United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Ridgewood, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0959

Issued: September 24, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 1, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 7, 2019

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 March 7, 2019 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 properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective August 14, 2018, as she no longer had disability or 

the need for medical treatment causally related to her December 18, 2017 employment injury; and 

(2) whether she met her burden of proof to establish continuing residuals or employment-related 

disability on or after August 14, 2018.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 18, 2017 appellant, then a 48-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her left buttocks and left shoulder 

when she fell down stairs while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on 

December 18, 2017. OWCP accepted the claim for thoracic sprain/strain, lumbar sprain, cervical 

sprain, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar contusions, and a left shoulder contusion. It subsequently 

expanded acceptance of the claim to include subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis of the left shoulder. 

OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation for total disability on the supplemental rolls from 

February 2 to May 26, 2018 and on the periodic rolls from May 27 to June 23, 2018, when she 

returned to full-time modified employment.

In a report dated January 11, 2018, Dr. Philip Baldeo, who specializes in family medicine,

discussed appellant’s history of an employment injury on December 18, 2017 when she fell down 

stairs and her continued complaints of pain in her neck, left shoulder, low back, and weakness and 

numbness of the upper and lower extremities bilaterally. He diagnosed persisting cervical 

myofasciitis, traumatic cervical pain syndrome, thoracic and lumbosacral sprain/strain, traumatic 

lumbar radiculitis/radiculopathy, and disc herniations, contusions, and internal derangement of the 

cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Dr. Baldeo attributed the diagnosed conditions to appellant’s 

employment injury “if the history given by [appellant] is true.” He opined that she was temporarily 

totally disabled.4

A January 29, 2018 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine revealed 

minimal C5-6 disc bulging. A January 31, 2018 MRI scan of the left shoulder revealed mild 

subacromial subdeltoid bursitis and small to moderate glenohumeral joint effusion. 

Electrodiagnostic studies obtained January 26, 2018 revealed right carpal tunnel syndrome. 

On April 2, 2018 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Leon Sultan, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination.

In a report dated April 23, 2018, Dr. Sultan discussed appellant’s history of a December 18, 

2017 employment injury and reviewed the evidence of record including January 31, 2018 MRI 

scans of the cervical spine and left shoulder. On examination he found intact sensation of the 

upper extremities with good grip strength. Dr. Sultan measured good range of motion of the 

cervical and thoracolumbar spine and the left shoulder. He further found negative straight leg raise 

bilaterally and intact sensation of the lower extremities. Dr. Sultan opined that the findings on 

physical examination of appellant’s cervical and thoracolumbar spine and left shoulder were 

 

4 Dr. Baldeo provided similar reports on February 15 and April 10, 2018. He further provided periodic nerve blocks 

throughout 2018 and 2019.
3

unremarkable. He related, “She is noted to be status post trauma to the cervical spine, left shoulder, 

and thoracolumbar spine causally related to the occurrence of December 18, 2017 and now 

clinically resolved.” Regarding the findings on MRI scans, Dr. Sultan attributed the 

subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis to the accepted employment injury, but found that the minimal C5-

6 disc bulging was unrelated to her employment. He opined that appellant had no further objective 

findings or residuals of her cervical spine, thoracolumbar spine, or left shoulder conditions and 

that she could resume her usual employment. In an accompanying work capacity evaluation 

(OWCP-5c), Dr. Sultan found that appellant could work full time without limitations. 

In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated April 13 through June 15, 2018, Dr. Baldeo 

diagnosed bursitis of the left shoulder and a cervical and lumbar spine condition, provided a series 

restrictions, and indicated that he had not advised appellant to resume work. 

An April 23, 2018 MRI scan of appellant’s lumbar spine revealed a disc herniation at L3-4, 

a disc bulge at L4-5 with an annular tear on the left, and mild-to-moderate central canal stenosis 

and foraminal narrowing from L3 to L5. 

In a June 15, 2018 return to work certificate, Dr. Baldeo advised that he was treating 

appellant for an employment injury and that he was unsure when she could resume her usual 

employment duties. 

In an addendum report dated June 18, 2018, Dr. Sultan opined that appellant had sustained 

only a soft trauma injury on December 18, 2017 to her cervical and thoracolumbar spine and left 

shoulder. He opined that she had no residuals of her accepted employment-related conditions and 

no work restrictions.

