United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PLANO MAIN POST 

OFFICE, Plano, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0401

Issued: February 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 10, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from July 17 and 23, and 

October 30, 2019 merit decisions 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 

ISSUES

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

wage-loss compensation and entitlement to a schedule award, effective July 21, 2019, as he refused 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the issuance of OWCP’s decisions, appellant submitted 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 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id. 
2

an offer of suitable work pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2); and (2) whether OWCP properly 

exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s request to change his treating physician.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 3, 1998 appellant, then a 23-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on August 1, 1998 he was injured while in the performance of duty. 

OWCP accepted the claim for a back sprain, displacement of the lumbar intervertebral disc without 

myelopathy, and bilateral thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis. The record reflects that 

OWCP paid him wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls commencing December 3, 

2013 and on the periodic rolls commencing October 19, 2014.

On July 1, 2014 appellant underwent an unsuccessful spinal cord stimulator implant and 

remained off work following the procedure.

In a December 21, 2016 report, Dr. Robert Helsten, Board-certified in family medicine, 

noted that appellant complained of severe lower back pain radiating down his right leg and foot 

from a work injury and that he was walking with a cane. Associated symptoms included sensorymotor loss and sleep disruption, and pain exacerbated by standing and alleviated by lying down or 

sitting. A physical examination of appellant’s lower back revealed severe tenderness and a range 

of motion of 30 degrees flexion, 10 degrees extension, 30 degrees right lateral flexion, and 20 

degrees left lateral flexion. He diagnosed a herniated disc and right sciatica and indicated that 

appellant should permanently work light duty. Dr. Helsten referred appellant to Dr. Daniel 

Keelen, Board-certified in pain management, for further medical treatment. 

In a December 21, 2016 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Helsten indicated 

that appellant was not capable of performing his usual job without restrictions. He further 

indicated that appellant had difficulty walking, bending, and lifting and could work eight hours 

per day with permanent physical restrictions, however he noted that appellant had not reached his 

maximum medical improvement (MMI). Dr. Helsten related that appellant could work at the 

sedentary, light, and medium strength levels, and he listed work restrictions as including a 

maximum of two hours of walking, two hours of standing, two hours of pushing up to 40 pounds, 

two hours of pulling up to 40 pounds, two hours of lifting up to 40 pounds, two hours of squatting, 

and no climbing. 

In a March 8, 2018 work status report, Dr. Helsten indicated that appellant was able to 

return to work with restrictions and he noted that he had listed appellant’s restrictions in a 

December 21, 2016 Form OWCP-5c. In an attached February 12, 2018 report, signed by

Dr. Helsten on March 8, 2018, he related that appellant injured his low back when lifting a heavy 

tray of mail and he listed lumbar tenderness, limited range of motion, and limited lifting ability as 

clinical findings. Dr. Helsten noted appellant’s diagnoses of intervertebral disc displacement of 

the lumbar region, sprain of the ligaments of the lumbar spine, and radiculopathy of the lumbar 

region. He related that appellant could work eight hours per day and indicated that he did not 

anticipate that appellant would need a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) or other vocational 

rehabilitation services. Dr. Helsten concluded that appellant’s restrictions were permanent and 

that he had reached MMI on December 21, 2016.
3

A May 11, 2018 offer of modified duty from the employing establishment indicated that 

the position of customer care specialist was offered to appellant with an effective date of 

May 11, 2018. The duties of the position were listed as case resolution/working with customers 

for six to seven hours per day and answering telephones for one to two hours per day. The physical 

requirements included sitting for six to eight hours per day, standing/walking for one to two hours 

per day, and keyboarding for one to six hours per day. The employing establishment signed the 

offer on May 16, 2018. The offer indicated that it had considered documentation from Dr. Helsten 

from December 21, 2016 and March 8, 2018. It listed appellant’s permanent work restrictions as 

including walking and standing for up to two hours per day; pushing, pulling, lifting and squatting 

for up to two hours per day with a 40-pound weight limit; and no climbing. 

A May 16, 2018 priority for assignment worksheet from the employing establishment 

indicated that appellant could not perform carrier duties with his current restrictions. It related that 

appellant could perform work that was within his restrictions, which included handling customer 

issues and answering telephones, which could be performed while sitting for the majority of the 

day for 40 hours per week.

A May 16, 2018 letter from the employing establishment requested that appellant accept 

the modified job offer and report to work no later than May 24, 2018. It stated that if appellant 

declined the modified job offer he should provide his reasons for doing so, and that the offer would 

remain available until OWCP issued a decision regarding whether the offer complies with his 

medical restrictions. 

