United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

LOMA LINDA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, 

Loma Linda, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0204

Issued: September 6, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 5, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 26, 

2018 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.3

 

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.

3 The Board notes that, following the July 26, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that 

was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board 

for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective December 5, 2017, as she no longer had 

residuals or disability causally related to her accepted December 27, 2013 employment injury; 

(2) whether appellant has established continuing employment-related disability or residuals after 

December 5, 2017, causally related to her accepted December 27, 2013 employment injury; and 

(3) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish intermittent periods of disability 

from December 1, 2014 through December 5, 2017 causally related to her accepted employment 

injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 31, 2013 appellant, then a 57-year-old medical instruction technician, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 27, 2013 she tripped and fell 

while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on December 27, 2013, but returned to limited 

duty for four hours per day in February 2014. OWCP accepted the claim for a closed fracture of 

the right pubis and a right shoulder strain and paid appellant wage-loss benefits on the 

supplemental rolls from February 11 through June 10, 2014. 

On June 10, 2014 appellant began treating with Dr. Darren L. Bergey, an orthopedic 

surgeon, who diagnosed cervical, lumbar spine, and right shoulder impingement conditions and 

opined that appellant was totally disabled. 

Appellant filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) commencing June 10, 2014. By 

decisions dated September 29 and November 4, 2014, OWCP denied her claims for wage-loss 

compensation as there was no medical evidence to substantiate work-related disability for the 

claimed periods. Appellant returned to modified work on November 26, 2014. 

Dr. Bergey continued to treat appellant for the diagnosed conditions of right C5 

radiculopathy with deltoid and biceps weakness, C5-6 moderately severe right neuroforaminal 

stenosis, right shoulder impingement syndrome, right sacroiliac joint dysfunction, and L5-S1 disc 

degeneration. 

OWCP notified appellant on September 13, 2016 that she would be referred for a second 

opinion evaluation to determine the status of her accepted conditions, appropriate treatment, and 

extent of disability. 

In a February 16, 2017 report, Dr. Michael J. Einbund, a Board-certified orthopedic

surgeon and second opinion physician, reviewed the statement of accepted facts and medical 

records. Appellant’s physical examination revealed a healed fracture of right superior and inferior 

pubic rami, closed, and resolved right shoulder sprain. Dr. Einbund noted that the medical records 

detailed evidence of nonindustrial conditions which he indicated represented age-related changes. 

This included degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with evidence of foraminal narrowing 

and disc bulges, a right cervical radiculopathy (confirmed by electromyogram/nerve conduction 

velocity (EMG/NCV) studies of record), and lumbar spine degenerative disc disease with right 

sacroiliac dysfunction. Dr. Einbund opined that the accepted diagnosed conditions had resolved. 

He found that appellant’s pubic fracture had healed without complications and that her right 

shoulder and right upper extremity symptoms were related to the confirmed right cervical 
3

radiculopathy, not to residuals of the accepted shoulder sprain. Dr. Einbund explained that her

symptoms of right shoulder pain radiating down the arm with numbness and tingling were not 

commensurate with a sprain. He further opined that there were no objective findings to support 

ongoing residuals or ongoing medical treatment. Dr. Einbund found that maximum medical 

improvement (MMI) was reached on or about June 2015, when Dr. Bergey indicated that 

appellant’s right superior and inferior pubic ramus fracture had healed. He noted that she had 

reported that she was disabled for seven to eight weeks following the December 27, 2013 injury, 

which he opined was reasonable due to the employment-related conditions. Dr. Einbund indicated 

that there were no other periods of disability causally related to the injury. He advised that 

appellant’s ongoing medical treatment and physical limitations were related to her preexisting 

underlying cervical and lumbar spine conditions. 

In medical reports dated February 22, April 3, and May 16, 2017, Dr. Bergey noted that 

appellant continued to be denied treatment for her cervical and lumbar spine conditions. He 

indicated that she was temporarily partially disabled and was to remain at modified duty. In his 

April 3, 2017 report, Dr. Bergey reviewed Dr. Einbund’s second opinion evaluation and 

determined that appellant’s accepted right pubic ramus fracture had resolved. He noted that she

continued to have residual pain affecting the lumbar spine and right shoulder and recommended 

that causation be determined by a medical/legal evaluation. 