By decision dated June 18, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand the 

acceptance of her claim to include lumbar disc displacement, lumbar radiculitis/radiculopathy, 

cervical disc herniation, and cervical, thoracic, and lumbar internal derangement. It found that she 

had not submitted reasoned medical evidence explaining how the diagnosed conditions were 

caused or aggravated by her December 18, 2017 employment injury.

On June 23, 2018 appellant returned to limited-duty full-time employment with the 

employing establishment. 

On July 2, 2018 OWCP advised appellant of its proposed termination of her wage-loss 

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

employment-related residuals or disability due to employment injury. It afforded her 30 days to 

submit additional evidence or argument if she disagreed with the proposed termination.

Thereafter, appellant submitted a May 24, 2018 report from Dr. Baldeo. Dr. Baldeo

reviewed her history of injury and complaints of pain in her neck, left shoulder, back, and buttocks. 

He provided findings on examination and diagnosed resolving cervical myofascitis, traumatic 

cervical spine syndrome, resolved thoracic sprain/strain, traumatic lumbosacral spine sprain and 

disc displacement, traumatic lumbar radiculitis/radiculopathy, resolving traumatic disc herniations 

of the cervical and lumbar spine, traumatic internal derangement of the lumbar spine, and a 

contusion of the cervical and lumbar spine and the left shoulder. Dr. Baldeo attributed appellant’s 

condition to the December 18, 2017 employment injury and found that she was totally disabled. 

He provided a substantially similar report on June 25, 2018.
4

Appellant further submitted June 20 and July 16, 2018 letters of medical necessity from

Dr. Baldeo requesting nerve blocks and physical therapy reports dated June through August 2018.

On July 24 and 25 and August 3, 2018 Dr. Baldeo provided a physical performance 

evaluation. On July 25, 2018 he described the range of motion and strength findings and

recommended treatment.

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated July 26, 2018, Dr. Baldeo indicated that 

appellant was partially disabled from employment and provided work restrictions. 

By decision dated August 13, 2018, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits effective August 14, 2018. It found that the opinion of

Dr. Sultan constituted the weight of the evidence and established that she had no further residuals 

of her accepted employment injury.

On August 23, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

Appellant subsequently submitted a July 6, 2018 report from Dr. Baldeo. Dr. Baldeo

reviewed Dr. Sultan’s report and advised that he did not review all the MRI scans and 

electrodiagnostic test results, noting that some test results were not available at the time of his 

report. He maintained that his examination was brief and questioned his findings. Dr. Baldeo

related that Dr. Sultan’s report was “being used to terminate [appellant’s] injury in a work[-]related 

trauma that I believe is legitimate....”

In a report dated August 22, 2018, Dr. Baldeo noted that appellant was currently working,

but continued to experience left shoulder, neck, and low back pain. He diagnosed persisting 

cervical myofascitis and pain syndrome, resolved thoracic sprain/strain, persisting lumbosacral 

disc displacement and radiculitis, cervical and lumbar disc herniations and internal derangement, 

and contusions of the cervical and lumbar spine and left shoulder. Dr. Baldeo found that appellant 

was partially disabled due to her employment injury.5

In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated March 5 through May 6, 2019, Dr. Baldeo 

diagnosed bursitis of the left shoulder and a cervical and lumbar spine condition, and provided 

work restrictions.

A telephonic hearing was held on January 3, 2019. Appellant described her difficulties 

performing activities because of her left shoulder and back condition.

In a report dated January 30, 2019, Dr. Baldeo asserted that Dr. Sultan had inaccurately 

represented appellant’s condition. He described her continued complaints and opined that she was 

partially disabled due to her employment injury. Dr. Baldeo recommended electrodiagnostic 

testing.

By decision dated March 7, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the August 13, 

2018 decision. The hearing representative found that the opinion of Dr. Sultan established that 

appellant had no further disability or need for medical treatment due to her accepted conditions. 

 

5 Dr. Baldeo continued to treat appellant with nerve blocks.
5

The hearing representative determined, however, that upon return of the case record OWCP should 

further develop the issue of whether the acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include 

additional conditions related to the accepted December 18, 2017 employment injury.

