United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, NEWARK LIBERTY 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Newark, NJ, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1470

Issued: October 8, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

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 August 1, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 14, 

2020 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 has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective March 6, 2019, as she no longer had 

disability or residuals due to her accepted February 13, 2004 employment injury; and (2) whether 

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

residuals on or after March 6, 2019 causally related to her accepted February 13, 2004 employment 

injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 23, 2004 appellant, then a 46-year-old transportation security screener, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 13, 2004 she injured her back 

when lifting a bag during a bag check while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on

February 13, 2004. OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of lumbosacral joint/ligament,right ankle 

sprain, and right tibialis tendinitis. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental 

compensation rolls, effective March 28, 2004, and on the periodic compensation rolls, effective 

May 16, 2004. 

On November 6, 2018 OWCP referred appellant along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Andrew Farber, an osteopath and Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, to determine the status of her accepted employment-related conditions. 

In a November 27, 2018 report, Dr. Farber noted the SOAF, appellant’s history of injury 

and medical treatment. He reported that appellant walked with a slightly antalgic gait. Appellant’s

physical examination revealed that she was mildly tender to palpation in the paraspinal region, 

with 50 degrees flexion, 20 degrees extension and 20 degrees bilateral side bending, 5/5 strength 

in the lower extremity with ability to heel and toe rise. Appellant had negative straight leg raising 

sign bilaterally. The right ankle had mild anterolateral tenderness and swelling with full strength 

and no gross instability noted. Range of motion findings were reported and no focal neurovascular 

deficit was noted. Dr. Farber opined, based on his physical examination findings and the medical 

records provided, that appellant did not currently have any objective findings of the accepted 

conditions. He further noted that the medical evidence did not indicate that a preexisting condition 

was aggravated or affected by the employment injury. Dr. Farber opined that appellant did not 

have any residuals of the accepted conditions or any additional diagnosed conditions as a result of 

the employment injury. He indicated that she had reached maximum medical improvement, there 

was no disability as a result of the employment injury, and she could return to her full-time regular 

duties with no restrictions. Dr. Farber also found that no further treatment was recommended 

based on his examination. 

On December 17, 2018 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits, as the evidence of record established that she no longer had employmentrelated residuals or disability due to her accepted work-related conditions. It afforded her 30 days 

to submit additional evidence or argument, in writing, if she disagreed with the proposed 

termination of benefits. 
3

In a December 27, 2018 statement, appellant disagreed with the proposed termination. In 

a January 11, 2019 statement, counsel also disagreed with the proposed termination of benefits 

based on new medical evidence, which he contended supported that she continued to have residuals 

of her accepted employment conditions. 

In a December 11, 2018 report, Dr. Igor Stiler, a Board-certified neurologist, noted 

appellant’s complaints of back pain radiating to both legs and that she stopped trigger point 

injections as those did not help. Examination revealed L4-S1 tenderness, left greater than right, 

with decreased range of motion of left-sided flexion and extension and positive straight leg raise 

bilaterally. There was also decreased pinprick and light touch sensation involving the left leg 

distally and 1⁄4 deep tendon reflexes in the upper and lower extremities. Dr. Stiler opined that 

appellant was disabled from work. He also recommended physical therapy. In a December 14, 

2018 progress report, Dr. Stiler indicated that he examined appellant on December 11 and 

12, 2018. He diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic 

neuropathy. Dr. Stiler opined, with a checkmark “yes,” that the employment injury was the 

competent medical cause of the conditions and that appellant was temporary totally disabled. 

In a January 30, 2019 letter, OWCP advised appellant that her physician needed to provide 

medical rationale, which explained how the diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy was caused or 

aggravated by the February 13, 2004 employment injury. It afforded her 30 days to provide the 

requested information. 

In another letter of even date, OWCP noted that Dr. Farber had indicated in his report that 

appellant did not suffer from any residuals of the accepted conditions or any additional diagnosed 

conditions as a result of the employment injury. It requested that he address whether the diagnosed 

lumbar radiculopathy was caused or aggravated by the February 13, 2004 employment-related 

injury and, if so, whether there were any residuals or whether the condition had resolved. 

In a February 7, 2019 addendum report, Dr. Farber responded that the diagnosed lumbar 

radiculopathy was caused by the February 13, 2004 employment injury. He indicated that, at the 

time of his examination, there were no residuals present and appellant had a negative straight leg 

raising sign bilaterally with full strength in the lower extremities. Dr. Farber concluded that the 

lumbar radiculopathy condition had resolved. 