On May 22, 2018 appellant rejected the employing establishment’s offer of modified 

assignment dated May 11, 2018 and signed by the employing establishment on May 16, 2018. He 

contended that it did not adhere to his current work restrictions provided by Dr. Keelen. 

OWCP subsequently received a May 22, 2018 medical report, wherein Dr. Helsten 

indicated that appellant complained of lower back pain radiating down his right leg and lower left 

leg pain. Dr. Helsten listed appellant’s date of injury as August 1, 1998 and noted that appellant 

had a medical history of multiple back surgeries. He further noted that appellant’s pain was 

exacerbated by getting up and down and alleviated by changing position and using a 

transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit. Dr. Helsten’s associated symptoms 

included sleep disturbance. He stated that appellant was off of work and was offered a job, but

Dr. Keelen did not want appellant to drive, due to his prescribed medication. A physical 

examination revealed severe tenderness in appellant’s lower back and a range of motion of 40 

degrees flexion, 10 degrees extension, 30 degrees right lateral flexion, and 20 degrees left lateral 

flexion. Dr. Helsten noted appellant’s diagnoses of lumbar strain, lumbar disc displacement, 

lumbar radiculopathy, a herniated disc, and sciatica. He opined that appellant could work light 

duty permanently and that he had referred appellant to Dr. Keelen for pain management.

In a May 22, 2018 patient pain drawing signed by Dr. Helsten, appellant indicated that he 

was off of work and was experiencing severe pain, which he rated a 6 out of 10. He stated that he 

was using his TENS unit for 30 minutes per day, and that it relieved his pain by 25 percent. 

Appellant related that he experienced pain in his lower back, buttocks, right upper leg, and left 

lower leg.
4

A May 23, 2018 Form OWCP-5c signed by Dr. Keelen indicated that appellant could not 

perform his usual job without restrictions because he was in severe continuous pain and was not 

improving. Dr. Keelen also related that appellant could not work eight hours per day with 

restrictions because he was unable to sit or stand due to swelling and pain, and he indicated that 

appellant could work less than two hours per workday. He stated that he did not anticipate an 

increase in the number of hours appellant could work and that it was unknown when appellant 

would be able to work eight hours per day. Dr. Keelen opined that appellant had reached MMI 

and was not able to work at the light, medium, heavy, or very heavy strength levels. He listed 

appellant’s restrictions as including sitting, walking, standing, reaching, reaching above the 

shoulder, twisting, bending/stooping, and operating a motor vehicle to/from work for less than two 

hours per day, and no repetitive wrist or elbow movements, pushing, pulling, lifting, kneeling, 

climbing, squatting, or operating a motor vehicle at work. Dr. Keelen additionally noted that 

appellant should take a break every 15 minutes. He also asserted that other factors needed to be 

taken into consideration in finding appellant a suitable job including past nerve damage and the 

fact that appellant was prescribed opiate medication and had not been cleared for driving.

A March 21, 2019 medical report by Dr. Helsten indicated that appellant presented with 

sharp lower back pain radiating down his right leg into his right foot and toes. He listed appellant’s 

date of injury as August 1, 1998 and related that a physical examination revealed moderate 

tenderness in appellant’s lower back and a range of motion of 30 degrees flexion, 10 degrees 

extension, 30 degrees right lateral flexion, and 20 degrees left lateral flexion. Dr. Helsten noted 

appellant’s diagnoses of lumbar sprain, lumbar disc displacement, lumbar radiculopathy, a 

herniated disc, and sciatica. He concluded that appellant could perform light-duty work.

In a March 21, 2019 patient pain drawing signed by Dr. Helsten, appellant indicated that 

he was off work and was experiencing severe pain which he rated a 6 out of 10. He noted that he 

was using his TENS unit for 30 minutes per day, and that it relieved his pain by 15 percent. 

Appellant related that he experienced pain in his lower back, buttocks, right leg and foot, and left 

lower leg.

An April 5, 2019 memorandum from the employing establishment to OWCP indicated that 

appellant refused a May 11, 2018 job offer. It noted that it had based the job offer on appellant’s 

March 8, 2018 medical report from Dr. Helsten. The employing establishment contended that 

appellant’s medical records from multiple doctors dating back to 2015 demonstrated that appellant 

could return to work, but he has refused to do so. It noted that the position offered remained

available to appellant, provided work for the number of hours for which appellant has been released 

to work, and is located within his commuting area. The employing establishment requested that 

OWCP rule on the suitability of the job offer or send appellant for a second opinion or impartial 

medical evaluation if there were questions about the medical evidence. It noted that both 

appellant’s treating physician and his pain specialist had opined that he could return to work. 