In a letter dated June 2, 2017, OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits as the evidence of record established that she no longer had 

residuals or disability causally related to the December 27, 2013 employment injury. It noted that

Dr. Einbund had opined that her cervical, lumbar spine, and right shoulder impingement conditions 

were related to her underlying degenerative cervical and lumbar spine conditions. OWCP afforded 

appellant 30 days to respond if she disagreed with the proposed termination. 

On July 14 and 25, 2017 OWCP received multiple wage-loss compensation claims (Form 

CA-7) claiming disability compensation for the period commencing December 1, 2014 and 

continuing. 

In a September 13, 2017 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that additional 

evidence was needed to support her intermittent disability claim and informed her of the evidence 

needed. It noted that she was claiming disability for conditions not accepted under the case and 

explained that her physician must submit a comprehensive narrative medical report, which 

included a history of injury and thorough explanation with findings as to how her 

condition/disability worsened such that she was no longer able to perform the duties of her 

modified-duty position and its relationship to the December 27, 2013 employment injury. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested evidence. 

In a June 26, 2017 report, Dr. Bergey indicated that appellant was totally disabled when 

she was initially seen on June 10, 2014. As of January 15, 2015, appellant was partially disabled 

and primarily performed desk work within prescribed modified-duty work with part-time hours. 

Dr. Bergey provided examination findings and diagnosed: right C5 radiculopathy with deltoid and 

biceps weakness, C5-6 moderately severe right neuroforaminal stenosis, right shoulder 

impingement syndrome, right elbow contusion, resolved; right sacroiliac joint dysfunction; L5-S1 

disc degeneration; and right superior and inferior pubic ramus fractures, healed. He opined that 

when appellant fell on December 27, 2013 she also sustained a traumatic sacroiliac joint injury. 

While the pubic rami fractures had healed, her ongoing right buttocks and posterior thigh pain was 
4

due to sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Dr. Bergey explained that this occurred due to the pelvic 

fracture as she fell hard enough to fracture her pelvic ring. He also opined that appellant’s right 

shoulder impairment was due to the fall as there were no industrial or nonindustrial injuries that 

caused her current level of impairment. Dr. Bergey indicated that she had reached MMI and that 

she had permanent work restrictions. 

By decision dated December 5, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation 

for the period commencing December 1, 2014 and continuing. It found that the medical evidence 

from Dr. Bergey did not support intermittent periods of disability commencing December 1, 2014 

and continuing based on the accepted employment-related medical conditions. 

By decision also dated December 5, 2017, OWCP finalized the termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective that date. It found that the weight of the 

medical evidence rested with Dr. Einbund, OWCP’s second opinion examiner, who concluded that 

she had no residuals or disability due to her accepted employment conditions. 

On December 11, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before 

an OWCP hearing representative. At the May 22, 2018 telephonic hearing, counsel noted that 

appellant was working full duty, but still experienced pain. 

In a December 19, 2017 progress report, Dr. Bergey amended appellant’s June 26, 2017 

permanent work restrictions as she indicated that the employing establishment was unable to 

accommodate those restrictions. 

In a June 14, 2018 supplemental report, Dr. Bergey provided a discussion related to 

appellant’s cervical and lumbar spine conditions. For the lumbar spine, he noted that she

complained of low back pain and buttocks pain following the accepted employment injury. 

Dr. Bergey opined that appellant’s primary impairment was related to traumatic sacroiliac joint 

dysfunction as there was some mild tenderness of the low lumbar spine. He concluded that there 

was a reasonable medical probability that her lumbar spine impairment was due to the employment 

injury. For the cervical spine, Dr. Bergey noted that appellant complained of posterior right 

shoulder pain and pain radiating down the right arm and that she had also identified multiple prior 

industrial injuries to the cervical spine. He indicated that there was no evidence of a new or further 

injury to the cervical spine. Dr. Bergey concluded that the cervical radiculopathy was present prior 

to the employment injury, but indicated that he would amend his opinion based upon a reasonable 

medical probability that her current cervical radiculopathy occurred as a result of the injury. 

