United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Salisbury, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0876 

Issued: May 2, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 23, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 4, 

2016 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. 

 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

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to rescind its acceptance of 

appellant’s claim for herniated disc at C4-5; (2) whether OWCP properly terminated appellant’s 

wage-loss and medical benefits effective September 4, 2014 as she no longer had any residuals 

causally related to her accepted February 3, 2013 employment-related injury; and (3) whether 

appellant met her burden of proof to establish continuing residuals on or after September 4, 2014 

due to her February 3, 2013 work injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 3, 2013 appellant, then a 43-year-old nursing assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that day she sustained pain on the left side of her neck 

and left arm when she helped reposition a patient in a chair. She stopped work on 

February 3, 2013. Appellant returned to limited duty on February 12, 2013 and resumed regular 

duty on June 6, 2013. OWCP initially accepted the claim for left shoulder acromioclavicular 

sprain. On January 31, 2014 it expanded the acceptance of the claim to include cervical 

herniated disc at C4-5. 

In a February 3, 2013 employee health note, appellant reported pain and swelling to her 

entire left arm. She indicated that she had injured her arm at work in the past. Appellant later 

reported her right arm being numb and hot. 

A March 19, 2013 electrodiagnostic study revealed a mild C6 radiculopathy. In a report 

dated April 28, 2013, Dr. James Johnson, the interpreting physician, indicated that the cervical 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed normal cervical alignment as well as 

degenerative changes of the cervical region, congenital fusion of C7 and T1, and congenital 

cervical spinal canal stenosis from C1 through C7. He noted that there was no disc space 

narrowing at C4-5, but there was degenerative disc desiccation. There was diffuse disc bulge 

with posterior lateral osteophyte and left greater than right uncovertebral osteophyte causing 

severe canal stenosis with slight compression and impingement of the cord. There was no signal 

change in the cord and mild bilateral foraminal stenosis was worse on the left side than right. 

There was no herniation. 

In September 2013, appellant transferred to the employing establishment in Atlanta, 

Georgia. She began treatment with Dr. Murray D. Robinson, a Board-certified neurosurgeon. In 

his initial report of November 7, 2013, Dr. Robinson noted that the trauma occurred while lifting 

at work 10 months ago on February 3, 2013. He diagnosed cervical spinal stenosis and disc 

disease. Dr. Robinson noted that appellant was pregnant and recommended that she undergo an 

anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C4-5 following her pregnancy. He took appellant off 

work. 

In a November 19, 2013 letter, OWCP requested that Dr. Robinson clarify his report and 

explain, with medical rationale, how the conditions he diagnosed were caused or aggravated by 

the February 3, 2013 work injury. In a December 18, 2013 response, Dr. Robinson opined that 

per appellant’s history, her neck and arm pain and C4-5 herniated disc were secondary to her 

February 3, 2013 work injury. 
3

On November 20, 2013 appellant filed Form CA-7 claim for compensation for leave 

without pay for the period November 7, 2013 to January 9, 2014. 

On January 31, 2014 OWCP accepted displacement of intervertebral disc without 

myelopathy as causally related to the accepted injury. 

By decision dated February 4, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for compensation for the 

period November 7, 2013 to January 9, 2014. It found appellant had failed to provide evidence 

that disability was as a result of the work injury sustained on February 3, 2013. 

On March 5, 2014 OWCP received appellant’s February 2, 2014 request for 

reconsideration and her letter dated February 28, 2014, in which she stated that she was off work 

because her condition had worsened. 

Evidence included a March 21, 2014 office visit note and an imaging requisition form 

from Dr. Robinson discussing the treatment plan. In a February 25, 2014 letter, Dr. Robinson 

indicated that he had seen appellant one time on November 7, 2013 and that he could not state 

whether or not any of her symptoms had changed. He stated that his opinions were based on 

“diagnostic studies that indicated stenosis and radiculopathy and a physical examination.” 

By decision dated March 27, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its February 4, 2014 

decision. It found that there was no medical evidence of record which established that appellant 

was disabled due to the February 3, 2013 work injury for the period in question. 

