United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Conyers, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1167

Issued: January 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 May 18, 2010 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 27, 2020 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of appellant’s oral argument request, she asserted that oral argument should be granted to enable her to explain 

the discriminatory and harassing acts levied against her by the employing establishment. The Board, in exercising its 

discretion, denies appellant’s request for oral argument because the arguments on appeal can adequately be addressed 

in a decision based on a review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would further delay issuance of a 

Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied and this decision is based 

on the case record as submitted to the Board.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the April 27, 2020 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 properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits, effective May 24, 2020.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On January 21, 2000 appellant, then a 40-year-old supervisor of customer services, filed

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an emotional condition due

to various claimed incidents and conditions at work, including the fact that the postmaster at her

worksite treated her like a “second class citizen” and left her out of important managerial decisions

which adversely affected her work as a supervisor of customer services. She stopped work on

January 22, 2000. On August 15, 2001 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for post-traumatic stress 

disorder and adjustment reaction with depressed/anxious mood and reactive depression. 

Commencing June 16, 2002, it paid her wage-loss compensation for disability from work on the 

periodic rolls. 

Appellant periodically received treatment for her emotional condition from Dr. Charles

Nord, an attending clinical psychologist. In an April 18, 2003 report, Dr. Nord indicated that,

when he treated her on April 10, 2003, she was in a highly agitated state. He noted that appellant

had been under his care since 2000 and diagnosed severe panic attack and stress disorder.

On August 27, 2010 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Robert S. Benson, a Board-certified psychiatrist. It requested that he evaluate whether she

continued to have residuals of her accepted employment-related emotional conditions.

In an October 18, 2010 report, Dr. Benson reported the findings of the psychiatric

evaluation he conducted on October 10, 2010. He diagnosed major depressive disorder (single

episode) and anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified), and indicated that appellant continued to 

have residuals of her accepted employment-related conditions.

On July 27, 2017 OWCP again referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Benson and asked him to evaluate whether she continued to have residuals of her accepted 

employment-related emotional conditions.

In an August 17, 2017 report, Dr. Benson reported the findings of the evaluation he

conducted on that date, including the results of several psychiatric tests, and diagnosed appellant

with major depressive disorder (single episode), anxiety disorder (not otherwise specified), and

hypertension. He noted that she had a history that supported a diagnosis of major depressive

disorder. Dr. Benson advised that appellant had been in treatment with medication appropriate for 

that diagnosis and continued in treatment, which likely accounted for her minimal symptoms at 

the time of his examination. He indicated that, given her self-reported measures, she had

consistently endorsed mild-to-moderate levels of anxiety and depression. Dr. Benson advised that

 

4 Docket No. 18-0958 (issued January 8, 2019).
3

appellant currently was in treatment for depression with medication appropriate for the diagnosis. 

He noted that she reported few symptoms and there was little evidence of impairment, but advised 

that she had subjective complaints, which were consistent with the objective findings in his 

August 17, 2017 evaluation. Dr. Benson opined that the employment-related condition of 

adjustment disorder with depressed mood had been “superseded” by the diagnosis of major 

depressive disorder, single episode. 

Dr. Benson advised that, when appellant was evaluated in 2010, she was experiencing 

significant emotional distress, but noted that she was not experiencing significant emotional 

distress at the time of his current evaluation. He noted that there had been no changes in her

treatment plan in the past seven years suggesting that she had reached maximum medical 

improvement (MMI). Dr. Benson maintained that appellant did not have any current disabling 

residuals related to her “accepted work injury of January 13, 2000.” He indicated that she appeared 

stable on her current regimen of medication and had adequate function in the community and in 

her relationships with others. Appellant had experienced some relationship issues over the course 

of her treatment and she currently was distressed over her inability to have a continuing 

relationship with her grandchildren. Dr. Benson opined that this level of distress was not causing 

significant impairment and noted that she would be able to participate in a variety of limited-duty 

assignments. Appellant would be able to participate in vocational rehabilitation services to help 

her find other employment activities that would be consistent with her education and training. 