In a February 27, 2018 report, Dr. Stiler noted the history of appellant’s February 13, 2004 

employment injury and that her electromyography (EMG) studies revealed bilateral L4, L5, and 

S1 radiculopathy. He reported examination findings for both the cervical and lumbar spine, noting 

tenderness bilaterally and abnormal range of motion findings for left-side extension lumbar spine 

with positive bilateral straight leg raise. Dr. Stiler diagnosed chronic lumbar radiculopathy with 

diabetic neuropathy. He opined that appellant was totally disabled and that she should resume 

physical therapy since her symptoms worsened after she stopped physical therapy. 

On February 28, 2019 OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include the 

additional condition of lumbar radiculopathy. 
4

OWCP received January 18 and 24 and February 7, 2019 form reports from Dr. Stiler 

wherein he opined that appellant was totally disabled as a result of lumbar radiculopathy and Type 

2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. 

By decision dated March 5, 2019, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits effective March 6, 2019. It found that the weight of the medical evidence 

rested with Dr. Farber’s opinions in his reports dated November 27, 2018 and February 7, 2019

that she did not have a current disability due to the February 13, 2004 employment injury, 

including a lumbar radiculopathy condition, which had resolved at the time of his examination. 

OWCP received additional form reports from Dr. Stiler dated March 15, April 15, May 15, 

and June 7 and 21, 2019 in which he continued to opine that appellant was totally disabled as a 

result of lumbar radiculopathy and Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. 

In a June 20, 2019 report, Dr. Stiler reported examination findings of appellant’s lumbar 

spine, which included abnormal range of motion findings and positive straight leg raise bilaterally 

with decreased sensory examination of the distal lateral left lower extremity and deep tendon 

reflects 1-2/4. He opined that her bladder issues were likely secondary to the lumbar 

radiculopathy. Dr. Stiler opined that appellant was totally disabled from working. 

On November 13, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In a 

statement of even date, counsel argued that the medical evidence established tha t appellant 

continues to establish disability due to her accepted conditions and that the class of accepted 

medical conditions must be expanded. 

In an October 8, 2019 report, Dr. Stiler noted that appellant was first evaluated in his office

during February 2018. He noted the history of the February 13, 2004 employment injury and her 

medical course. Based on the history of injury, Dr. Stiler’s neurologic examinations performed 

between February 27, 2018 and June 20, 2019, and his review of the medical records, he diagnosed 

appellant with chronic lumbar radiculopathy, progressive, with L2-3 herniated disc impinging on 

the left L2 nerve root and bulging disc at L5-S1, chronic cervical radiculopathy with derangement 

with herniated discs at C2-3, C3-4, C3-5, C5-6, and C6-7, internal derangement of both knees with 

lateral meniscal tear of the right knee, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. He opined that she has 

remained symptomatic from her diagnosed conditions since her work injury an d should be 

considered totally disabled. Dr. Stiler also indicated that appellant had restrictions on lifting, 

sitting, and standing in an eight-hour workday. 

In a March 28, 2019 report, Dr. Sudharam Idupuganti, a Board-certified psychiatrist, 

reported that appellant had been treated since November 2006 for various complaints, including 

increasing back pain. He also reported that she became increasingly more depressed in the past 

two years after her mother’s prolonged illness, nursing home stay and death in April 2017. 

Dr. Idupuganti opined that appellant’s depression began after she was injured in her job on 

February 13, 2004. Appellant developed back pain and was diagnosed as having L5-S1 disc 

prolapse and right ankle and tendon and ligament injury. Dr. Idupuganti reported her symptoms, 

noting that she had a past history of panic attacks that lasted a few months in the 1980’s, which 

did not require psychiatric treatment. He opined that appellant was a well-adjusted individual prior 

to her employment-related fall and back and ankle injury. Dr. Idupuganti noted her mental status 
5

examination and diagnosed major depression, single episode, severe with melancholia , posttraumatic stress disorder, continued panic disorder, and dysthymic disorder. He reported that 

appellant’s conditions had continued since 2004 and had not significantly improved with 

psychiatric treatment to date. Dr. Idupuganti, thus, opined that she was unable to work in any 

gainful employment due to the intensity of her anxiety and depression as well as her back and 

ankle pain, which were a direct consequence of her February 13, 2004 employment injury. 

By decision dated February 14, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its March 5, 2019 

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.3 It may not terminate compensation 

without establishing that the disability had ceased or that it was no longer related to the 

employment.4 OWCP’s 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 

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 met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective March 6, 2019, as she no longer had disability or 

residuals due to her accepted February 13, 2004 employment injury.