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.6 After it has determined that an employee 

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

without establishing that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related to the employment.7 

Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence 

based on a proper factual and medical background.8

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

entitlement for disability.9 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.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits effective August 14, 2018 as she no longer had disability or the need for medical 

treatment causally related to her December 18, 2017 employment injury.

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained thoracic sprain/strain, lumbar sprain, cervical 

sprain, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar contusions, a left shoulder contusion, and left shoulder 

subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis due to a December 18, 2017 employment injury. It paid her wageloss compensation for disability from February 2 to June 23, 2018, when she resumed limited-duty 

employment.

On April 23, 2018 Dr. Sultan, an OWCP referral physician, reviewed the history of 

appellant’s employment injury and the medical evidence of record, including the results of cervical 

and left shoulder MRI scans. On examination he found good upper extremity sensation, range of 

motion, and grip strength. Dr. Sultan additionally found intact lower extremity sensation and a 

negative straight leg. He determined that the physical findings for appellant’s cervical and 

thoracolumbar spine and left shoulder were unremarkable and that her trauma to these areas had 

resolved. Dr. Sultan opined that she could return to her usual employment. In a supplemental 

report, he found that appellant had no residuals of her accepted conditions and no work restrictions. 

Dr. Sultan provided a thorough review of the factual and medical background and accurately 

summarized the relevant medical evidence. Moreover, he provided detailed findings on 

 

6 M.M., Docket No. 17-1264 (issued December 3, 2018).

7 E.B., Docket No. 18-1060 (issued November 1, 2018).

8 G.H., Docket No. 18-0414 (issued November 14, 2018).

9 L.W., Docket No. 18-1372 (issued February 27, 2019).

10 R.P., Docket No. 18-0900 (issued February 5, 2019).
6

examination and reached conclusions regarding appellant’s condition which comported with his 

findings.11 Consequently, Dr. Sultan’s opinion is entitled to the weight of the evidence and 

establishes that appellant had no further disability or need for medical treatment due to her 

December 18, 2017 employment injury as of August 14, 2018.12

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

compensation is insufficient to establish that she had any further disability or residuals of her 

accepted employment-related conditions. In reports dated May 24 and June 25, 2018, Dr. Baldeo 

diagnosed resolving cervical myofasciitis, traumatic cervical spine syndrome, resolved thoracic 

sprain/strain, traumatic lumbosacral spine sprain and disc displacement, traumatic lumbar 

radiculitis/radiculopathy, resolving traumatic disc herniations of the cervical and lumbar spine, 

traumatic internal derangement of the lumbar spine, and a contusion of the cervical and lumbar 

spine and the left shoulder. He attributed the diagnosed conditions to appellant’s employment 

injury and opined that she was totally disabled. Dr. Baldeo, however, failed to provide any 

rationale for his opinion. The Board has held that a medical report is of limited probative value 

on a given medical issue if it contains a medical opinion which is unsupported by medical 

rationale.13

In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated April 13 through June 15, 2018, Dr. Baldeo 

diagnosed bursitis of the left shoulder and a cervical and lumbar spine condition. He indicated 

that he had not advised appellant to return to work. In a duty status report dated July 26, 2018,

Dr. Baldeo determined that she was partially disabled from employment. The duty status report is 

merely a form report and does not contain an opinion on whether the accepted employment injury 

caused disability from employment; consequently, it is of no probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship.14

The record also contains reports from Dr. Baldeo dated June through August 2018 

regarding physical performance evaluations and the administration of nerve blocks. These reports 

do not address the issue of causation and thus are of little probative value.15

In a return to work form dated June 15, 2018, Dr. Baldeo indicated that he was treating 

appellant for an employment injury and that he was unsure when she could return to work. His 

form report, however, is of limited probative value as it failed to provide medical rationale 

explaining how she had continuing disability causally related to the accepted employment injury.16

 

11 O.S., Docket No. 18-1549 (issued February 7, 2019).

12 O.W., Docket No. 17-1881 (issued May 1, 2018).

13 See M.H., Docket No. 17-0210 (issued June 3, 2018).

14 L.D., Docket No. 19-0263 (issued June 19, 2019).

15 D.O., Docket No. 16-1726 (issued October 26, 2017).

16 See J.F., Docket No. 17-1716 (issued March 1, 2018).
7

Appellant further submitted physical therapy reports dated June through August 2018. 