Dr. Benson indicated that she had reached MMI for treatment of her problem with major 

depressive disorder and she currently reported mild symptoms of depression. There had been no 

change in appellant’s medication regimen except for reductions in the past seven years and she 

was not actively involved in any psychotherapy associated with her depression or employmentrelated issues.

ln an August 18, 2017 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Benson noted that 

appellant was capable of performing her regular work for the employing establishment on a fulltime basis, but advised that she had no interest in returning to such work at the present time. He 

indicated that she could function in a variety of work settings or training opportunities.

In a November 17, 2017 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits because she ceased to have residuals of her accepted

employment-related emotional conditions. It informed her that the proposed termination action

was justified by the August 18, 2017 opinion of Dr. Benson, OWCP’s referral physician. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit evidence or argument challenging the proposed termination 

action.

In an undated letter received by OWCP on December 14, 2017, appellant expressed

disagreement with Dr. Benson’s opinion that she could return to her regular work as a supervisor

of customer services at the employing establishment.

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective March 4, 2018 based on the opinion of Dr. Benson, 

OWCP’s referral physician.
4

Appellant appealed to the Board and, by decision dated January 8, 2019,

5

the Board 

reversed OWCP’s February 20, 2018 termination decision. The Board found that Dr. Benson 

failed to provide adequate medical rationale to support his August 17, 2017 opinion that she ceased 

to have residuals of her accepted employment-related emotional conditions. The Board noted that 

he maintained in his August 17, 2017 report that appellant had a continuing diagnosis of major 

depressive disorder at the time of the August 17, 2017 evaluation, but found that he failed to 

explain why this major depressive disorder was no longer related, at least in part, to her accepted 

condition of adjustment reaction with depressed/anxious mood and reactive depression. The Board 

also noted that Dr. Benson indicated in his August 17, 2017 report that the employment-related 

condition of adjustment disorder with depressed mood had been “superseded” by her diagnosis of 

major depressive disorder, single episode. However, Dr. Benson did not provide an indication of 

when this major depressive disorder superseded the identified employment-related depressive 

condition. The Board further maintained that he did not identify any specific treatment records to 

support his ostensible opinion that appellant’s accepted condition of adjustment reaction with 

depressed/anxious mood and reactive depression had completely resolved before it was superseded

by the diagnosis of major depressive disorder. It also noted that Dr. Benson made no mention in 

the analysis portion of his August 17, 2017 report of her accepted condition of post-traumatic stress 

disorder, and that he provided no specific discussion of whether this condition had resolved. In 

addition, he failed to adequately explain why appellant could perform her regular work as a 

supervisor of customer services given her current psychiatric condition. 

On July 1, 2019 OWCP again referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Benson. It requested that he evaluate whether she continued to have residuals of her accepted 

employment-related emotional conditions. OWCP provided Dr. Benson a copy of the case record,

which included a recent statement of accepted facts.

In an August 6, 2019 report, Dr. Benson discussed appellant’s factual and medical 

background and reported the findings of the evaluation he performed on that date. He noted that 

she was quite distressed when there was a change in her workers’ compensation benefits and 

remained angry about the matter even though her benefits had recently been reinstated. Dr. Benson 

noted that appellant was aware of her current circumstances and there was no evidence of memory 

deficit. Appellant’s fund of knowledge was appropriate for her education and age, and she 

discussed her present situation in a logical and coherent manner. Dr. Benson advised that she was 

distressed and angry about having to have a reevaluation and she was concerned about the impact 

the reevaluation would have on her benefits. There was no indication of unusual sadness or

evidence of delusional thinking or hallucinations. Dr. Benson noted that appellant denied feeling 

hopeless and denied any suicidal thoughts. He indicated that she completed a PHQ-9 test and her 

score of 19 indicated the presence of moderately severe symptoms of depression. Appellant also 

completed a GAD-7 test and her score of 20 indicated the presence of severe symptoms of anxiety. 

