United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.E., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, OFFICE OF 

LEARNING, DEVELOPMENT & DIVERSITY, 

Miami, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0837

Issued: October 20, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephen Larkin, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 12, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 18, 

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 January 18, 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

ISSUE

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective September 20, 2018, because she no longer had 

residuals or disability causally related to her accepted October 12, 2016 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 12, 2016 appellant, then a 46-year-old human resources specialist, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained injury on that date when a cart she 

was pushing got stuck and she flipped over it and fell to the ground while in the performance of 

duty. She stopped work on October 12, 2016. OWCP initially accepted appellant’s claim for 

bowel incontinence, aggravation of intervertebral disc displacement of the lumbar region, cervical 

disc displacement, and right knee sprain.

4

In an October 17, 2016 report, Dr. Behnam Meyers, an osteopath Board-certified in 

orthopedic surgery, advised that appellant had reported experiencing neck, back, and right leg pain 

(with numbness/tingling) since falling at work on October 12, 2016. He indicated that she denied 

having bowel or bladder changes.

Appellant visited the emergency room on October 19, 2016 and Dr. Richard S. Perlman, 

Board-certified in emergency medicine, indicated in a report of even date that she reported 

experiencing bowel incontinence since falling at work one week earlier.

In an October 21, 2016 report, Dr. Meyers advised that appellant reported visiting the 

emergency room on October 19, 2016 with a complaint of bowel/fecal incontinence. He noted 

that he saw no explanation for her reported incontinence in an October 19, 2016 magnetic 

resonance imaging scan of the low back.

In a December 14, 2016 report, Dr. Damon R. Salzman, a Board-certified neurologist, 

noted that appellant reported experiencing bowel incontinence. 

On February 21, 2017 appellant underwent authorized right knee surgery, including 

chondroplasty of the patella/trochlea, and synovectomy with debridement and fat pad excision. 

On March 22, 2017 she underwent authorized back surgery, including discectomy/laminectomy at 

L4-5 with medial facetectomy and foraminotomies of the L4-5 nerve roots.

In an April 14, 2017 report, Dr. Mark S. Fishman, an osteopath Board-certified in physical 

medicine and rehabilitation, noted that appellant reported experiencing urinary incontinence, but 

denied having bowel changes. He diagnosed neuropathy and low back pain. On May 16, 2017

Dr. Fishman advised that appellant denied bladder/bowel changes. 

In June 2017 OWCP expanded appellant’s accepted conditions to include urinary 

incontinence and left knee sprain. 

 

4 OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls commencing February 25, 2017 and on 

the periodic rolls commencing March 5, 2017. 
3

In a July 17, 2017 report, Dr. Manuel A. Martinez, a Board-certified internist, noted in the 

history portion of his report that appellant reported experiencing bowel incontinence since her 

October 12, 2016 fall. In the examination portion of his report, he indicated that she presently 

reported that she had urinary incontinence, but did not have diarrhea or constipation. 

In a September 18, 2017 report, Dr. Fishman noted that appellant reported radicular pain 

symptoms in both legs and advised that an electrodiagnostic study revealed evidence of axonal 

and demyelinating polyneuropathy. He diagnosed lumbar post-laminectomy syndrome and 

neuropathy. 

On September 29, 2017 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Clinton G. Bush, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. It provided him with the case record,

a current statement of accepted facts (SOAF), and a series of questions. OWCP requested an 

opinion from Dr. Bush regarding whether appellant continued to have residuals of the accepted 

October 12, 2016 employment conditions and whether these conditions prevented her from 

performing her date-of-injury job of human resources specialist. It noted, “Previous medical 

reports may not have been based on the attached SOAF. You must use the SOAF as the only 

factual framework for you[r] opinion.”

In an October 17, 2017 report, Dr. Bush discussed appellant’s prior medical history, noting 

that, on October 17, 2016 during the first examination of record after her October 12, 2016 

accident, she did not mention a knee injury and specifically denied having issues with bladder or 

bowel control. He further noted that the first report of record in which she complained of fecal 

incontinence was dated July 17, 2017. Dr. Bush advised that appellant presented complaining of 

pain in her neck, back, and lower extremities, numbness/tingling and weakness in her left lower 

extremity, and significant bowel/urinary incontinence. He reported the findings of his physical 

examination, including range of motion testing, which showed limited motion on all axes of neck 

motion and on lumbar flexion.

