to the development of her clinical 

depressive syndrome. Dr. Holt opined that she could return to work on a part-time basis, but that 

she required continuing psychiatric treatment.

 

2 Docket No. 05-1333 (issued August 23, 2005); Docket No. 03-1364 (issued September 2, 2003).

3 Appellant retired on disability effective December 4, 1999.

4 Supra note 2.

5

Id. 
3

Dr. Moyerman completed notes on September 21 and October 5, 2011 and diagnosed 

major depression. 

Dr. Joseph R. Lewis, Jr., a Board-certified family practitioner, completed notes on 

March 22, 2013 and March 26, 2014 and diagnosed chronic back pain and depression since 

2001. He reported that there was no change in appellant’s conditions.

On June 17, 2014 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with

Dr. Alexander N. Doman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Doman examined her on 

July 22, 2014. He reviewed the statement of accepted facts (SOAF) and medical records. 

Dr. Doman noted appellant’s January 6, 1998 employment injury of acute lumbar strain and 

psychiatric depression. He listed her concurrent conditions of diabetes, hypertension, heart 

murmur, and toe replacement surgery. Dr. Doman reviewed appellant’s MRI scan from 1998 

which was normal. On examination appellant’s physical findings were normal for strength, 

sensation, and reflexes. Dr. Doman reported that her subjective complaints appeared 

exaggerated and out of proportion to the lack of objective findings. He determined that 

appellant’s lumbar strain was resolved and that there were no objective findings to support 

disability due to her lumbar condition. Dr. Doman found that she could return to her date-ofinjury position without restrictions. 

On August 27, 2014 OWCP provided appellant with a notice of proposed termination of 

benefits. It proposed to terminate her medical benefits for her accepted condition of back strain.

In a note dated March 31, 2015, Dr. Lewis diagnosed chronic back pain and depression 

and found no change in appellant’s status. 

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Ramakanth Vemuluri, 

a Board-certified psychiatrist, on July 24, 2015. 

On August 7, 2015 Dr. Vemuluri examined appellant. He reported that she indicated that 

she was believed to be “crazy” because of her back pain. Appellant had not worked since 1998 

due to back pain and depression. She did not report any significant symptoms of depression like 

persistent low mood, anhedonia, or anergia. On examination Dr. Vemuluri found dysthymic and 

reactive affect. He noted, “At this time I did not see any psychiatric reasons for [appellant] not 

to return back to work. At this time she seems to be psychiatrically stable and does not seem to 

have any significant disability from her psychiatric issues.”

In a note dated August 5, 2015, Dr. Moyerman reported that prior to August 5, 2015 

appellant had not sought treatment for her psychological conditions for more than three years. 

He attributed the lack of treatment to anosognosia, somnolence, demoralization, avolition, 

dejection, withdrawal, blocking, inattentiveness, and derailment. Dr. Moyerman found that 

appellant had regressed and expressed utter worthlessness, death ideation, and fleeting suicidal 

thoughts. He further noted that she had been sedated for most of the past 44 months due to her 

reliance on sedatives, benzodiazepine, and opiate medications. On September 16, 2015

Dr. Moyerman, diagnosed major depression and possible schizoaffective disorder. He noted that 

appellant had been diagnosed with leukemia and sarcoidosis.
4

Dr. Lewis examined appellant on April 7, 2016. He diagnosed chronic back pain and 

depression. Dr. Lewis indicated that both conditions were long-standing and that appellant had 

no change in her status.

OWCP declared a conflict in medical opinion between Dr. Lewis, appellant’s attending 

physician, and Dr. Doman, OWCP’s referral physician. Consequently, on July 21, 2016, it 

referred appellant, a SOAF, and questions for an impartial medical examination by Dr. Raymond 

Godsil, Jr., a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. 

In a report dated August 30, 2016, Dr. Godsil noted appellant’s history of injury and 

medical history. He performed a physical examination and found no muscle spasms. Appellant 

reported some tenderness in the lower dorsal area, right lumbosacral area, and right greater 

sciatic notch. Sitting straight leg raising was negative bilaterally while, in the supine position, it 

was positive on the right at 60 degrees. Dr. Godsil diagnosed chronic lumbar pain with a history 

of lymphoma, sarcoidosis, and type 2 diabetes. He responded to OWCP’s questions and reported 

essentially no objective findings regarding the lumbar sprain. Dr. Godsil reported no atrophy 

and normal neurological examination. He noted Waddell’s signs in the course of his physical

examination. Dr. Godsil advised that MRI scan testing of the lumbar spine after the 1998 

employment injury was negative. He found that appellant’s disability from work was due to her 

concurrent conditions although she was unable to perform her regular job due to her lymphoma, 

sarcoidosis, diabetes, and depression. 

OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits on October 4, 2016 and as her employment-related medical conditions and 

disability had ceased. It found that Dr. Godsil’s August 30, 2016 report established that she had 

no residuals of her physiological condition as she had negative findings in the lumbar spine. 

OWCP further noted that Dr. Vemuluri reported on August 7, 2015 that appellant had no 

residuals of her psychiatric condition as her condition was in remission and she had not been 

treated for a psychiatric medical condition for over three and half years.

Appellant responded to the notice of proposed termination on October 19, 2016 and noted 

her diagnosed depression. She also asserted that the medical evidence did not establish that she 

was capable of her date-of-injury work.