By decision dated July 26, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s prior 

decisions dated December 5, 2017. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of proof to justify 

modification or termination of an employee’s benefits.4 After it has determined that an employee 

has disability causally related to his or her federal employment, it may not terminate compensation 

 

4

J.T., Docket No. 18-1300 (issued March 22, 2019); R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); S.F., 59 

ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart,54 ECAB 824 (2003).
5

without establishing that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related to the employment.5 

OWCP’s burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion 

evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.6

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

entitlement for disability.7 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must 

establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition, which would 

require further medical treatment.8

When an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to 

an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally 

related to the employment injury.9 To establish a causal relationship between the condition, as 

well as any attendant disability claimed and the employment incident, the employee must submit 

rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a complete medical and factual background 

supporting such causal relationship.

10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective December 5, 2017, as she no longer had residuals or 

disability causally related to her accepted December 27, 2013 employment injury. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Einbund for a second opinion evaluation to determine the 

status of her accepted conditions and her work capacity. In his February 16, 2017 report,

Dr. Einbund described her December 27, 2013 employment injury and noted that her claim was 

accepted for fracture of pubis and sprain of the right shoulder and upper arm. Appellant’s physical 

examination revealed a healed fracture of the right superior and inferior pubic rami, closed without 

complications, and a resolved right shoulder sprain. Dr. Einbund also found that her current right 

shoulder and right upper extremity symptoms were related to her right cervical radiculopathy and 

not to any residuals of the accepted shoulder sprain. Thus, he opined that there were no objective 

findings of the accepted conditions to support ongoing residuals requiring ongoing medical 

treatment. Dr. Einbund explained that appellant’s medical records detailed evidence of 

nonindustrial conditions which represented age-related changes. This included degenerative disc 

disease of the cervical spine with evidence of foraminal narrowing and disc bulges, a right cervical 

radiculopathy (confirmed by EMG/NCV studies of record), and lumbar spine degenerative disc 

disease with right sacroiliac dysfunction. Dr. Einbund explained that appellant’s symptoms of 

right shoulder pain radiating down the arm with numbness and tingling were not commensurate 

 

5 D.M., Docket No. 17-1992 (issued September 12, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Elsie L. Price, 54 ECAB 

734 (2003).

6

J.T., supra note 4; J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988).

7 D.M., supra note 5; T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Kathryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

8 R.P., supra note 4; Kathryn E. Demarsh, id.; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003).

9 See S.C., Docket No. 17-1587 (issued January 2, 2019); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

10 See S.C., id.; Jennifer Atkerson, 55 ECAB 317 (2004).
6

with a sprain injury. He concluded that, based upon her own statements, her disability had been 

limited to seven to eight weeks following the December 27, 2013 injury and that there were no 

other periods of disability causally related to the injury. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly accorded the weight of medical opinion to

Dr. Einbund who reported that appellant no longer had residuals or disability as a result of the 

December 27, 2013 employment injury. Dr. Einbund based his opinion on a proper factual and 

medical history and physical examination findings and provided medical rationale for his opinion 

that she did not have residuals or work limitations as a result of the employment injury. Rather, 

he opined that appellant’s current conditions and work limitations were a result of the natural 

progression of her preexisting conditions. Dr. Einbund explained that the accepted conditions had 

resolved and that there were no other periods of disability causally related to the December 27, 

2013 employment injury after the initial seven to eight weeks following the injury. The Board 

finds that he provided a well-rationalized opinion based on medical evidence regarding appellant’s 

December 27, 2013 employment injury. Accordingly, OWCP properly relied on Dr. Einbund’s

February 15, 2017 second opinion report in terminating her wage-loss compensation and medical 

benefits.

11

The remaining evidence submitted prior to OWCP’s termination of appellant’s 

compensation, medical reports of Dr. Bergey, are insufficient to establish that she had residuals or 

disability of her accepted employment-related conditions. 

