United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Duluth, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1383

Issued: March 27, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 11, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 22, 

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 to consider 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 record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its February 22, 2019 decision. 

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 September 17, 2017, as she no longer had 

residuals or disability causally related to her accepted employment conditions; and (2) whether 

appellant has met her burden of proof to establish continuing employment-related disability or 

residuals, on or after September 17, 2017, due to the accepted employment conditions. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 4, 2014 appellant, then a 33-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 27, 2014 she sustained injuries to her left knee, 

low back, and ribs when a deer leapt in front of her delivery vehicle and the vehicle hydroplaned 

and struck a tree while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on the date of injury and did 

not return. Appellant was separated from the employing establishment, effective February 14, 

2014, due to disqualifying conditions during her probationary period. OWCP accepted the claim 

for closed rib fractures, a facial contusion, multiple contusions, lumbar sprain, and left medial 

meniscus tear.4 It paid appellant wage-loss compensation for total disability from March 14 to

August 23, 2014 on the supplemental rolls, and commencing August 24, 2014 on the periodic rolls. 

OWCP also authorized medical benefits.

On August 29, 2014 Dr. Darrell Lowrey, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed 

an OWCP-authorized arthroscopic partial left medial meniscectomy with limited chondroplasty 

and synovectomy. He returned appellant to light-duty work on September 25, 2014.5 Dr. Lowrey 

referred appellant for a February 18, 2015 functional capacity evaluation, which demonstrated her 

ability to perform full-time work at the medium physical demand level. The test was deemed 

invalid due to appellant’s self-limiting behaviors. In a June 3, 2015 report, Dr. Lowrey found that 

she had attained maximum medical improvement. He returned appellant to full-time medium-duty 

work.

In a July 28, 2016 report, Dr. Susan Butler-Sumner, a family practitioner, returned 

appellant to sedentary duty for two hours a day.

On May 8, 2017 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Raju Vanapalli, a Board-certified 

orthopedist, for a second opinion examination. In a June 27, 2017 report, Dr. Vanapalli reviewed 

the medical record and a statement of accepted facts. He noted that OWCP accepted the claim for 

closed rib fractures, a lumbar sprain, left medial meniscal tear, and multiple contusions. On 

examination Dr. Vanapalli noted no paraspinal spasm or tenderness, limited lumbar motion, 

bilaterally positive straight leg raising tests at 60 degrees, a normal neurologic examination in all 

extremities, no instability or crepitus of the left knee, full extension and 140 degrees flexion of the 

left knee, no pain or tenderness to palpation over the ribs and chest wall, and full chest expansion 

without pain. He opined that the accepted conditions had resolved without residuals and no further 

 

4 March 26, 2014 x-rays demonstrated subacute chronic nondisplaced lateral left 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th rib fractures. 

An April 3, 2014 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left knee demonstrated a tear of the posterior horn 

of the medial meniscus. An April 22, 2014 MRI scan of the cervical spine was within normal limits.

5 On May 7, 2015 OWCP obtained a second opinion from Dr. Alexander N. Doman, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, who found no abnormalities on examination. Dr. Doman opined that the accepted injuries had resolved 

without residuals. He released appellant to light-duty work with restrictions. 
3

treatment was needed as there were no objective findings of the left knee, left ribs, or lumbar spine 

on examination. Dr. Vanapalli returned appellant to full-time regular duty. 

By notice dated July 27, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits based on Dr. Vanapalli’s opinion that the accepted 

conditions had ceased without residuals. It afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence.

In response, appellant submitted an August 10, 2017 report from Dr. Butler-Sumner, 

noting that appellant had been under treatment since January 27, 2014 for closed-rib fractures, 

multiple contusions, a lumbar sprain, chronic migraines, and a torn left medial meniscus. 

Dr. Butler-Sumner noted in August 18, 2017 reports that appellant had symptoms in her left leg, 

left arm, and torso, but could perform limited-duty work. In August 23, 2017 reports, she found 

appellant able to perform full-time sedentary duty with restrictions.