In his November 27, 2018 report, Dr. Farber described the February 13, 2004 employment 

injury and noted that appellant’s claim was accepted for sprain of lumbosacral joint/ligament, right 

ankle sprain, and right tibialis tendinitis. He also noted that the diagnostic testing showed lumbar 

radiculopathy. Dr. Farber conducted a physical examination and related appellant’s examination 

findings. He opined, based on his physical examination findings and the medical records provided, 

that she did not currently have any objective findings of the accepted conditions. Dr. Farber also 

indicated that the medical evidence of record did not indicate that a preexisting condition was 

3 C.C., Docket No. 19-1062 (issued February 5, 2020); S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 

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

4

See T.M., Docket No. 19-1058 (issued March 30, 2021); G.T., Docket No. 18-01302 (issued October 22, 2019);

A.G., Docket No. 18-0749 (issued November 7, 2018);ElsieL. Price, 54 ECAB 734 (2003).

5 R.R., Docket No. 19-0173 (issued May 2, 2019);Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988).

6 L.W., Docket No. 18-1372 (issued February 27, 2019); KathrynE. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

7

See T.M., supra note 4; A.M., Docket No. 18-1243 (issued October 7, 2019); R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued 

January 18, 2018); A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August 5, 2009).
6

aggravated or affected by the employment injury. Thus, he opined that appellant did not have any 

residuals of the accepted conditions or any additional diagnosed conditions as a result of the 

employment injury, there was no disability as a result of the employment injury, and she was able 

to return to her full-time regular duties with no restrictions. In his February 7, 2019 addendum 

report, Dr. Farber indicated that her diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy was caused by the 

February 13, 2004 employment injury. He opined that the lumbar radiculopathy had resolved 

without residuals since, at the time of his examination, appellant had a negative straight leg raising 

sign bilaterally with full strength in the lower extremities. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that Dr. Farber’s opinion constitutes the 

weight of the medical opinion evidence. Dr. Farber based his opinion on a proper factual and 

medical history and physical examination findings and provided medical rationale for his opinion 

that appellant did not have a current residual injury. He noted that examination findings were 

normal with objective findings to indicate any residuals of the accepted conditions. The Board 

finds that Dr. Farber provided a well-rationalized opinion based on medical evidence regarding 

appellant’s February 13, 2004 employment injury residuals and disability. Accordingly, OWCP 

properly relied on his second opinion reports in terminating her wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits for the February 13, 2004 employment injury.8

Following its December 17, 2018 notice of proposed termination, OWCP received a 

February 27 and December 11 and 14, 2018 reports, and January 18 and 24 and February 7, 2019 

form reports from Dr. Stiler, who opined that appellant was totally disabled as a result of lumbar 

radiculopathy and Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. In his February 27, 2018 

report, Dr. Stiler noted the history of the February 13, 2004 employment injury and that EMG 

diagnostic testing revealed bilateral L4, L5, and S1 radiculopathy. He conducted a physical 

examination of appellant’s cervical and lumbar spine and noted examination findings. Dr. Stiler 

diagnosed chronic lumbar radiculopathy with diabetic neuropathy and opined that she was totally 

disabled. However, he did not address in his December 2018 and 2019 reports whether appellant 

had continued residuals of her employment-related lumbar radiculopathy, based upon objective 

medical findings. Dr. Stiller did not provide a probative medical opinion, based on objective 

medical findings that she was disabled or currently required medical treatment due to an 

employment-related condition.9 The Board finds, therefore, that the remaining contemporaneous 

medical evidence is insufficient to overcome the weight of medical evidence given to Dr. Farber’s 

second opinion reports in terminating appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, 

effective March 6, 2019, for the February 13, 2004 employment injury.10

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

As OWCP properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss and medical benefits, the burden 

shifted to her to establish continuing disability or residuals, after that date, causally related to her 

8

See C.C., supra note 3; S.M., Docket No. 18-0673 (issued January 25, 2019);see also A.F., Docket No. 16-0393 

(issued June 24, 2016).

9

See A.M., supra note 7; see E.C.,Docket No. 17-1645 (issued June 11, 2018).

10 See N.G., Docket No. 18-1340 (issued March 6, 2019); see also J.P., Docket No. 16-1103 (issued 

November 25, 2016).
7

accepted injury.11 To establish a causal relationship between the condition as well as any attendant 

disability claimed and the employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical 

evidence based on a complete medical and factual background, supporting such a causal 

relationship.12 Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish 

a causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.13

When an employee claims that, a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due 

to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is 

causally related to the employment injury.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 March 6, 2019 causally related to her 

accepted February 13, 2004 employment injury. 