Dr. Benson indicated that these results were not consistent with her clinical presentation. He noted 

that, during the evaluation, appellant reported severe psychiatric symptoms, a marked change from 

her August 17, 2017 assessment. The increase in appellant’s distress was primarily focused on the 

disruption of her workers’ compensation benefits and the financial consequences. Dr. Benson 

diagnosed major depressive disorder, single episode; anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; and 

hypertension. He noted that, in conjunction with the August 17, 2017 evaluation, it was his

opinion that appellant’s employment-related condition had resolved. At the time of that 

 

5

Id.
5

evaluation, appellant reported few symptoms and was being treated with medication for her 

previous diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Dr. Benson reported that she was stable on that 

regimen of medication and there was no evidence at that time that her employment-related 

condition was still active or causing objective findings. He indicated that at the time of appellant’s

evaluation on August 6, 2019 she reported marked intensification of her symptoms. There had 

been a change in appellant’s medication due to an increase in symptoms and it was clear that the 

increase in her symptoms was an expected reaction to the financial consequences of losing her 

workers’ compensation benefits. Dr. Benson noted that there was no indication that the increase 

in her symptoms was related to her “original date of injury, [January 13, 2000].” 

Dr. Benson noted that appellant’s treating physician made a decision to change her

medication and opined that it is unlikely that a change in medication would have a beneficial effect 

on her symptoms. He indicated that she endorsed a high level of symptoms in the present

evaluation which was primarily related to her distress over losing her workers’ compensation 

benefits and the financial consequences of that loss of income. Dr. Benson advised that appellant 

did not have any additional conditions that were directly causally related to the employmentrelated events. He asserted that she had an expected emotional reaction to the loss of her financial 

benefits. Dr. Benson noted that, in the August 17, 2017 evaluation, it was his opinion that 

appellant had reached MMI for treatment of her problem with major depressive disorder. 

Appellant had no interest in returning to her date-of-injury position as a customer service 

supervisor and there was no treatment that would likely change her mind in that regard. 

Dr. Benson indicated that there was no indication in the present evaluation that she had any 

intention of returning to full employment. He noted that appellant appealed the decision regarding 

her workers’ compensation claim and it was clear that she did not intend to return to work.

Dr. Benson indicated that she had fully recovered from her work injury at the time of evaluation 

on August 17, 2017. He opined that there was no medical reason that appellant’s initial 

employment-related condition had changed from the findings obtained on August 17, 2017.

Dr. Benson noted that it was his opinion with a reasonable medical certainty that she had reached 

full recovery from her employment-related conditions at the time of her evaluation on

August 17, 2017. However, appellant did experience a new onset of symptoms after her financial 

benefits were cut and she experienced significant financial problems.

In an August 6, 2019 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Benson indicated 

that appellant could perform her usual job, but he added the notation, “[Appellant] has no interest 

in returning to work at this time.” He noted that she had an increase in symptoms due to loss of 

her workers’ compensation benefits and advised that this increase was unrelated to her original 

employment-related injury. Dr. Benson noted that appellant could participate in a work retraining 

program. 

In an October 22, 2019 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits because she ceased to have residuals of her accepted 

employment-related emotional conditions. It informed her that the proposed termination action 

was justified by the August 6, 2019 opinion of Dr. Benson, OWCP’s referral physician. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit evidence or argument challenging the proposed termination 

action. 

In a November 21, 2019 letter received by OWCP on November 26, 2019 appellant 

advised that she disagreed with Dr. Benson’s opinion that she ceased to have residuals of her 

accepted employment-related emotional conditions. She asserted that he did not spend much time 
6

evaluating her and argued that the testing he obtained on August 9, 2019 actually demonstrated 

that she continued to suffer symptoms related to her accepted employment-related emotional 

conditions. 

By decision dated April 27, 2020, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits, effective May 24, 2020, based on the August 6, 2019 report of Dr. Benson, 

OWCP’s referral physician. 

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 compensation benefits.6 After it has determined 

that, an employee has disability causally related to his or her federal employment, OWCP may not 

terminate compensation without establishing that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer 

related to the employment.7 OWCP’s burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing 

rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.8

ANALYSIS

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

and medical benefits, effective May 24, 2020.