In an August 23, 2017 report, Dr. Randall Anderson, Jr., a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, returned appellant to full-time light-duty work with restrictions.

By decision dated September 14, 2017, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss and 

medical compensation benefits effective September 17, 2017, finding that Dr. Vanapalli’s report 

was entitled to the weight of the medical evidence.

On September 26, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic oral hearing 

before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The oral hearing was held 

on March 7, 2018. At the hearing, appellant contended that the accepted rib fractures had not 

healed. She submitted additional evidence.

In a February 13, 2018 report, Dr. Marc O. Wall, a family practitioner, diagnosed nonunion of left rib fractures. 

February 21, 2018 chest x-rays interpreted by Dr. Joseph Burch, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, demonstrated no abnormalities of the bones or soft tissue of the chest wall. 

Dr. Burch opined that February 21 2018 x-rays of the left ribs demonstrated “multiple left-sided

healed rib fractures” at ribs 5, 6, and 7 with areas of abnormal bone density, no expansible or lytic 

rib lesions, and no acute fracture identified. He noted an impression of “[r]emote rib fractures” of 

ribs 5, 6, and 7. 

In a report dated February 26, 2018, Dr. Wall diagnosed non-union of left 5th, 6th, and 7th

rib fractures.

By decision dated April 12, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

September 14, 2017 decision.

On June 12, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. She submitted 

additional evidence.

In a May 10, 2018 report, Dr. Wall opined that appellant’s chest pain was caused by nonunion of left 5th, 6th, and 7th rib fractures as demonstrated by February 21, 2018 x-rays. He

contended that the February 21, 2018 x-rays interpreted by Dr. Burch demonstrated that the ends 

of the fracture sites had healed over, but not together, causing chronic chest pain.
4

By decision dated September 6, 2018, OWCP denied modification of the September 14, 

2017 decision.

On December 10, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. She 

submitted additional evidence.

In a September 25, 2018 report, Dr. Anderson diagnosed left knee pain due to osteoarthritis 

versus a possible medial meniscal tear. He noted that appellant was employed full time in the 

private sector as a cashier.

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated November 12, 2018, Dr. Anderson 

recommended a left knee arthroplasty to address a left meniscal tear with meniscal cyst.

By decision dated February 22, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the September 6, 

2018 decision as the additional evidence submitted failed to outweigh or create a conflict with

Dr. Vanapalli’s opinion.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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

termination or modification of an employee’s benefits.6 After it has determined that an employee 

has disability causally related to his or her federal employment, OWCP 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 compensation.9 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP 

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

require further medical treatment.10

 

6 See 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).

7 See R.P., id.; Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); Vivien L. 

Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986).

8 K.W., Docket No. 19-1224 (issued November 15, 2019); see M.C., Docket No. 18-1374 (issued April 23, 2019); 

Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988).

9 A.G., Docket No. 19-0220 (issued August 1, 2019); A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August 5, 2009); T.P., 58 

ECAB 524 (2007); Kathryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005); Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 361, 364 (1990).

10 K.W., supra note 8; see A.G., id.; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003); Pamela K. Guesford, 53 ECAB 727 

(2002); Furman G. Peake, id.
5

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 September 17, 2017, as she no longer had residuals 

or disability causally related to her accepted employment conditions.

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Vanapalli to determine the status of her accepted 

conditions and her work capacity. In his June 27, 2017 report, Dr. Vanapalli described her

January 27, 2014 employment injury and noted that her claim was accepted for a lumbar sprain, 

left meniscal tear, closed rib fractures, and multiple contusions. He indicated that appellant’s 

physical examination revealed no objective findings of the accepted conditions. Dr. Vanapalli 

found no instability or crepitus of the left knee, full extension of the left knee with flexion at 140 

degrees, no paraspinal spasm or tenderness, and no pain or tenderness in the ribs or chest wall. He 

opined that the accepted conditions had resolved, that appellant could return to work without 

restrictions, and there was no need for further medical treatment.