5

 Appellant had 5/5 strength in all major muscle groups of the upper 

and lower extremities, except for 4/5 strength in the left quadriceps group, and she had atrophy of 

her left thigh (2 centimeters) and left calf (0.5 centimeters). There were no deficits found upon 

sensory testing of all four extremities. Dr. Bush diagnosed degenerative spondylosis of the 

cervical and lumbar spines, poorly-controlled diabetes mellitus, diabetic peripheral neuropathy 

with resultant sensory symptoms in the upper and lower extremities as well as fecal and urinary 

incontinence, and degenerative arthritis of both knees. He indicated that appellant presented to 

him with a variety of ongoing neck, bilateral knee, and lower back pain symptoms, as well as lower 

extremity/sacral nerve root neurological symptoms, which did not correlate in any way with the 

post-traumatic or other pathologic abnormalities detected on diagnostic testing. Dr. Bush opined 

that there was no credible or objectively verifiable evidence of traumatic injury to her cervical 

spine, lumbar spine, right knee, or left knee and that all of her symptoms could be explained by 

diabetic polyneuropathy and degenerative disease of the spine and knees. He noted, “This includes 

[appellant’s] migratory and alternating lower extremity symptoms and her history of urinary and 

 

5 Dr. Bush advised that the physical examination was limited to the musculoskeletal and neurologic systems.
4

fecal incontinence. It also adequately explains the measured muscle atrophy and [sic] the left thigh 

and left calf.”

6

 

Dr. Bush indicated that, despite the fact that appellant had officially accepted conditions of 

disc herniation, incontinence, and bilateral knee sprains, he could not find any basis for ongoing 

medical evaluation/treatment or physical activity limitation based on the “reported accident event”

of October 12, 2016. In response to a question regarding whether, based only on the accepted 

conditions, appellant was able to perform her date-of-injury job of human resources specialist, he

responded, “In essence, I disagree with the [SOAF].” Dr. Bush further opined that “no factors 

arising” from the October 12, 2016 injury prevented her from returning to her date-of-injury job 

as a human resources specialist on a full time basis without restrictions.

7

 In response to a question 

regarding whether appellant’s accepted conditions had resolved, he noted, “I have already stated 

my opinion that the accepted conditions have been accepted in error and that there is no causal 

relationship between [appellant’s] accident of [October 12, 2016] and her current symptoms. 

Albeit the symptoms of [sic] not resolved, they are not related to any traumatic event.” In an 

attached work capacity evaluation report (Form OWCP-5c) dated October 16, 2017, Dr. Bush

advised that she was able to perform her date-of-injury job of human resources specialist with the 

restriction that she needed to take a 15-minute break three times per day due to her incontinence 

condition. 

OWCP also referred appellant for a second opinion examination with Dr. Richard D. 

Levin, a Board-certified urologist. It provided him with the case record, including a current SOAF,

and requested that he provide an opinion regarding whether she had a need for work restrictions 

or other residuals related to the accepted October 12, 2016 employment conditions. OWCP noted, 

“Previous medical reports may not have been based on the attached SOAF. You must use the 

SOAF as the only factual framework for your opinion.”

In a May 25, 2018 report, Dr. Levin noted that his report was based on a series of 

examinations of appellant on November 13, 2017 and February 13 and March 8, 2018. He 

indicated that she reported that, after her employment-related October 2016 accident, she 

developed severe intractable urinary incontinence which she experienced on a daily basis. 

Appellant further reported that her present chief complaint was urinary incontinence, but that she 

was not on any treatment regimen for the condition. Dr. Levin indicated that she had undergone

extensive medical evaluation, but that some of the medical records seemed to conflict with each 

other. He advised that, after the October 12, 2016 injury, it seemed that there were no reports of 

bowel or bladder dysfunction until the March 22, 2017 back surgery. Dr. Levin noted that, in 

April 2017, appellant reported voiding dysfunction, but no bowel dysfunction. He indicated that 

a May 2017 review of her systems was negative for voiding dysfunction. However, there was a 

report in July 2017 of urinary incontinence, but no bowel dysfunction. Dr. Levin noted that, during

his own evaluation, appellant reported having urgency and urge incontinence since the October 12, 

2016 injury, but not since her March 22, 2017 surgery. He advised that she presently denied bowel 

 

6

In other portions of the report, Dr. Bush specifically opined that appellant’s diabetic neuropathy was responsible

for the 4/5 strength in her left quadriceps group (with associated atrophy of the left thigh/calf), and her bowel/urinary 

incontinence.

