United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.P., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Staten Island , NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0024

Issued: September 1, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, 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 October 2, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 16, 

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.

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 28, 2018, as she no longer had 

 

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.
2

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 28, 2018, due to the accepted employment conditions.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 16, 2003 appellant, then a 42-year-old claims examiner, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 12, 2003 she sustained injuries to her head, cheek, lip, 

wrist, neck, shoulder, and knee when she tripped after her sandal caught in a rug, struck her head 

against a file cabinet, and fell to the floor while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the 

claim for cervical sprain, left wrist sprain, and right knee contusion. By decision dated 

February 18, 2004, it accepted appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability commencing 

January 6, 2004. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls commencing 

August 27, 2003 and later on the periodic rolls commencing May 16, 2004. 

Over time, appellant continued to receive medical treatment from several attending 

physicians, including Dr. Jack D’Angelo, a physician specializing in physical medicine and 

rehabilitation, Dr. Richard A. Bova, a chiropractor, Dr. Christopher M. Perez, a Board-certified 

physiatrist, Ilana Reich, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, and Dr. Ernest B. Visconti, Board-certified 

in infectious disease.

In a May 16, 2018 report, Dr. Reich noted appellant’s June 12, 2003 history of injury and 

provided an update regarding appellant’s medical status. She opined that appellant was totally and 

permanently disabled due to anxiety and depression, as well as appellant’s physical conditions. 

Dr. Visconti noted in a May 17, 2018 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), that 

appellant had a history of arthritis with parovirus, as well as neck, wrist, and knee injuries, with an 

injury date of June 12, 2003. He also noted a diagnosis of auto immune disease and opined that 

she remained totally disabled due to these conditions. Dr. Visconti, in a work capacity evaluation 

form (Form OWCP-5c) of even date, indicated that appellant was unable to return to work. 

Dr. Visconti, in a May 19, 2018 report, noted that he had treated appellant since 

December 17, 2003 and that she had employment-related chronic parovirus. He noted that she

also sustained neck, knee, and back injuries from a fall at work. 

On June 13, 2018 OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF),3and 

the medical record, to Dr. Andrew Farber, an osteopathic physician Board-certified in orthopedic 

surgery, for a second opinion evaluation to determine whether she continued to have disability or 

residuals from her accepted June 12, 2003 employment injury. 

In a July 9, 2018 report, Dr. Farber reviewed the medical record and the SOAF. He noted 

that OWCP had accepted the claim for right knee contusion, cervical sprain, and left wrist sprain. 

On examination Dr. Farber noted mild lower cervical paraspinal tenderness, no bilateral knee 

tenderness, negative bilateral Lachman’s test, and negative bilateral McMurray’s tests. He also 

 

3

In the SOAF, OWCP noted that it had accepted the condition of parovirus in an occupational disease claim under 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx784, which had been administratively closed due to lack of activity. 
3

provided goniometric measurements for range of motion. In response to OWCP’s question 

regarding diagnoses due to the accepted June 12, 2003 employment injury, Dr. Farber opined that 

“appellant is suffering from cervical sprain, right knee contusion, and left wrist sprain.” He

concluded that the accepted conditions of cervical sprain and right knee contusion had resolved 

and that the left wrist sprain “seems to have resolved.” Dr. Farber indicated that appellant was 

able to return to work as a claims representative with no restrictions. 

By notice dated August 22, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate 

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

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

In a September 6, 2018 report, Dr. Visconti diagnosed parvovirus and severe bilateral 

shoulder and knees arthritic pain and occasional finger joint severe arthritic pain. 

By decision dated September 28, 2018, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits effective that day, finding that Dr. Farber’s report was entitled 

to the weight of the medical evidence. 

On January 17, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and asserted

that OWCP had improperly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits 

based upon Dr. Farber’s opinion. Counsel also noted that OWCP had accepted an occupational 

disease claim with an August 31, 2003 date of injury for parovirus. 

By decision dated April 16, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the September 28, 2018 

termination decision. 

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.4 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. Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.5

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

entitlement for disability compensation.6 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP 

 

4 S.R., Docket No. 19-1229 (issued May 15, 2020); D.G., Docket No. 19-1259 (issued January 29, 2020); R.P., 

Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 

824 (2003).

5 S.R., id.; 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).

6 S.R., id.; 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).
4

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

require further medical treatment.7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits effective September 28, 2018. 

OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits based on the 

July 9, 2018 report of Dr. Farber, an OWCP second-opinion physician. Dr. Farber reviewed her

history of injury and noted that her claim was accepted for right knee contusion, cervical sprain,

and left wrist sprain. Upon examination of appellant’s cervical spine, he observed mild lower 

cervical paraspinal tenderness. Dr. Farber also noted no bilateral knee tenderness, negative 

bilateral Lachman’s test, and negative bilateral McMurray’s tests. He opined that “appellant is

suffering from cervical sprain, right knee contusion, and left wrist sprain” but he also concluded 

that the accepted cervical sprain and right knee conditions had resolved, and that her left wrist 

strain condition “seems to have resolved.”

The Board finds that Dr. Farber’s opinion was internally inconsistent, as he concluded that 

“appellant is suffering from” the accepted employment-related conditions, and conclusory in 

nature in that the left wrist strain “seems to have resolved.” Dr. Farber did not provide an opinion 

with sufficient medical reasoning to establish that appellant no longer had residuals or disability 

due to her accepted June 12, 2003 employment injury.8 Once OWCP undertook development of 

the record it was required to complete development of the record by procuring medical evidence 

that would resolve the relevant issue(s) in the case.9 As it did not request that Dr. Farber clarify 

his report, the Board finds that OWCP erred in relying on his opinion as the basis to terminate 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation. The Board therefore finds that OWCP has not met its burden 

of proof.10

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective September 28, 2018.

11

 

7 S.R., id.; K.W., supra note 5; see A.G., id.; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003); Pamela K. Guesford, 53 ECAB 

727 (2002); Furman G. Peake, id.

8 See R.K., Docket No. 19-1980 (issued May 7, 2020); J.W., Docket No. 19-1014 (issued October 24, 2019); S.B.,

Docket No. 18-0700 (issued January 9, 2019); S.W., Docket No. 18-0005 (issued May 24, 2018).

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

10 Id. 

11 In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot. 
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 16, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: September 1, 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