United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Conyers, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0958

Issued: January 8, 2019

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 April 9, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 20, 2018 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 over 

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective March 4, 2018.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 Together with her appeal request, appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.5(b). After exercising its discretion, by order dated November 20, 2018, the Board denied the request as 

appellant’s arguments on appeal could be adequately addressed in a decision based on a review of the case as submitted 

on the record. Order Denying Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 18-0958 (issued November 20, 2018).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 21, 2000 appellant, then a 40-year-old supervisor of customer services, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an emotional condition due 

to various claimed incidents and conditions at work, including the fact that the postmaster at her 

worksite treated her like a “second class citizen” and left her out of important managerial decisions 

which adversely affected her work as a supervisor of customer services. She stopped work on 

January 22, 2000. 

By decisions dated June 30 and December 22, 2000, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional 

condition claim. After further development of the evidence, it accepted in August 2001 that she

sustained employment-related post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment reaction with 

depressed/anxious mood and reactive depression.

3

 OWCP paid appellant disability compensation 

on the periodic rolls commencing June 16, 2002.

Appellant periodically received treatment for her emotional condition from Dr. Charles 

Nord, an attending clinical psychologist. In an April 18, 2003 report, Dr. Nord indicated that,

when he treated her on April 10, 2003, she was in a highly agitated state. He noted that appellant

had been under his care since 2000 and diagnosed severe panic attack and stress disorder.

In August 2010 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination to

Dr. Robert S. Benson, a Board-certified psychiatrist. It requested that Dr. Benson evaluate 

whether appellant continued to have residuals of her accepted employment-related emotional 

conditions.

In an October 18, 2010 report, Dr. Benson reported the findings of the psychiatric 

evaluation he conducted on October 10, 2010. He diagnosed major depressive disorder (single 

episode) and anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified), and he indicated that appellant continued 

to have residuals of her accepted employment-related conditions.

In July 2017 OWCP again referred appellant for a second opinion examination to

Dr. Benson and asked him to evaluate whether appellant continued to have residuals of her 

accepted employment-related emotional conditions.

In an August 17, 2017 report, Dr. Benson reported the findings of the evaluation he 

conducted on that date, including the results of several psychiatric tests, and diagnosed appellant 

with major depressive disorder (single episode), anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified), and 

hypertension. He noted that she had a history that supported a diagnosis of major depressive 

disorder. Appellant had been in treatment with medication appropriate for that diagnosis and 

continued in treatment, which likely accounted for her minimal symptoms at the time of his 

examination. Dr. Benson indicated that, given her self-reported measures, appellant had

consistently endorsed mild-to-moderate levels of anxiety and depression. Appellant had

consistently reported symptoms that suggested a diagnosis of depression and had received a 

 

3

In a July 27, 2017 statement of accepted facts, OWCP indicated under a heading for accepted events that were 

factors of employment that it had been determined “that the changes made with operational procedures, which were 

effectuated by the postmaster, directly affected [appellant’s] mode of operations.”
3

diagnosis of depression in a variety of settings. Dr. Benson advised that she currently was in 

treatment for depression with medication appropriate for the diagnosis. He noted that appellant 

reported few symptoms and there was little evidence of impairment, but advised that she had

subjective complaints which were consistent with the objective findings in his August 17, 2017

evaluation.

Dr. Benson opined that the work-related condition of adjustment disorder with depressed 

mood had been superseded by appellant’s diagnosis of major depressive disorder, single episode. 

He noted that she had that diagnosis for most of her treatment history and that there was no 

indication to change the diagnosis. Dr. Benson advised that, when appellant was evaluated in 

2010, she was experiencing significant emotional distress, but noted that she was not experiencing 

significant emotional distress at the time of his current evaluation. There was little indication of 

impairment in her current function and she had appropriate relationships with others. Dr. Benson 

noted that there had been no changes in appellant’s treatment plan in the past seven years 

suggesting that she had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). He indicated that 

appellant’s current level of symptoms was having little impact on her daily function.