7 Dr. Bush indicated that he had not been provided a description of the position of human resources specialist, but 

that he assumed it was “primarily a desk job.”
5

dysfunction or fecal incontinence and noted, “Certainly I think this creates a challenge due to the 

conflict between the records in [appellant’s] verbal report.”

Dr. Levin indicated that the results of urine analysis he obtained revealed trace hematuria

and that a cystoscopy showed a grade 2 cystocele (prolapsed/dropped bladder) with no other 

findings to explain appellant’s symptoms such as a mass or polyp. The results of urodynamics 

testing were consistent with overactive bladder, uninhibited bladder contractions, and a mildly 

obstructed voiding pattern consistent with the cystocele, and urethral hypermobility.8 Dr. Levin 

diagnosed urinary incontinence, urgency, urge incontinence, cystocele, urethral hypermobility,

and microhematuria.9 He indicated that appellant’s “symptoms of urinary incontinence appear to 

be related to [appellant’s] cystocele and associated stress incontinence with perhaps secondary 

urge incontinence.” Dr. Levin opined that there was no objective evidence indicating that her

urinary incontinence was related to her October 12, 2016 injury. 

In an undated addendum received by OWCP on May 30, 2018 Dr. Levin noted that the 

diagnosis of incontinence seemed to be mostly stress incontinence with a component of urge 

incontinence. He did not see any connection between appellant’s diagnosis and her employmentrelated injury and noted, “I do not see it connected to factors of employment either. I do not see 

presenting [sic] any injury[-]related disability.” Dr. Levin advised that he did not recommend any 

physical limitations based upon his evaluation, except that she was limited to light work and 

needed to take bathroom breaks in order to achieve behavioral modification which would help her 

maintain an empty bladder. He concluded that he did not see evidence that appellant had urological 

residuals of the October 12, 2016 injury. In a Form OWCP-5c dated May 24, 2018, Dr. Levin 

advised that appellant could not perform her usual job, but noted that she could perform light work 

for eight hours per day. 

On May 31, 2018 OWCP requested that Dr. Levin clarify whether there were objective 

findings to support disability as a result of the accepted October 12, 2016 employment injury and 

to indicate whether, considering only the effects of the October 12, 2016 injury, appellant could 

work as a human resources specialist without restrictions. In a July 3, 2018 supplemental report,

Dr. Levin replied that there were no objective findings to support her disability “as of October 12, 

2016” and that there were no evaluation findings that precluded her from performing her usual 

duties.

In an August 10, 2018 notice, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective September 20, 2018, as she no longer had 

residuals or disability causally related to her accepted October 12, 2016 employment injury. It 

informed her that the proposed action was based on the opinions of OWCP’s referral physicians,

Dr. Bush and Dr. Levin. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit evidence and argument 

challenging the proposed termination action. 

Appellant submitted records from her July 11, 2018 hospitalization which were signed on 

July 12 and 15, 2018 by Liliana Kortmansky, a nurse practitioner. The records consisted mostly 

 

8 The case record contains copies of urine analysis, cystoscopy, and urodynamics testing performed on 

February 13, 2018. 

9 Dr. Levin advised that appellant’s microhematuria needed to be evaluated by another urologist and that it was 

“unrelated to this event.”
6

of blood test results and included, inter alia, diagnoses of iron deficiency anemia due to blood loss 

and thrombocytosis. In an August 23, 2018 report, Dr. Fishman noted that appellant presented 

complaining of low back pain, left thigh weakness, lower extremity numbness/tingling, and urinary 

incontinence. He advised that his physical examination revealed decreased sensation in a stocking 

distribution of both lower extremities and of the left knee/medial leg (associated with the left L4 

nerve). Dr. Fishman noted that appellant denied bowel incontinence and diagnosed lumbar postlaminectomy syndrome. Appellant also submitted several medical reports that had previously been 

submitted. 

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective September 20, 2018, as she no longer had residuals 

or disability causally related to her accepted October 12, 2016 employment injury. It found that 

the weight of the medical evidence with respect to employment-related residuals/disability rested 

with the well-rationalized opinions of OWCP’s referral physicians, Dr. Bush and Dr. Levin. 

On October 23, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of the September 20, 2018 

decision. In an accompanying narrative statement, she maintained that she had multiple 

employment-related conditions which prevented her from returning to work. Appellant submitted

a series of reports. 