In March 2014, OWCP referred appellant’s medical records and Dr. Robinson’s surgery 

request to an OWCP medical adviser. It requested that the medical adviser offer an opinion on 

whether the February 3, 2013 work injury caused or contributed to appellant’s cervical 

osteophyte, stenosis, and/or cervical radiculopathy conditions. In a March 20, 2014 report, the 

medical adviser related that appellant had chronic, long-standing multilevel degenerative disc 

disease at C3-4 and C6-7. He also noted that she had a congenital fusion at C7-T1 with 

combined degenerative stenosis producing left-sided C6 radiculopathy. The medical adviser 

stated that those changes have been present since birth and further evolved from day-to-day 

activities of daily living, but they were not work related. He noted that osteophytes take years to 

develop. The medical adviser indicated that the initial wrist/shoulder sprain diagnosis was 

treated appropriately. He opined that the C4-5 herniated nucleus pulposus/displacement was not 

related to the work injury of helping reposition a patient in a chair and would not cause or 

contribute to the development of her cervical osteophyte, stenosis, or radiculopathy. The 

medical adviser recommended that those conditions be denied. 

On April 11, 2014 OWCP received appellant’s April 8, 2014 request for reconsideration 

of its March 27, 2014 decision. In an April 8, 2014 letter, appellant indicated that she was 

entitled to wage-loss compensation during the claimed period as she was taken off work due to 

her injury, not her pregnancy. 

In November 7, 2013 patient instructions Dr. Robinson advised appellant not to work. 

In May 2014, OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts, the case record 

and a series of questions, to Dr. Alexander N. Doman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for 
4

a second opinion evaluation. By decision dated June 5, 2014, OWCP again denied modification 

of its February 4, 2014 decision. It found that appellant had not provided medical evidence with 

objective findings to support her claimed disability for the period November 7, 2013 through 

January 9, 2014. In a June 7, 2014 report, Dr. Doman reviewed the statement of accepted facts, 

discussed his review of appellant’s medical records and described her examination findings. He 

indicated that she was tender over the left side of her neck and left trapezius muscles. 

Dr. Doman found no signs of muscular atrophy, deep tendon reflexes were symmetric, her grip 

strength and manual dexterity were normal, her rotator cuff strength in the left shoulder was 

excellent, there were no signs of muscular atrophy, there was no shoulder instability, and she had 

a negative impingement sign. He diagnosed congenital cervical stenosis. Dr. Doman opined that 

the accepted work-related conditions of left shoulder strain and the herniated cervical disc had 

resolved. He stated that appellant’s current cervical condition had been documented as 

representing a congenital condition of narrowing of the cervical canal resulting in a congenital 

cervical stenosis that resulted in her present condition, including a left-sided radiculopathy. 

Dr. Doman indicated that appellant was not symptomatic from the herniated cervical disc. 

Rather, appellant’s present condition represented the natural history of her underlying disorder. 

Dr. Doman opined that appellant’s work activities did not result in a temporary or permanent 

aggravation of her underlying congenital and degenerative cervical condition. He opined that 

appellant was capable of performing the duties of nursing assistant as the accepted work injuries 

had resolved. Dr. Doman noted that appellant would have work restrictions for her congenital 

and degenerative condition of the cervical spine. 

In a July 1, 2014 report, Dr. Robinson provided an assessment of cervical spinal stenosis. 

He related that appellant could not return to work and was being scheduled for surgery. In a 

July 28, 2014 report, Dr. Robinson stated that per appellant’s history, her neck and arm pain 

started after the February 3, 2013 work injury; therefore, he found that her C4-5 disc herniation 

and need for surgery were secondary to the work injury. 

A July 23, 2014 cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed that 

appellant has multilevel cervical disc osteophyte complex resulting in moderate canal stenosis, 

particularly on the left at C5-6 and on the right at C6-7 with neural foraminal narrowing. The 

MRI scan also showed the C7-T1 congenital fusion. 

On July 28, 2014 OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her medical and 

wage-loss compensation benefits.3

 It accorded the weight of the medical evidence to 

Dr. Doman. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit evidence and argument challenging the 

proposed termination. 

In a July 30, 2014 report, Dr. Tamara S. Greene, a Board-certified neurologist, diagnosed 

cervical spinal stenosis and left arm pain. She indicated that appellant’s examination was 

notable for giveaway weakness and limited volitional effort. Dr. Greene also suspected that 

some of appellant’s findings were nonphysiologic. She noted that recent electrodiagnostic 

testing was forthcoming. 

 3

 Appellant was not in receipt of wage-loss compensation benefits at the time of the proposed termination. 
5

By letter dated August 28, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to rescind its 

acceptance of the C4-5 herniated disc. It discussed Dr. Doman’s opinion and stated that OWCP 

had accepted the cervical condition in error, as there was no evidence that this condition was 

related to the February 3, 2013 work injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit 

evidence and argument challenging the proposed rescission action. 