In a letter dated April 23, 2019, OWCP advised appellant that the employing establishment 

had confirmed that the offered position remained available. It determined that the customer care 

specialist position was suitable and in accordance with the medical restrictions set forth in

Dr. Helsten’s March 8, 2018 report and other medical documentation since 2015. OWCP 

indicated that the case would be held open for 30 days for evaluation of the evidence. It further 

advised appellant that if he failed to accept the position or provide adequate reasons for refusing 

the job offer, his right to compensation would be terminated, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2). 
5

In letter dated April 30, 2019, OWCP instructed appellant to disregard its April 23, 2019 

letter. It noted a corrected letter would be sent soon.

In a May 5, 2019 letter, appellant requested that his treating physician be changed to

Dr. Keelen. He indicated that he had been seeing Dr. Keelen since he was referred to him in 2014, 

and he related that Dr. Keelen has been handling all of his restrictions, medications, and 

procedures. Appellant noted that, while Dr. Helsten was listed as his treating physician, he had

only completed paperwork for him. 

In a June 13, 2019 e-mail, OWCP asked the employing establishment to confirm whether

appellant’s job offer remained available. 

In a June 14, 2019 letter, the employing establishment asserted that appellant’s “long-term 

treating physician” stated that he could work eight hours a day. It requested an update on OWCP’s 

position on the suitability of its job offer and appellant’s request to change his physician. The 

employing establishment also stated that there appeared to be a material difference between the 

work restrictions provided by Dr. Helsten and those provided by Dr. Keelen, and it asked OWCP 

if it was appropriate to refer appellant for a second opinion examination. 

In an e-mail dated June 26, 2019, the employing establishment confirmed that its modifiedduty offer remained available for appellant.

In a letter dated July 12, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that the offered position 

remained available and was suitable and in accordance with the medical restrictions set forth in

Dr. Helsten’s December 21, 2016 and March 8, 2018 reports. It indicated that the case would be 

held open for 30 days, with the expectation that appellant would accept the position within 30 

days. OWCP further advised appellant that if he failed to accept the position or provide adequate 

reasons for refusing the job offer, his right to compensation would be terminated, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2). 

A July 17, 2019 OWCP compensation termination sheet indicated that appellant’s 

compensation was terminated, effective July 21, 2019, because “an 8106(c) was issued.”

3

 By 

decision dated July 23, 2019, it denied appellant’s request to change his treating physician, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the current medical treatment he was 

receiving was improper or inadequate. 

OWCP subsequently received additional medical evidence. In a July 23, 2019 report,

Dr. Helsten indicated that appellant presented with constant lower back pain radiating down into 

both of his thighs and into his right foot. He listed appellant’s date of injury as August 1, 1998

and related that a physical examination revealed severe tenderness in appellant’s lower back and 

a range of motion of 30 degrees flexion, 10 degrees extension, 20 degrees right lateral flexion, and 

20 degrees left lateral flexion. Dr. Helsten noted appellant’s diagnoses of lumbar strain, a 

herniated disc, and sciatica. He indicated that appellant was currently not working and he opined 

that appellant could perform light-duty work. 

 

3 A July 16, 2019 e-mail from the employing establishment indicated that appellant had applied for retirement, 

effective May 30, 2019.
6

In a July 23, 2019 patient pain drawing signed by Dr. Helsten, appellant indicated that he 

was off of work and was experiencing severe pain which he rated a 6 out of 10. He also noted that 

he was using his TENS unit for 30 minutes per day, and that it relieved his pain by 10 percent. 

Appellant reported that he experienced pain in his lower back, buttocks, and thighs. 

A June 23, 2019 duty status report (Form CA-17) by Dr. Keelen listed appellant’s date of 

injury as August 1, 1998. His clinical findings included back pain and leg paralysis, and he listed

appellant’s diagnosis as chronic pain syndrome. Dr. Keelen advised appellant not to return to 

work. He listed appellant’s work restrictions as continuously lifting a maximum of 10 pounds and 

intermittently lifting a maximum of 15 pounds for two hours per day, sitting and standing for two

hours per day, simple grasping, fine manipulation including keyboarding, reaching above the 

shoulder, exposure to temperature extremes, high humidity, chemicals, fumes/dust, and noise for

four hours per day, and no walking, climbing, kneeling, bending/stooping, twisting, pushing, or 

pulling. Dr. Keelen additionally noted that appellant walked with a cane due to his leg paralysis 

and frequently changed positions. He related that appellant required medication management for 

nerve damage and was unable to drive due to his medication.