In a September 20, 2018 report, Dr. Salzman reported the findings of diagnostic testing and 

diagnosed cervical spondylosis without myelopathy and chronic intractable migraine without aura. 

On September 24, 2018 he diagnosed cervical and lumbar radiculopathies. In a September 27, 

2018 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Salzman listed the date of injury as October 12, 2016 

and provided diagnoses “due to injury” of lumbar post-laminectomy syndrome, cervical 

radiculopathy, and bowel/urinary incontinence. He recommended various work restrictions. In 

reports dated October 18 and November 15, 2018, Dr. Salzman collectively diagnosed cervical 

spondylosis without myelopathy, lumbar post-laminectomy syndrome, lumbar radiculopathy, and 

chronic intractable migraine without aura.

In reports dated September 19 and 21, October 19, and December 11 and 14, 2018,

Dr. Fishman collectively diagnosed lumbar post-laminectomy syndrome, prolapsed lumbar 

intervertebral disc, lumbar radiculopathy, neuropathy, and right hamstring tendon rupture. In a 

Form CA-17 dated September 21, 2018, he advised that appellant could not return to her prior 

employment.

In a November 8, 2018 report, Dr. Samer Elhakim, Board-certified in family medicine, 

noted that appellant presented for the first time complaining of neck, back, and bilateral knee pain, 

urinary/bowel incontinence, and other symptoms/conditions which she related to an October 12, 

2016 employment injury. He diagnosed cervical disc displacement, lumbar intervertebral disc 

displacement, bilateral knee sprains, urinary incontinence, and full feces incontinence, and he 

opined that these conditions were caused by the October 12, 2016 injury. In Forms CA-17 dated 

November 8 and December 5, 2018, Dr. Elhakim advised that appellant should not work for four 

weeks due to her reported employment-related symptoms. 

In a November 12, 2018 report, Dr. Greg Zorman, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, 

indicated appellant reported that, since her March 22, 2017 surgery, she experienced neck, back, 

and bilateral leg pain, left leg weakness, and bowel/urinary incontinence.
7

In January 2 and 4, 2019 reports, Dr. Erick Salado, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

collectively diagnosed, inter alia, lumbar intervertebral disc displacement, bilateral knee sprains, 

urinary incontinence, and full feces incontinence. He advised that appellant would continue in a 

nonworking status. In a Form CA-17 dated January 2, 2019, Dr. Salado advised that she should 

not work for four weeks due to her reported employment-related symptoms. Appellant also 

submitted several medical reports that had previously been submitted. 

By decision dated January 18, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its September 20, 2018 

termination decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

termination or modification of an employee’s benefits.10 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.11 Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.12

The Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual provides that the findings of an OWCP referral 

physician or impartial medical specialist must be based on the factual underpinnings of the claim, 

as set forth in the SOAF.13 When OWCP’s referral physician or impartial medical specialist does 

not use the SOAF as the framework in forming his or her opinion, the probative value of the 

opinion is diminished or negated altogether.14

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective September 20, 2018, because she no longer had 

residuals or disability causally related to her accepted October 12, 2016 employment injury.

The Board finds that, in terminating appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical 

benefits, OWCP improperly relied on the opinions of two OWCP referral physicians, Dr. Bush, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Levin, a Board-certified urologist. 

In an October 17, 2017 report, Dr. Bush opined that appellant did not have residuals or 

disability related to her accepted October 12, 2016 employment injury at the time of the

October 17, 2017 physical examination. He found that she had multiple medical problems 

 

10 D.G., Docket No. 19-1259 (issued January 29, 2020); S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 

197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003).

11 See R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. 

Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); Vivien L. Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986).

12 M.C., Docket No. 18-1374 (issued April 23, 2019); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988).

13 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Statement of Accepted Facts, Chapter 2.810.11a 

(September 2019).