By decision dated September 4, 2014, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and wageloss compensation benefits for the accepted left shoulder sprain effective September 4, 2014.4

 It 

found that the weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Doman’s July 3, 2014 opinion that 

there were no ongoing residuals or disability of appellant’s left shoulder sprain. 

On September 12, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before 

an OWCP hearing representative. 

In a September 24, 2014 statement, appellant outlined her contention that her cervical 

herniated disc C4-5 was due to the February 3, 2013 work injury. 

Also received were a July 23, 2014 admission record from DeKalb Medical, an electronic 

mailing from the employing establishment in Salisbury, NC dated September 8, 2014, 

appellant’s September 25, 2014 letter to a Mr. Fitzgerald which included her September 24, 2014 

statement, and letters from the employing establishment in Salisbury, NC dated September 2, 5, 

and October 8, 2014. 

By decision dated October 21, 2014, OWCP rescinded its acceptance of the C4-5 

herniated disc effective October 21, 2014. It found that, while appellant had a congenital 

cervical condition and cervical herniated disc C4-5, the weight of the medical evidence 

established that the condition was not related to the February 3, 2013 work injury. 

On November 3, 2014 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before 

an OWCP hearing representative. 

On April 7, 2015 a telephonic hearing was held before a hearing representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review with regard to OWCP’s September 4 and October 21, 

2014 decisions. At the hearing, appellant testified that she had no problems with her neck prior 

to February 2, 2013. She also indicated that she did not have the cervical surgery and she 

continued to be treated by Dr. Robinson. Appellant also stated that, while she did return to work, 

she reinjured her shoulder and the left side of her neck a couple of weeks ago and went to 

employee health.5

 No new medical evidence was submitted. 

By decision dated June 2, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

decisions of September 4 and October 21, 2014. She found that OWCP had met its burden of 

proof to rescind acceptance of herniated cervical disc at C4-5. The hearing representative also 

 4 Id.

5

 The hearing representative noted that OWCP assigned case number xxxxx968 to the claimed traumatic injury of 

March 9, 2015. By decision dated May 7, 2015, OWCP denied the claim as the evidence did not establish causal 

relationship. 
6

found OWCP had met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s benefits for her accepted left 

shoulder strain as the weight of the medical evidence rested with Dr. Doman. 

A September 28, 2015 MRI scan report indicated that disc/osteophyte complexes were 

flattening appellant’s spinal cord at C3-4, C5-6, and C6-7. 

In an October 2, 2015 report, Dr. Fred Koch, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

indicated that appellant’s history dated back to 2013 when she was working at an employing 

establishment facility in North Carolina. He reported that she was injured when a patient 

grabbed onto her arm and started pulling. Appellant complained of significant pain involving 

her neck and left upper extremity. Dr. Koch noted her symptoms and that she had not undergone 

cervical surgery. Appellant returned to work and was reinjured in March of this year, when a 

patient again pulled on her arm. Dr. Koch provided examination findings and noted that the MRI 

scan from September 2014 documented multilevel spinal stenosis and nerve root impingement. 

He noted neck and left upper extremity pain following the two work-related injuries with fairly 

severe spinal stenosis. Dr. Koch recommended surgery. He opined that appellant’s current 

symptomology was multifactorial based primarily on her history of two work-related injuries. 

Dr. Koch noted that she also had some preexisting evidence of degenerative changes, but that it 

seems her initial problems began with her first injury in North Carolina and was aggravated by 

her second injury here. 

On November 12, 2015 OWCP received counsel’s November 6, 2015 request for 

reconsideration. 

By decision dated January 4, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its June 2, 2015 

decision. It found the new evidence insufficient to establish that the February 3, 2013 work 

injury caused a permanent aggravation of appellant’s cervical spine degenerative disc disease 

and stenosis. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Section 8128 of FECA provides that the Secretary of Labor may review an award for or 

against payment of compensation at any time on her own motion or on application.6

 The Board 

has upheld OWCP’s authority to reopen a claim at any time on its own motion under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128 and, where supported by the evidence, set aside or modify a prior decision and issue a 

new decision. The power to annul an award, however, is not an arbitrary one and an award for 

compensation can only be set aside in the manner provided by the compensation statute. 

OWCP’s burden of justifying termination or modification of compensation holds true where 

OWCP later decides that it has erroneously accepted a claim for compensation. In establishing 

that its prior acceptance was erroneous, OWCP is required to provide a clear explanation of its 

rationale for rescission.7

 6

 5 U.S.C. § 8128. 

7

 G.C., Docket No. 15-0370 (issued December 2, 2015); K.H., Docket No. 13-1723 (issued June 17, 2014). 
7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted that on February 3, 2013 appellant sustained a left shoulder sprain when 

she was helping a coworker reposition a patient in a chair and felt pain in the left side of her neck 

and left arm. On January 31, 2014 it expanded the accepted conditions to include a cervical 

herniated disc at C4-5, based upon the reports from Dr. Robinson. 