However, physical therapists are not considered physicians as defined under FECA and thus their 

opinions are of no probative value.17

The Board finds that the weight of the evidence establishes that appellant had no further 

employment-related disability or need for medical treatment effective August 14, 2018, the date 

OWCP terminated her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits.18

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

When OWCP properly terminates compensation benefits, the burden shifts to appellant to 

establish continuing residuals or disability on or after that date causally related to the accepted 

injury.19 To establish causal relationship between the accepted conditions 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 causal 

relationship.20

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

employment-related disability on or after August 14, 2018.

Following the termination of her wage-loss compensation, appellant submitted a July 6, 

2018 report from Dr. Baldeo. Dr. Baldeo asserted that Dr. Sultan had failed to review all of the 

diagnostic studies and that he performed a brief examination. He maintained that appellant had 

sustained employment-related trauma. However, Dr. Baldeo again failed to provide any rationale 

explaining why she had continued disability or the need for medical treatment causally related to 

her accepted conditions of thoracic sprain/strain, lumbar sprain, cervical sprain, cervical, thoracic, 

and lumbar contusions, a left shoulder contusion, and left shoulder subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis. 

Consequently, his report is of diminished probative value.21

In a report dated August 22, 2018, Dr. Baldeo discussed appellant’s continued complaints 

of left shoulder, neck, and low back pain. He diagnosed persisting cervical myofasciitis and pain 

syndrome, resolved thoracic sprain/strain, persisting lumbosacral disc displacement and 

radiculitis, cervical and lumbar disc herniations and internal derangement, and contusions of the 

cervical and lumbar spine and left shoulder. Dr. Baldeo opined that appellant remained partially 

disabled due to her employment injury. He did not, however, support his finding of continued 

 

17 The term physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, 

and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by state law. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); see B.R., 

Docket No. 19-0309 (issued June 19, 2019).

18 Id.

19 L.C., Docket No. 18-1759 (issued June 26, 2019).

20 Id.

21 See J.F., supra note 16.
8

employment-related disability and residuals with medical reasoning.22 A mere conclusion 

regarding causation and disability without supporting medical rationale is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.23 Further, Dr. Baldeo attributed appellant’s disability, in part, to 

conditions not accepted or approved by OWCP as due to an employment injury, and thus she bears 

the burden of proof to establish that these conditions are causally related to the employment injury 

through reasoned medical evidence.24 He provided no rationale explaining how physiologically 

the movements involved in the employment incident caused or contributed to the diagnosed 

conditions; therefore, his report is insufficient to meet her burden of proof.25

In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated March 5 through May 6, 2019, Dr. Baldeo 

diagnosed bursitis of the left shoulder and a cervical and lumbar spine condition, and provided a 

series of work restrictions. As discussed, however, the form reports contain no opinion regarding 

causation and thus are of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.26

On January 30, 2019 Dr. Baldeo asserted that Dr. Sultan had inaccurately represented 

appellant’s condition. He described her continued complaints and opined that she was partially 

disabled due to her employment injury. Dr. Baldeo recommended electrodiagnostic testing. He

did not, however, specifically identify how Dr. Sultan misrepresented appellant’s condition or 

explain how any continuing residuals and partial disability resulted from the conditions accepted 

as causally related to her December 18, 2017 employment injury.27 Appellant, therefore, has not 

established continuing residuals or disability on or after August 14, 2018 causally related to the 

accepted employment injury.28

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 properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits effective August 14, 2018 as she no longer had disability or the need for medical 

treatment causally related to her December 18, 2017 employment injury. The Board further finds 

that she has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing employment-related residuals or

disability on or after August 14, 2018.

 

22 See T.W., Docket No. 18-1573 (issued July 19, 2019).

23 See L.G., Docket No. 19-0142 (issued August 8, 2019).

24 D.J., Docket No. 18-0200 (issued August 12, 2019).

25 M.E., Docket No. 18-0940 (issued June 11, 2019).

26 See L.D., supra note 14.

27 See H.Y., Docket No. 18-1673 (issued May 20, 2019).

28 Id.
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 7, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 24, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board