On August 9, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of the July 23, 2019 decision. In 

an accompanying statement, he indicated that Dr. Helsten’s office was located 37 minutes further 

away from his home than Dr. Keelen’s office, and that the extra travel caused increased pain and 

stiffness. Appellant asserted that while Dr. Keelen was a certified anesthesiologist and pain 

management specialist, Dr. Helsten was a family practice physician who did not practice pain

management. He related that OWCP had approved all of his appointments and procedures with

Dr. Keelen, and he indicated that he felt that Dr. Keelen was best suited to serve as his treating 

physician. 

OWCP received additional medical evidence. In an August 9, 2019 report, Dr. Helsten 

indicated that appellant presented with back pain radiating down into the toes of his right foot. He 

listed appellant’s date of injury as August 1, 1998 and related that a physical examination revealed 

severe tenderness in appellant’s lower back and a range of motion of 30 degrees flexion, 10 degrees 

extension, 20 degrees right lateral flexion, and 20 degrees left lateral flexion. Dr. Helsten noted 

appellant’s diagnoses of lumbar strain, herniated disc, and sciatica. He indicated that appellant 

could perform light-duty work permanently.

In an August 9, 2019 patient pain drawing signed by Dr. Helsten, appellant indicated that 

he was off of work and was experiencing severe pain which he rated a 7 out of 10. He stated that 

he was using his TENS unit for 30 minutes per day, and that it relieved his pain by 20 percent. 

Appellant related that he experienced pain in his lower back, buttocks, and right lower leg and 

foot.

In an August 9, 2019 Form OWCP-5c, Dr. Helsten indicated that appellant was not capable 

of performing his usual job without restrictions because he had difficulty walking, bending, and 

lifting. He related that appellant could work an eight-hour day with permanent physical 

restrictions. Dr. Helsten stated that appellant had not reached MMI and was capable of working 

at the sedentary, light, and medium strength levels. He listed appellant’s restrictions as including 

squatting, sitting, and walking for up to two hours, pushing, pulling, and lifting a maximum of 40 

pounds for up to two hours, and no climbing. 
7

By decision dated October 30, 2019, OWCP denied modification.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Once OWCP has accepted a claim and pays compensation, it bears the burden of proof to 

justify modification or termination of benefits.4 It has authority under 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2) of 

FECA to terminate compensation for any partially disabled employee who refuses or neglects to 

work after suitable work is offered. To justify termination, OWCP must show that the work offered 

was suitable, that appellant was informed of the consequences of his refusal to accept such 

employment, and that he or she was allowed a reasonable period to accept or reject the position or 

submit evidence or provide reasons why the position is not suitable.5 In determining what 

constitutes suitable work for a particular disabled employee, it considers the employee’s current 

physical limitations, whether the work was available within the employee’s demonstrated 

commuting area, and the employee’s qualifications to perform such work.6 

OWCP’s procedures provide that acceptable reasons for refusing an offered position 

include withdrawal of the offer or medical evidence of inability to do the work or travel to the job.7

Section 8106(c) will be narrowly construed as it serves as a penalty provision, which may 

bar an employee’s entitlement to compensation based on a refusal to accept a suitable offer of 

employment.8 Section 10.517(a) of FECA’s implementing regulations provide that an employee 

who refuses or neglects to work after suitable work has been offered or secured, has the burden of 

showing that such refusal or failure to work was reasonable or justified.9 Pursuant to section 

10.516, the employee shall be provided with the opportunity to make such a showing before a 

determination is made with respect to termination of entitlement to compensation.10 

 

4 E.W, Docket No. 19-1711 (issued July 29, 2020); Bernadine P. Taylor, 54 ECAB 342 (2003).

5 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2); see also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reemployment: Determining 

Wage-Earning Capacity, Chapter 2.814.4 (June 2013) (the claims examiner (CE) must make a finding of suitability, 

advise the claimant that the job is suitable and that refusal of it may result in application of the penalty provision of 5 

U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2), and allow the claimant 30 days to submit his or her reasons for refusing or abandoning the 

position. If the claimant submits evidence and/or reasons for refusing or abandoning the position, the CE must 

carefully evaluate the claimant’s response and determine whether the claimant’s reasons for doing so are valid); R.A.,

Docket No. 19-0065 (issued May 14, 2019); Ronald M. Jones, 52 ECAB 190, 191 (2000); see also Maggie L. Moore,

42 ECAB 484, 488 (1991), reaff’d on recon., 43 ECAB 818, 824 (1992).

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.500(b).

7 Supra note 5 at Chapter 2.814.5a (June 2013).

8 E.W., supra note 4; Joan F. Burke, 54 ECAB 406 (2003); see Robert Dickerson, 46 ECAB 1002 (1995).

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.517(a); Ronald M. Jones, supra note 5.

