United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, CHINLE 

AGENCY, Many Farms, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0470

Issued: March 7, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

On December 27, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 21, 2017 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards docketed the appeal as No. 18-0470.

On June 20, 2015 appellant, then a 57-year-old special education teacher, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging injury to her ribs and torso on June 15, 2015 while in the 

performance of duty when her vehicle door slammed against her left side as she was entering a

vehicle. On July 27, 2015 she was released to return to her previous modified work.

1

 By decision 

dated August 17, 2015, OWCP accepted the claim for a contusion of chest wall and paid 

appropriate compensation benefits.

On October 18, 2017 OWCP referred appellant, along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF), a list of questions and the medical record, to Dr. Michael Steingart, an osteopath and 

orthopedic specialist, for a second opinion examination. In a November 10, 2017 report,

Dr. Steingart diagnosed resolved contused ribs. He indicated that the chest wall contusion did not 

have positive objective findings and that such a condition would have been expected to have 

resolved within three weeks of the incident. Dr. Steingart opined, in pertinent part, that medical 

 

1 Appellant had prior claims before OWCP. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx444, OWCP accepted a lower back 

sprain for a November 6, 2014 injury. Appellant was assigned modified-duty work within restrictions pertaining to 

his prior claim.
2

treatment was unnecessary and that appellant had no residuals or disability from the chest wall 

contusion. He further concluded that appellant’s multiple injuries since the June 15, 2015 injury 

were unrelated to her chest wall contusion.

By decision dated December 21, 2017, OWCP denied a requested medical procedure.2 The 

decision provided in full: “Your request for a medical treatment under this claim is denied on the 

grounds based on the Second Opinion report of [November 20, 2017]. No further consideration 

in relation to the requested procedures will be given. Further medical treatment related to 

conditions accepted as work related, is not authorized and prior authorization, if any, is 

terminated.” (Emphasis in the original.) The decision purported to provide appeal rights.

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. Although OWCP effectively 

terminated appellant’s medical benefits when it issued its December 21, 2017 denial of 

authorization for medical treatment, the record does not contain a preliminary notice of a proposal 

to terminate medical compensation.

3

The Board has held that compensation benefits constitute a property interest protected by 

the due process clause. Reduction of benefits prior to the issuance of a pretermination notice 

defeats the purpose of OWCP procedures that provide for notice before reduction of benefits.4 

OWCP procedures provide that notice is required prior to termination in all cases where benefits 

are being paid on the periodic rolls and in the case of termination of medical benefits.5 The 

procedures indicate that a notice is required if medical benefits are terminated based upon the 

opinion of a second opinion or referee examiner, as opposed to the treating physician.6 The Board 

has held that OWCP must follow its procedures and provide notice and an opportunity to respond

prior to the termination of compensation benefits.7

In light of the fact that appellant’s request for authorization for medical treatment was 

denied and OWCP terminated appellant’s medical benefits related to accepted work-related 

conditions based on the opinion of a second opinion examiner, the burden remains on OWCP to 

properly terminate appellant’s compensation benefits.8 Without a proper notice of a proposal to 

terminate compensation in the record, OWCP improperly terminated appellant’s medical 

compensation.

The case must be returned to OWCP for proper notification of appellant’s medical benefits 

status. Following this and any other further development deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue an 

 

2 The procedure was not identified.

3 OWCP’s Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual specifies procedural requirements for termination of compensation 

benefits, including issuance of a pretermination notice. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.4b(3) (February 2013).

4 See Felix Voyles, 46 ECAB 895 (1995).

5 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Pretermination Notices, Chapter 

2.1400.4b (February 2013); see also Winton A. Miller, 52 ECAB 405 (2001).

6

Id. at Chapter 2.1440.4.b(2) (February 2013).

7 K.S., Docket No. 11-2021 (issued August 21, 2012).

8 Elaine Sneed, 56 ECAB 373 (2005); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001). 
3

appropriate decision, including findings of facts and a statement of reasons, regarding appellant’s 

medical benefits.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 21, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further action in 

accordance with this order of the Board.

Issued: March 7, 2019

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