In an October 21, 2014 decision, OWCP rescinded its acceptance of appellant’s condition 

of cervical herniated disc at C4-5, based upon the second opinion of Dr. Doman. It explained 

that the medical evidence of record contained rationalized medical opinion evidence showing 

that appellant’s cervical herniated disc at C4-5 was not due to the February 3, 2013 work injury. 

OWCP’s burden of proof to rescind requires rationalized medical opinion in support of its 

decision.8 The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to rescind its acceptance 

of cervical herniated disc at C4-5.9 

In his July 3, 2014 report, Dr. Doman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and OWCP 

referral physician, detailed appellant’s factual and medical history and described the February 3, 

2013 work incident. He stated that appellant’s “current cervical condition” had been clearly 

documented as representing a congenital condition resulting in narrowing of the cervical canal 

resulting in a congenital cervical stenosis. In discussing appellant’s current condition, he related 

that appellant was not symptomatic from a herniated cervical disc. Dr. Doman thus found that at 

the time of his evaluation appellant no longer had residuals of the accepted cervical disc 

condition. 

 Dr. Doman determined that appellant never had a herniated C4-5 disc; rather he opined 

that this accepted condition had resolved. Thus, OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to 

rescind benefits. There is no evidence that the C4-5 herniated disc was improperly accepted.10

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Once OWCP accepts a claim, it has the burden of justifying termination or modification 

of compensation. After it has been determined that an employee has disability causally related to 

her employment, OWCP may not terminate compensation without establishing that the disability 

had ceased or that it was no longer related to the employment.11 OWCP’s burden of proof 

includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper 

factual and medical background.12 Furthermore, the right to medical benefits for an accepted 

condition is not limited to the period of entitlement for disability. To terminate authorization for 

 8 D.H., Docket No. 13-1885 (issued May 12, 2014). 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8128; G.C., supra note 7. 

10 See Donald Henry, Docket No. 95-2251 (issued July 11, 1997). 

11 Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989). 

12 See Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988). 
8

medical treatment, OWCP must establish that a claimant no longer has residuals of an 

employment-related condition that requires further medical treatment.13 

The Board has noted that in assessing medical evidence the weight of such evidence is 

determined by its reliability, its probative value, and its convincing quality. The factors which 

enter in such an evaluation include the opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the 

accuracy and completeness of the physician’s knowledge of the facts and medical history, the 

care of the analysis manifested, and the medical rationale expressed is support of the physician’s 

opinion.14 Medical rationale is a medically sound explanation for the opinion offered.15

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective 

September 4, 2014.16 The weight of the medical opinion evidence was given to Dr. Doman, the 

referral physician, who opined that the left shoulder strain had resolved. 

The Board finds that OWCP presented rationalized medical evidence from Dr. Doman, 

based on a complete and accurate factual and medical history showing that by September 4, 

2014, appellant ceased to have residuals of her February 3, 2013 work injury. 

In his June 9, 2014 narrative report, Dr. Doman detailed appellant’s factual and medical 

history and reported findings upon physical examination. He noted that, while appellant was 

tender over the left side of her neck and left trapezius muscles, there was no objective evidence 

of muscular atrophy, diminished grip or strength, or shoulder instability. Appellant also had a 

negative impingement sign. In relevant part, Dr. Doman opined that the accepted work-related 

conditions of left shoulder strain had resolved. 

The Board finds that Dr. Doman’s opinion represents the weight of the medical evidence 

on this issue. Dr. Doman provided a detailed medical report reviewing the numerous medical 

reports and evidence of record. He unequivocally opined that appellant did not have continuing 

residuals of an employment-related left shoulder condition and provided a medical explanation 

supported by objective findings. Dr. Doman’s opinion was based on an accurate background. 

The Board finds that his second opinion is probative and well rationalized and represents the 

weight of the medical evidence.17

 13 Mary A. Lowe, 52 ECAB 223 (2001); Wiley Richey, 49 ECAB 166 (1997). 

14 Gary R. Sieber, 46 ECAB 215 (1994). 

15 See Ronald D. James, Sr., Docket No. 03-1700 (issued August 27, 2003); Kenneth J. Deerman, 34 ECAB 

641 (1983) (the evidence must convince the adjudicator that the conclusion drawn is rational, sound and logical). 