14 Id. at Chapter 3.600.3(10) (October 1990).
8

affecting her neck, back, extremities, and gastrointestinal system, but posited that these conditions 

were due to nonwork-related diabetic neuropathy and degenerative disc disease of the neck, back, 

and knees. However, the Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Bush does not have sufficient 

probative value to serve as a basis for termination. In his October 17, 2017 report, Dr. Bush 

provided an opinion that was not in keeping with the SOAF. OWCP provided him with an SOAF

to use as a frame of reference in forming his opinion. The SOAF made clear that OWCP had 

accepted appellant’s claim for numerous conditions. As noted above, the Federal (FECA) 

Procedure Manual provides that the findings of an OWCP referral physician or impartial medical 

specialist must be based on the factual underpinnings of the claim as set forth in the SOAF.15 

When OWCP’s referral physician or impartial medical specialist does not use the SOAF as the 

framework in forming his or her opinion, the probative value of the opinion is diminished or 

negated altogether.16 

The Board notes that Dr. Bush indicated in his October 17, 2017 report that he did not 

accept the conditions listed in the SOAF as valid employment conditions. In response to a question 

regarding whether appellant’s accepted conditions had resolved, Dr. Bush noted, “I have already 

stated my opinion that the accepted conditions have been accepted in error and that there is no 

causal relationship between [appellant’s] accident of [October 12, 2016] and her current 

symptoms. Albeit the symptoms of [sic] not resolved, they are not related to any traumatic event.” 

In a prior section of his October 17, 2017 report, he noted, “In essence, I disagree with the 

[SOAF],” when responding to a question regarding whether, based only on the accepted 

conditions, appellant was able to perform her date-of-injury job of human resources specialist. 

Given his failure to acknowledge the accepted employment conditions, Dr. Bush’s opinion is of 

limited probative value regarding OWCP’s termination of her wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits.

17

The Board further finds that the opinion of Dr. Levin also is of limited probative value 

regarding OWCP’s termination of appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits. As 

part of his second opinion evaluation, Dr. Levin produced a May 25, 2018 report, an undated 

addendum report received by OWCP on May 30, 2018 and a July 3, 2018 supplemental report. In 

these reports, he collectively concluded that appellant had no residuals or disability related to her 

accepted October 12, 2016 employment injury when he examined her, despite the fact that she 

continued to complain of urinary incontinence and had test findings consistent with overactive 

bladder, uninhibited bladder contractions, mildly obstructed voiding pattern, and urethral 

hypermobility.

18

 In his May 25, 2018 report, Dr. Levin discussed a number of occasions in 2017 

and 2018 in which he felt she provided conflicting accounts of her bowel and urinary incontinence 

symptoms. He advised that appellant denied bowel dysfunction or fecal incontinence when he 

examined her and noted, “Certainly, I think this creates a challenge due to the conflict between the 

records in [appellant’s] verbal report.” Dr. Levin diagnosed urinary incontinence, urgency, urge 

incontinence, cystocele (prolapsed/dropped bladder), urethral hypermobility, and microhematuria. 

He indicated that appellant’s “symptoms of urinary incontinence appear to be related to 

 

15 See supra note 13.

16 See supra note 14.

17 See supra notes 13 and 14.

18 Dr. Levin indicated that he examined appellant on November 13, 2017 and February 13 and March 8, 2018.
9

[appellant’s] cystocele and associated stress incontinence with perhaps secondary urge 

incontinence.” 

The Board finds that Dr. Levin’s opinion is of limited probative value regarding whether 

appellant continued to have employment-related residuals and disability because he failed to

provide a rationalized medical opinion explaining his conclusion that she ceased to have residuals 

and disability related to the accepted October 12, 2016 employment injury. The Board has held 

that a report is of limited probative value regarding a given medical matter if a physician does not 

provide medical rationale explaining his or her conclusion on that matter.19 Dr. Levin did not 

provide any substantive discussion relative to the relationship of appellant’s bowel and urinary 

incontinence conditions to the October 12, 2016 injury or explain when and why such 

employment-related incontinence conditions would have resolved. In fact, in portions of his 

May 25, 2018 report, particularly the portion discussing her reported incontinence symptoms, he

suggested that he did not believe that her bowel and incontinence conditions were ever related to 

the October 12, 2016 employment injury. In his undated addendum report and July 3, 2018 

supplemental report, Dr. Levin did not provide any further medical rationale in support of his 

ostensible opinion that appellant ceased to have residuals or disability due to the bowel and 

incontinence conditions accepted in connection with the October 12, 2016 injury.

Because the opinions of Dr. Bush and Dr. Levin lack probative value, the Board finds that 

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

medical benefits, effective September 20, 2018.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective September 20, 2018.

 

19 L.G., Docket No. 19-0142 (issued August 8, 2019); C.M., Docket No. 14-0088 (issued April 18, 2014).
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 18, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: October 20, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board