By decision dated November 22, 2016, OWCP finalized its termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits. It found that Dr. Godsil’s August 30, 2016 report 

was entitled to special weight and established that she had no physical residuals or disability 

from her January 6, 1998 employment injury. OWCP further found that Dr. Vemuluri’s report 

was sufficient to establish that appellant had no disability or medical residuals due to her 

accepted condition of depression. It determined that the effective date of the termination would 

be November 23, 2016.
5

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Once OWCP accepts a claim, it has the burden of proof to establish that the disability has 

ceased or lessened in order to justify termination or modification of compensation benefits.6 

After it has determined that an employee has disability causally related to his or her federal 

employment, OWCP may not terminate compensation without establishing that the disability has 

ceased or that it is no longer related to the employment.7 Furthermore, the right to medical 

benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of entitlement for disability.8 To 

terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must establish that appellant no longer has 

residuals of an employment-related condition which require further medical treatment.9

When there are opposing reports of virtually equal weight and rationale, the case will be 

referred to an impartial medical specialist pursuant to section 8123(a) of FECA which 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 and resolve the conflict of medical evidence.10 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.11

ANALYSIS

OWCP accepted appellant’s January 6, 1998 traumatic injury claim for both physical and 

psychological conditions. In regard to the accepted acute lumbar strain on May 10, 1999, it

referred her to Dr. Doman for examination on July 22, 2014. Dr. Doman determined that 

appellant’s lumbar strain had resolved and that she had no disability from work due to her 

lumbar condition. Appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Lewis, diagnosed chronic back pain on 

March 31, 2015 and April 7, 2016. 

Due to the disagreement between Dr. Doman and Dr. Lewis, OWCP properly found a 

conflict of medical opinion. It referred appellant for an impartial medical examination with

Dr. Godsil on August 30, 2016. Dr. Godsil provided an accurate history of injury, performed a 

physical examination, and diagnosed chronic lumbar pain with a history of lymphoma, 

sarcoidosis, and type 2 diabetes. He found no objective findings regarding the lumbar sprain

noting that appellant had no atrophy and a normal neurological examination. Dr. Godsil 

determined that her continued disability for work was not due to her accepted acute lumbar 

strain.

 

6 Mohamed Yunis, 42 ECAB 325, 334 (1991).

7

Id.

8 Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 361, 364 (1990).

9

Id.

10 5 U.S.C. § 8123; M.S., 58 ECAB 328 (2007); B.C., 58 ECAB 111 (2006). 

11 R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006).
6

In situations where there are 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 on a proper 

factual background, must be given special weight.12 The Board finds that Dr. Godsil’s report 

was based on a proper factual background and provided medical reasoning noting no objective 

findings on physical examination which supported appellant’s continued lumbar sprain or 

disability from this condition. The Board finds that he provided a comprehensive, wellrationalized opinion. Dr. Godsil had full knowledge of the relevant facts and the course of 

appellant’s condition. His opinions were based on proper factual and medical history and on the 

SOAF.

13

 Dr. Godsil’s reports contained a detailed summary of the history of the claim. 

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

conclusion regarding appellant’s conditions.14 Dr. Godsil’s opinion is therefore entitled to the 

special weight accorded an impartial examiner and constitutes the weight of the medical 

evidence.15 As he established that appellant had no disability or medical residuals as a result of 

her January 6, 1998 traumatic back injury, OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate her 

entitlement to wage-loss compensation and medical benefits due to this condition.

The Board further finds that there remains an unresolved conflict of medical opinion 

regarding appellant’s accepted condition of major depression. OWCP referred her for a second 

opinion evaluation with Dr. Vemuluri. In his August 7, 2015 report, Dr. Vemuluri noted that 

appellant did not report any significant symptoms of depression, such as persistent low mood,

anhedonia, or anergia. He determined that she was psychiatrically stable and could return to 

work.

Appellant submitted notes from her attending clinical psychologist, Dr. Moyerman dated 

August 5 and September 16, 2015. Dr. Moyerman found that her emotional condition had 

regressed and that she expressed utter worthlessness, death ideation, and fleeting suicidal 

thoughts. He further noted that appellant had been sedated for most of the past 44 months due to 

her reliance on sedatives, benzodiazepine, and opiate medications. Dr. Moyerman diagnosed 

major depression and possible schizoaffective disorder. 

The Board finds that there remains an unresolved conflict of medical opinion evidence 

between Drs. Moyerman and Vemuluri regarding appellant’s current emotional condition and her 

need for further medical treatment. Dr. Vemuluri found no medical residuals, while

Dr. Moyerman found that her psychiatric condition had worsened with death ideation and 

fleeting suicidal thoughts. As OWCP has not resolved the conflict regarding residuals for 

 

12 Nathan L. Harrell, 41 ECAB 401, 407 (1990).

13 See R.G., Docket No. 16-0271 (issued May 18, 2017); T.M., Docket No. 17-0915 (issued August 29, 2017).

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

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

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

to each individual report); T.M., supra note 13.

15 See Sharyn D. Bannick, 54 ECAB 537 (2003); L.J., Docket No. 17-0639 (issued September 1, 2017).
7

appellant’s accepted psychiatric condition,16 the Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden 

to terminate her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits with respect to her accepted 

emotional condition.

CONCLUSION

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

compensation and medical benefits due to her accepted acute lumbar strain, but did not meet its 

burden of proof to terminate her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective 

November 23, 2016 due to her accepted emotional condition.

17

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 22, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Issued: January 12, 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

 

16 S.T., Docket No. 16-1471 (issued August 18, 2017).

17 L.J., Docket No. 15-0485 (issued April 22, 2016).