Dr. Benson noted that appellant did not have any current disabling residuals related to her 

“accepted work injury of January 13, 2000.” He indicated that she appeared stable on her current 

regimen of medication and had adequate function in the community and in her relationships with 

others. Appellant had experienced some relationship issues over the course of her treatment and 

she currently was distressed over her inability to have a continuing relationship with her 

grandchildren. Dr. Benson opined that this level of distress was not causing significant impairment 

and noted that she would be able to participate in a variety of limited-duty assignments. Appellant

would be able to participate in vocational rehabilitation services to help her find other employment 

activities that would be consistent with her education and training. Dr. Benson indicated that she

had reached MMI for treatment of her problem with major depressive disorder and she currently 

reported mild symptoms of depression. There had been no change in appellant’s medication 

regimen except for reductions in the past seven years and she was not actively involved in any 

psychotherapy associated with her depression or work-related issues.

In an August 18, 2017 work capacity evaluation form (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Benson noted 

that appellant was capable of performing her regular work for the employing establishment on a 

full-time basis, but advised that she had no interest in returning to such work at the present time. 

He indicated that she could function in a variety of work settings or training opportunities.

In a November 17, 2017 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits because she ceased to have residuals of her accepted 

employment-related emotional conditions. It informed her that the proposed termination action 

was justified by the opinion of Dr. Benson, OWCP’s referral physician. OWCP afforded appellant 

30 days to submit evidence or argument challenging the proposed termination action.

In an undated letter received by OWCP on December 14, 2017, appellant expressed 

disagreement with Dr. Benson’s opinion that she could return to her regular work as a supervisor 

of customer services at the employing establishment.
4

By decision dated February 20, 2018, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective March 4, 2018 based on the opinion of Dr. Benson, 

OWCP’s referral physician. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Under FECA, once OWCP has accepted a claim it has the burden of justifying termination 

or modification of compensation benefits.4 OWCP may not terminate compensation without 

establishing that the disability ceased or that it was 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

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective March 4, 2018.

OWCP accepted in August 2001 that appellant sustained employment-related posttraumatic stress disorder and adjustment reaction with depressed/anxious mood and reactive 

depression. Appellant received disability compensation commencing in June 2002, but OWCP 

terminated her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective March 4, 2018 based on 

August 17 and 18, 2017 reports of Dr. Benson, OWCP’s referral physician.

In an August 17, 2017 narrative report, Dr. Benson determined that appellant ceased to 

have residuals of her accepted employment conditions, post-traumatic stress disorder and 

adjustment reaction with depressed/anxious mood and reactive depression. In an August 18, 2018 

form report, he determined that appellant was capable of performing her regular work for the 

employing establishment on a full-time basis. The Board notes, however, that Dr. Benson failed 

to provide adequate medical rationale in support of these conclusions. Dr. Benson repeatedly 

noted in his August 17, 2017 report that appellant had a continuing diagnosis of major depressive 

disorder at the time of his August 17, 2017 evaluation, although he also reported that appellant 

appeared stable on her current regimen of medication and had adequate function in the community 

and in her relationships with others. However, he failed to explain why this major depressive 

disorder was no longer related, at least in part, to appellant’s accepted condition of adjustment 

reaction with depressed/anxious mood and reactive depression.

Dr. Benson also indicated in his August 17, 2017 report that the “work-related condition 

of adjustment disorder with depressed mood has been superseded by her diagnosis of major 

depressive disorder, single episode.” However, he did not provide an indication when this major 

depressive disorder superseded the identified employment-related depressive condition. 

Dr. Benson did not identify any specific treatment records to support his ostensible opinion that 

 

4

J.H., Docket No. 18-0103 (issued October 15, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Vivien L. Minor, 37 ECAB 

541 (1986).

5 R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); Charles E. Minniss, 40 ECAB 708 (1989).

6 Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988).
5

appellant’s accepted condition of adjustment reaction with depressed/anxious mood and reactive 

depression had completely resolved before it was “superseded” by the diagnosis of major 

depressive disorder.7 Importantly, he made no mention in the analysis portion of his August 17, 

2017 report of appellant’s accepted condition of post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Benson

provided no specific discussion of whether this condition had resolved. In addition, he failed to 

adequately explain why appellant could perform her regular work as a supervisor of customer 

services given her current psychiatric condition. In sum, Dr. Benson’s opinion is of limited 

probative value on the underlying issue of this case because he failed to provide a rationalized 

medical opinion that appellant ceased to have residuals of her accepted employment-related 

conditions.8

For these reasons, OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective March 4, 2018.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective March 4, 2018.

 

7 Dr. Benson only generally noted that, when appellant was evaluated in 2010, she was experiencing significant 

emotional distress.

8 See C.M., Docket No. 14-0088 (issued April 18, 2014).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 20, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: January 8, 2019

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