OWCP based its termination of appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits 

on the August 6, 2019 report of Dr. Benson, OWCP’s referral physician. However, the Board 

finds that this report does not contain adequate medical rationale in support of its opinion that she

ceased to have residuals of her accepted employment conditions and, therefore, is insufficient to 

serve as the basis for OWCP’s termination action.9

In an August 6, 2019 report, Dr. Benson reported the findings of the evaluation he 

conducted on that date. He noted that appellant was quite distressed when there was a change in 

her workers’ compensation benefits and remained angry about the matter even though her benefits 

had recently been reinstated. Dr. Benson advised that she also was distressed and angry about 

having to have a reevaluation and she was concerned about the impact the reevaluation would have 

on her benefits. He noted that appellant completed a PHQ-9 test and her score of 19 indicated the 

presence of moderately severe symptoms of depression. Appellant also completed a GAD-7 test 

and her score of 20 indicated the presence of severe symptoms of anxiety. Dr. Benson indicated 

that these results were not consistent with her clinical presentation. He noted that, during the 

evaluation, appellant reported severe psychiatric symptoms, a marked change from her August 17, 

2017 assessment. The increase in appellant’s distress was primarily focused on the disruption of 

her workers’ compensation benefits and the financial consequences. Dr. Benson diagnosed major 

 

6 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).

7 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).

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

9 See id.
7

depressive disorder, single episode; anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; and hypertension. 

He noted that, in conjunction with the August 17, 2017 evaluation, it was his opinion that 

appellant’s employment-related condition had resolved by the time of the evaluation. Dr. Benson 

indicated that at the time of her evaluation on August 6, 2019 she reported marked intensification 

of her symptoms and that the increase in her symptoms was an expected reaction to the financial 

consequences of losing her workers’ compensation benefits. He maintained that there was no 

indication that the increase in appellant’s symptoms was related to her “original date of injury, 

[January 13, 2000].” Dr. Benson advised that she did not have any additional conditions that were 

directly causally related to the employment-related events. In an August 6, 2019 Form OWCP5c, he indicated that appellant could perform her usual job, but he added the notation, “[Appellant]

has no interest in returning to work at this time.”

The Board finds that Dr. Benson failed to provide adequate medical rationale for the 

opinion expressed in his August 6, 2019 report that appellant ceased to have residuals of her 

accepted employment-related conditions.10 Dr. Benson noted that she had a continuing diagnosis 

of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder at the time of the August 6, 2019 evaluation, but 

he failed to explain why these disorders were no longer related, at least in part, to her accepted 

condition of adjustment reaction with depressed/anxious mood and reactive depression. He

advised that appellant’s PHQ-9 test results indicated the presence of moderately severe symptoms 

of depression and that her GAD-7 test results indicated the presence of severe symptoms of 

anxiety. However, Dr. Benson did not describe these test results in detail or otherwise explain 

why they would not show that she had still some residuals of her accepted employment-related 

conditions. He did not adequately identify specific treatment records to support his opinion that 

appellant’s accepted condition of adjustment reaction with depressed/anxious mood and reactive 

depression had completely resolved. Dr. Benson placed great emphasis on relating her present 

psychiatric condition to her concern over possibly losing her workers’ compensation benefits, but 

he did not adequately explain his ostensible opinion that her present psychiatric condition was 

solely related to this concern. The Board notes that the fact he reported that appellant had increased 

symptoms between the August 17, 2017 and August 6, 2019 evaluations only highlights the need 

for increased medical rationale to explain why these symptoms were not in any way related to the

accepted employment-related conditions. The Board also notes that Dr. Benson made no mention 

in the analysis portion of his August 6, 2019 report of her accepted condition of post-traumatic 

stress disorder, and that he provided no specific discussion of how this condition had resolved. 

Although Dr. Benson generally indicated that appellant’s employment-related conditions resolved 

by the time of the prior August 17, 2017 evaluation, the Board has already explained the multiple 

deficiencies of the August 17, 2017 report with respect to its opinion on continuing employmentrelated residuals/disability. In addition, he failed to adequately explain in his August 6, 2019 

report why she could perform her regular work as a supervisor of customer services given her 

current high level of psychiatric symptoms.

For these reasons, OWCP improperly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits, effective May 24, 2020.

 

10 See T.F., Docket No. 11-0763 (issued November 7, 2011); Leon Harris Ford, 31 ECAB 514, 518 (1980) (finding 

that a medical report is of limited probative value if it contains an opinion on a medical matter which is unsupported 

by medical rationale).
8

CONCLUSION

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

and medical benefits, effective May 24, 2020.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 27, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: January 26, 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