10 Id. at § 10.516.
8

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and entitlement to a schedule award, effective July 21, 2019, for refusal of an 

offer of suitable work under 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2).

In a letter dated July 12, 2019, OWCP advised appellant that the May 11, 2018 modified

job offer remained available, and was suitable and in accordance with the medical restrictions set 

forth in Dr. Helsten’s December 21, 2016 and March 8, 2018 reports. It indicated that the case 

would be held open for 30 days acceptance of the position or submission of additional evidence. 

OWCP further advised appellant that if he failed to accept the position or provide adequate reasons 

for refusing the job offer, his right to compensation would be terminated, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8106(c)(2). A July 17, 2019 compensation termination sheet indicated that it terminated

appellant’s compensation, effective July 21, 2019, because “an 8106(c) was issued.” 

As stated above, to justify termination, OWCP must show that the work offered was 

suitable, that appellant was informed of the consequences of his refusal to accept such 

employment, and that he or she was allowed a reasonable period to accept or reject the position or 

submit evidence or provide reasons why the position is not suitable.11 It did not issue a final 

termination decision, showing that the work offered was suitable, that appellant was informed of 

the consequences of his refusal to accept such employment, and that he was allowed a reasonable 

period to accept or reject the position or submit evidence or provide reasons why the position was 

not suitable. Rather, OWCP summarily terminated appellant’s compensation on July 17, 2019, 

just five days after it provided the July 12, 2019 letter to appellant. As such, the Board finds that 

OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

entitlement to a schedule award, effective July 21, 2019, for refusal of an offer of suitable work 

under 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2). 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

When the physician originally selected to provide treatment for a work-related injury refers 

the employee to a specialist for further medical care, the employee need not consult OWCP for 

approval.12 In all other instances, however, the employee must submit a written request to OWCP 

with his or her reasons for desiring a change of physician.13 

Any transfer of medical care should be accomplished with due regard for professional 

ethics and courtesy. No transfer or termination of treatment should be made unless it is in the best 

interest of the claimant and the government. Employees who want to change attending physicians 

must explain their reasons in writing and OWCP must review all such requests. OWCP may 

approve a change when the original treating physician refers the claimant to another physician for 

further treatment; the claimant wants to change from the care of a general practitioner to that of a 

specialist in the appropriate field or from the care of one specialist to another in the appropriate 

 

11 Supra note 5. 

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.316(a).

13 Id.
9

field; or the claimant moves more than 50 miles from the original physician (since OWCP has 

determined that a reasonable distance of travel is up to a roundtrip distance of 100 miles). It must 

use discretion in cases where other reasons are presented.14

The Board has recognized that OWCP, acting as the delegated representative of the 

Secretary of Labor, has broad discretion in approving services provided under FECA. OWCP has 

the general objective of ensuring that an employee recovers from her injury to the fullest extent 

possible in the shortest amount of time. It, therefore, has broad administrative discretion in 

choosing means to achieve this goal. The only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of 

reasonableness. Abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly 

unreasonable exercise of judgment or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable 

deductions from established facts. It is not enough to show merely that the evidence could be 

construed to produce a contrary conclusion.15

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request to change 

his treating physician.

The December 21, 2016 medical report from Dr. Helsten, who is Board-certified in family 

medicine and appellant’s treating physician, referred appellant to Dr. Keelen, who is Boardcertified in pain management. A May 22, 2018 medical report by Dr. Helsten also referred 

appellant to Dr. Keelen for pain management. 

As previously noted, when the physician originally selected to provide treatment for a 

work-related injury refers the employee to a specialist for further medical care, the employee need 

not consult OWCP for approval.16 Both the December 21, 2016 and May 22, 2018 medical reports 

by Dr. Helsten, appellant’s attending physician, indicate that he referred appellant to Dr. Keelen,

Board-certified in pain management, for further medical care. Therefore, the Board finds that 

OWCP abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request to change his treating physician.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and entitlement to a schedule award, effective July 21, 2019, for refusal of an 

offer of suitable work under 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c)(2). The Board also finds that OWCP abused its 

discretion in denying appellant’s request to change his treating physician. 

 

14 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Authorizing Examination and Treatment, Chapter 

3.300.6(c)(1) (February 2012).

15 K.T., Docket No. 15-1202 (issued August 19, 2015); see T.R., Docket No. 14-1514 (issued January 8, 2014); 

R.G., Docket No. 12-0811 (issued June 15, 2012); Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 221 (1990).

16 Supra note 11. 
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 30 and July 23 and 17, 2019 decisions 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are reversed.

Issued: February 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board