Dr. Bergey opined, in his June 26, 2017 report, that appellant’s pubic rami fracture had 

healed, however, she had sacroiliac joint dysfunction due to the pelvic fracture. He also opined 

that her right shoulder condition was due to the fall as she had no other industrial or nonindustrial 

injuries. This opinion, however, is conclusory in nature and not supported by rationalized medical 

opinion.12 Dr. Bergey did not provide a rationalized medical opinion either explaining how 

appellant’s current conditions and disability were causally related to the accepted conditions or 

provide a rationalized explanation of how any of the additional diagnosed conditions were causally 

related to or aggravated by the December 27, 2013 employment injury.13 

The Board finds that the weight of the evidence, as represented by the second opinion 

specialist, Dr. Einbund, establishes that appellant had no further employment-related residuals or 

disability as of December 5, 2017, the date OWCP terminated her wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits.

14

 

11 See N.G., Docket No. 18-1340 (issued March 6, 2019); A.F., Docket No. 16-0393 (issued June 24, 2016).

12 See R.T., Docket No. 15-0907 (issued August 18, 2015).

13 Supra note 10. 

14 See R.R., Docket No. 19-0173 (issued May 2, 2019); O.W., Docket No. 17-1881 (issued May 1, 2018).
7

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

As OWCP properly terminated appellant’s medical benefits, the burden shifts to her to 

establish continuing disability or residuals, after that date, causally related to her accepted injury.15 

To establish a causal relationship between the condition as well as any attendant disability claimed 

and the employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence based on a 

complete medical and factual background, supporting such a causal relationship.16 Causal 

relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish a causal relationship 

is rationalized medical evidence.17

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing 

disability or residuals, on or after December 5, 2017, causally related to her accepted

December 27, 2013 employment injury. 

Following the termination of her compensation, appellant submitted a December 19, 2017 

progress note in which Dr. Bergey amended her permanent restrictions because the employing 

establishment was unable to accommodate her previous restrictions. As this evidence failed to 

address the relevant issue of her disability or need for medical treatment due to her employment 

injuries, it is of diminished probative value.18

In a June 14, 2018 supplemental report, Dr. Bergey opined that appellant’s right sacroiliac 

joint dysfunction was due to the pelvic fracture as she had mild tenderness of the low lumbar spine 

and pain in the low back and buttocks following the injury. While he concluded that there was a 

reasonable medical probability that her lumbar spine impairment was due to the employment 

injury, he offered no medical rationale to support how he arrived at his conclusion on causation.19 

Dr. Bergey further found that there was no evidence of a new or further injury to the cervical spine. 

The Board has previously held that neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself 

during a period of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or 

aggravated by employment factors or incidents, is sufficient to establish causal relationship.20 

While Dr. Bergey indicated that he would amend his opinion if appellant’s cervical radiculopathy 

was present prior to the employment injury, his opinion is insufficient to establish causal 

relationship as it is speculative, conclusory in nature, and not supported by medical rationale.21 

Accordingly, he did not provide a rationalized medical opinion either explaining how her disability 

was causally related to the accepted conditions or provide a rationalized explanation of how any 

 

15 See S.M., Docket No. 18-0673 (issued January 25, 2019); C.S., Docket No. 18-0952 (issued October 23, 2018); 

Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001).

16 Id.

17 See C.S., supra note 15; Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208 (2004); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

18 See R.R., supra note 14; L.B., Docket No. 18-0560 (issued August 20, 2018).

19 See R.T., supra note 12. 

20 See N.B., Docket No. 19-0221 (issued July 15, 2019).

21 Id.
8

of the additional diagnosed conditions were causally related to or aggravated by the December 27, 

2013 employment injury. 

The Board thus finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing 

disability or residuals on or after December 5, 2017.22

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.23 For each period of disability 

claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that she was disabled for work as a 

result of the accepted employment injury.24 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to 

become disabled for work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be 

proved by a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.25

Under FECA the term disability means incapacity, because of an employment injury, to 

earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.26 Disability is, thus, not 

synonymous with physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages.27 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to his or her federal 

employment, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages that she was receiving at the 

time of injury, has no disability and is not entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning 

capacity.28 When, however, the medical evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an 

employment injury are such that, from a medical standpoint, they prevent the employee from 

continuing in her employment, she is entitled to compensation for any loss of wages. 