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

March 6, 2019, appellant submitted additional reports from Dr. Stiler. In his form reports dated 

March 15, April 15, May 15, and June 7 and 21, 2019, Dr. Stiler again concluded that she was 

totally disabled as a result of lumbar radiculopathy and Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic 

neuropathy. While he continued to provide an opinion that appellant was unable to return to work, 

his opinion was merely conclusory in nature.15 Dr. Stiler did not provide medical rationale 

explaining the objective findings substantiating his diagnosis and how the diagnosed condition 

was disabling. A medical opinion not fortified by medical rationale is of diminished probative 

value.16 These reports, therefore, are of diminished probative value to establish appellant’s 

entitlement to continued wage-loss compensation and medical benefits.17

In his June 20, 2019 report,Dr. Stiler reported abnormal examination physical examination 

findings regarding appellant’s lumbar spine. He opined that her bladder issues were likely 

secondary to the lumbar radiculopathy and that she was totally disabled. Again, Dr. Stiler failed 

11 E.J., Docket No. 20-0013 (issued November 19, 2020); B.A., Docket No. 17-1471 (issued July 27, 2018); Manuel 

Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001).

12 C.L., Docket No. 18-1379 (issued February 3, 2019);T.M., Docket No. 08-0975 (issued February 6, 2009).

13 See C.S., Docket No. 18-0952 (issued October 23, 2018); Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208 (2004); Jacqueline M. 

Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

14 See S.L., Docket No. 19-0603 (issued January 28, 2020); T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019);

T.F., Docket No. 17-0645 (issued August15, 2018); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

15 See A.T., Docket No. 20-0334 (issued October 8, 2020). 

16 See L.S.,Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019);M.H.,Docket No. 17-0210 (issued June 3, 2018).

17 See R.R.,Docket No. 19-0173 (issued May 2, 2019); O.W.,Docket No. 17-1881 (issued May 1, 2018).
8

to address the relevant issue of whether appellant had continued residuals of her employmentrelated lumbar radiculopathy, based upon objective findings.

18

 

In his October 8, 2019 report, Dr. Stiler noted the history of the February 13, 2004 

employment injury and appellant’s medical course, including his neurologic examinations 

performed between February 27, 2018 and June 20, 2019, and his review of the medical records. 

He diagnosed chronic lumbar radiculopathy, progressive, with L2-3 herniated disc impinging on 

the left L2 nerve root and bulging disc at L5-S1, chronic cervical radiculopathy with derangement 

with herniated discs atC2-3, C3-4, C3-5, C5-6, and C6-7, internal derangement of both knees with 

lateral meniscal tear of the right knee, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Dr. Stiler opined that 

appellant has remained symptomatic from her diagnosed conditions since her work injury and 

should be considered totally disabled. He also provided work restrictions on lifting, sitting, and 

standing in an eight-hour work day. Besides providing conflicting opinions on whether appellant 

was totally or partially disabled, Dr. Stiler again did not relate current objective diagnostic 

findings. He also diagnosed herwith cervical and bilateral knee conditions and diabetic peripheral 

neuropathy which have not been accepted under this claim, but he did not provide an opinion as 

to whether the reported neck and bilateral knee conditions and diabetic peripheral neuropathy are 

causally related to the accepted February 13, 2004 employment injury. The Board has held that 

medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is 

of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 19 Thus, Dr. Stiler’s reports are 

insufficient to cause a conflict of medical opinion with Dr. Farber’s opinion.20 

Appellant also submitted a March 28, 2019 report from Dr. Idupuganti. Dr. Idupuganti 

began treating her two years after the February 13, 2004 employment injury. He opined that 

appellant’s depression began after the February 13, 2004 employment injury, noting that she 

developed back pain and was diagnosed as having L5-S1 disc prolapse and right ankle and tendon 

and ligament injury, and that she was a well-adjusted individual prior to her employment-related 

fall and back and ankle injury. Dr. Idupuganti diagnosed major depression, single episode, severe 

with melancholia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and continued panic disorder and dysthymic 

disorder. He opined that the intensity of appellant’s anxiety and depression, as well as her back 

and ankle pain, are a direct consequence of her February 13, 2004 employment injury and rendered 

her totally disabled from any gainful employment. OWCP has not accepted anxiety and depression 

conditions in this claim. Besides indicating that appellant was a well-adjusted individual prior to 

the employment-related injury, Dr. Idupuganti has not offered any medical rationale which 

explained how or why her emotional conditions and disability arose due to her employment 

injury.21 

18 Id.

19 A.M., Docket No. 18-0562 (issued January 23, 2020); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018); LeslieC. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

20 See V.P., Docket No., 19-0645 (issued February 22, 2021). 

21 See supra note 16.
9

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

employment-related disability or residuals, on or after March 6, 2019, due to the accepted 

employment injury.

On appeal counsel asserts that the termination is contrary to the medical evidence on file 

and the law. As explained above, OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits. Additionally appellant has not met her burden of proof 

to establish continuing employment-related disability or residuals on or after March 6, 2019 due 

to the accepted employment injury.

CONCLUSION

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective March 6, 2019, as she no longer had disability or 

residuals due to her accepted February 13, 2004 employment injury. The Board further finds that 

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

residuals on or after March 6, 2019 causally related to her accepted February 13, 2004employment 

injury. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 14, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 8, 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