16 As previously noted, appellant was not in receipt of wage-loss compensation benefits at the time of the 

proposed termination or the termination. 

17 See M.K., Docket No. 15-1903 (issued May 6, 2016). 
9

Dr. Robinson opined that appellant had residuals from her work injury. However, he 

failed to provide a well-rationalized opinion, with supporting objective evidence. Dr. Robinson 

also did not address whether appellant had an ongoing work-related left shoulder sprain. His 

reports do not contain a probative, rationalized medical opinion, with objective findings, 

indicating that appellant still had residuals from the accepted conditions. For these reasons, 

Dr. Robinson’s opinion is insufficiently rationalized to create a conflict with Dr. Doman’s 

opinion. 

In her July 30, 2014 report, Dr. Greene diagnosed appellant with cervical spinal stenosis. 

However this is not an accepted condition. Dr. Greene did not provide an opinion, supported by 

objective evidence that appellant had an ongoing left shoulder sprain due to her February 3, 2013 

work injury.18

The Board finds that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to meet OWCP’s 

burden of proof in this case. Dr. Doman provided a well-rationalized opinion that represents the 

weight of the medical evidence that the left shoulder strain had resolved. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3 

After termination or modification of compensation benefits, clearly warranted on the 

basis of the evidence, the burden for reinstating compensation benefits shifts to appellant. In 

order to prevail, appellant must establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence that she had an employment-related disability which continued after termination of 

compensation benefits.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3 

Following the termination of her compensation benefits, appellant submitted additional 

medical evidence. The Board has found that the opinion of Dr. Doman justified the termination 

of appellant’s compensation benefits effective September 4, 2014; therefore, the burden shifts to 

appellant to establish disability after that date.20 The Board has reviewed the additional evidence 

submitted by appellant and notes that it is not of sufficient probative value to establish 

entitlement to further benefits. 

Appellant submitted an October 2, 2015 medical report in which Dr. Koch provided an 

impression of neck and left upper extremity pain following two work-related injuries (one in 

2013 and another in March 2015) with fairly severe spinal stenosis. He provided examination 

findings and recommended surgery based on the MRI scan from September 2014 which 

documented multilevel spinal stenosis and nerve root impingement. Dr. Koch opined that 

appellant’s current symptomology was multifactorial based primarily on her history of two workrelated injuries. He noted that she had some preexisting evidence of degenerative changes, but 

 18 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004) (medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship). 

19 Wentworth M. Murray, 7 ECAB 570, 572 (1955). 

20 Id. 
10

that it seems her initial problems began with her first injury in North Carolina and was 

aggravated by her second injury. Dr. Koch’s opinion is insufficient to establish that the 

February 3, 2013 work injury resulted in a permanent aggravation of appellant’s preexisting 

cervical degenerative disc disease and stenosis. He did not provide any medical reasoning in 

support of his conclusions of additional injuries/worsening condition and merely concluded that 

appellant’s extensive diagnosed conditions resulted from her employment. Dr. Koch did not 

address the issue of appellant’s underlying congenital spinal condition or any changes which 

would indicate an aggravation of her underlying condition caused by factors of her employment. 

His explanation is both speculative and vague. Thus, Dr. Koch’s report is of diminished 

probative value.21

The September 28, 2015 MRI scan report indicated that disc/osteophyte complexes were 

flattening appellant’s spinal cord at C3-4, C5-6, and C6-7. However, diagnostic reports are 

insufficient to discharge appellant’s burden of proof as they do not offer a physician’s opinion on 

causal relationship.22

On appeal counsel contends that the “claim was rescinded on flimsy evidence and anticlaimant reasoning.” These general and quixotic contentions are baseless and consequently 

without merit. For the reasons set forth above, while OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to 

rescind its acceptance of cervical herniated disc at C4-5, it did meet its burden of proof to 

terminate appellant’s wage-loss and medical benefits effective September 4, 2014 based on the 

accepted left shoulder condition. Appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish 

continued disability after September 4, 2014 due to her February 3, 2013 work injury. 

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 did not meet its burden of proof to rescind its acceptance of 

cervical herniated disc at C4-5. The Board further finds that it met its burden of proof to 

terminate appellant’s wage-loss and medical benefits effective September 4, 2014 based on the 

accepted left shoulder condition. Appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish 

continuing disability after September 4, 2014 due to her February 3, 2013 work injury. 

 21 L.G., Docket No. 09-1692 (issued August 11, 2010). 

22 See supra note 19. 
11

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 4, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and affirmed in part. 

Issued: May 2, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board