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

Dr. Vanapalli. Dr. Vanapalli based his opinion on a proper factual and medical history and 

physical examination findings and provided medical rationale for his opinion. He provided a wellrationalized opinion based on medical evidence regarding the accepted conditions causally related 

to appellant’s January 27, 2014 employment injury. Accordingly, OWCP properly relied on

Dr. Vanapalli’s second-opinion report in terminating appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits.11

The Board notes that appellant’s physicians also found that appellant was no longer 

disabled for work. Dr. Lowrey returned her to light duty as of September 25, 2014. Dr. ButlerSumner opined on July 28, 2016 that appellant could perform part-time sedentary work. In 

August 18 and 23, 2017 reports, she found appellant able to perform full-time sedentary work. 

Also, Dr. Anderson found appellant able to perform full-time sedentary duty as of 

August 23, 2017. However, these physicians did not provide a rationalized opinion as to whether 

appellant’s restrictions were due to the accepted employment injuries. Therefore, their opinions 

are insufficient to overcome the weight of the medical evidence accorded to Dr. Vanapalli.12

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

and medical benefits, effective September 17, 2017. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Once OWCP properly terminates a claimant’s compensation benefits, the burden shifts to 

appellant to establish continuing disability or residuals after that date, causally related to the 

accepted injury.13 To establish causal relationship between the condition as well as any attendant 

 

11 K.W., supra note 8; see N.G., Docket No. 18-1340 (issued March 6, 2019); A.F., Docket No. 16-0393 (issued 

June 24, 2016).

12 K.W., supra note 8; see E.O., Docket No. 19-0472 (issued August 15, 2019); J.P., Docket No. 16-1103 (issued 

November 25, 2016).

13 See S.M., Docket No. 18-0673 (issued January 25, 2019); J.R., Docket No. 17-1352 (issued August 13, 2018).
6

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.14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

employment-related disability or residuals, on or after September 17, 2017, due to the accepted 

employment conditions.

Following the termination of her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, appellant 

submitted reports dated February 13 and 26, and May 10, 2018 reports from Dr. Wall, who opined 

that the accepted left 5th, 6th, and 7th rib fractures had not healed, causing chronic chest pain. Dr. 

Wall contended that, although Dr. Burch indicated that February 21, 2018 chest x-rays 

demonstrated that the rib fractures had healed, that the ends of the fractures had not healed together. 

However, he did not specify the objective clinical findings, which demonstrated that the accepted 

rib fractures had not resolved. Such rationale is particularly necessary as Dr. Vanapalli found no 

tenderness or other abnormality of the left ribs and chest wall on examination. Dr. Wall’s opinion 

is therefore insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.15

Appellant also provided a September 25, 2018 report from Dr. Anderson, who diagnosed 

left knee pain due to osteoarthritis versus a possible medial meniscal tear. In a November 12, 2018 

report, Dr. Anderson recommended a left knee arthroplasty to address a left meniscal tear. 

However, he did not explain whether the diagnosed left meniscal tear was caused or aggravated 

by the accepted left medial meniscus tear, or constituted a new injury.16 Therefore, his opinion is 

insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Appellant has not submitted sufficiently rationalized medical evidence establishing 

employment-related disabilities or residuals on or after September 17, 2017 due to the accepted 

employment conditions. As such, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof. 

On appeal counsel contends that OWCP applied an improper standard of causation to 

appellant’s case and did not give due deference to the opinions of appellant’s physicians. As noted 

above, OWCP properly found that appellant’s physicians did not provide sufficient rationalized 

medical opinion to support disability for work or the need for continuing medical treatment due to

the accepted employment conditions on and after September 17, 2017.

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

 

14 Id.

15 D.G., Docket No. 19-1259 (issued January 29, 2020); G.T., Docket No. 17-1959 (issued June 22, 2018).

16 D.G., id.
7

CONCLUSION

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective September 17, 2017, as she no longer had residuals 

or disability causally related to her accepted employment conditions. The Board further finds that 

appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing employment-related disability or 

residuals, on or after September 17, 2017, due to the accepted employment conditions. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 22, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 27, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board