The claimant must submit medical evidence showing that the condition claimed is 

disabling.29 Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish 

a causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.30 The evidence submitted must be reliable, 

probative, and substantial.31 The physician’s opinion must be based on the facts of the case and 

 

22 A.M., Docket No. 17-1192 (issued September 19, 2018).

23 See V.G., Docket No. 18-0936 (issued February 6, 2019); B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018);

see also Amelia S. Jefferson,57 ECAB 183 (2005); see also Nathaniel Milton, 37 ECAB 712 (1986).

24 See S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April 11, 2019); D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018); see 

also Amelia S. Jefferson, id.

25 See S.G., id.; Edward H. Horton, 41 ECAB 301 (1989).

26 See V.G., supra note 23: S.M., 58 ECAB 166 (2006); Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004); 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(f).

27 See S.G., supra note 24; Roberta L. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002).

28 See S.G., id; Merle J. Marceau, 53 ECAB 197 (2001).

29 See V.G., supra note 23; M.D., Docket No. 18-0474 (issued October 3, 2018); 20 C.F.R. § 10.115.

30 D.W., Docket No. 18-0644 (issued November 15, 2018); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

31 Id.
9

the complete medical background of the employee, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, 

and must include objective findings in support of its conclusions.32

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of 

medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is 

claimed. To do so would essentially allow employees to self-certify their disability and entitlement 

to compensation.33

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish intermittent 

periods of disability commencing December 1, 2014 through December 5, 2017 causally related 

to her accepted employment injury. 

In support of her claim for wage-loss compensation, appellant submitted reports from her 

treating physician, Dr. Bergey, who diagnosed right C5 radiculopathy with deltoid and biceps 

weakness; C5-6 moderately severe right neuroforaminal stenosis; right shoulder impingement 

syndrome; right elbow contusion, resolved; right sacroiliac joint dysfunction; L5-S1 disc 

degeneration; and right superior and inferior pubic ramus fractures healed. He opined that she was 

partially disabled. As previously discussed Dr. Bergey failed to provide a well-rationalized 

opinion with objective evidence to establish that her other medical conditions were caused or 

aggravated by the December 27, 2013 employment injury. He offered no objective findings or 

medical rationale as to why appellant’s accepted conditions caused disability.34 In his reports,

Dr. Bergey related that her pelvis fracture had resolved and he did not specifically address her

accepted right shoulder strain. The issue is whether the accepted conditions in this claim caused 

disability. Dr. Bergey offered no objective findings for the dates in question which would 

substantiate that appellant was disabled due to her accepted conditions.35

As appellant has not provided further medical evidence with a rationalized opinion 

explaining why she was disabled from work for intermittent periods from December 1, 2014

through December 5, 2017 causally related to her accepted employment conditions, the Board 

finds that she has not met her burden of proof.

On appeal counsel contends that OWCP’s decision is contrary to law and fact. As 

discussed above, the medical reports of record are insufficient to establish that appellant’s 

disability was causally related to her accepted conditions during the claimed period. Additionally, 

OWCP properly terminated her entitlement to wage-loss compensation and medical benefits as the 

opinion of Dr. Einbund, the second opinion physician, constituted the weight of the medical 

evidence.

 

32 20 C.F.R. § 10.501(a)(2).

33 See S.G., supra note 24; William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

34 See S.G., supra note 24; A.M., Docket No. 09-1895 (issued April 23, 2010); Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 

349 (2001).

35 See V.G., supra note 23.
10

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective December 5, 2017, as she no longer had residuals or 

disability causally related to her accepted December 27, 2013 employment injury. The Board 

further finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing employment-rated 

disability or residuals after December 5, 2017 due to her accepted employment conditions. The 

Board also finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish intermittent periods of 

disability from December 1, 2014 through December 5, 2017 causally related to her accepted 

employment injury. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 26, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 6, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board