United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Alliance, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0695

Issued: June 10, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 10, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from August 20 and November 19, 

2019 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(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 met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective August 21, 2019, as he no longer had residuals 

or disability causally related to his accepted employment injury; (2) whether appellant has met his 

burden of proof to expand the acceptance of his claim to include additional conditions causally 

related to the accepted employment injury; and (3) whether appellant has met his burden of proof 

to establish disability from work for intermittent periods from December 14, 2018 through 

June 28, 2019 causally related to his accepted employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 30, 2015 appellant, then a 45-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging a pelvis injury due to the physical requirements of his federal 

employment.

2

 He noted that he first became aware of his claimed condition on August 1, 2013 

and realized its relation to his federal employment on June 18, 2015.

3

 Appellant stopped work on 

June 19, 2015. OWCP accepted his claim for a pelvis sprain, and paid wage-loss compensation

for disability from work on the supplemental rolls commencing June 19, 2015 and on the periodic 

rolls commencing December 13, 2015.

4

On March 28, 2016 appellant returned to full-time work with restrictions as a sales solution 

team member. The position required intermittent engagement in the following activities for the 

designated periods: sitting for eight hours per day, using a computer mouse for four to eight hours, 

intermittent fine manipulation of a keyboard for four to eight hours, and speaking on a telephone 

for six to eight hours.

In a June 19, 2018 report, Dr. Raymond Candage, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

noted that appellant had been diagnosed with facet hypertrophy at L4-5 and left neural foraminal 

stenosis at L5-S1. He advised that the requirements of appellant’s light-duty work had aggravated 

his pelvis and lumbar spine conditions. Dr. Candage indicated that prolonged sitting, lifting, and 

carrying would only further aggravate appellant’s conditions and, therefore, it was recommended 

for him to be declared permanently disabled.

In a letter received by OWCP on June 29, 2018, appellant requested that the acceptance of 

his claim be expanded to include additional employment-related conditions of the right hip and 

low back.

In a December 12, 2018 narrative report, Dr. Dean J. Marshall, an osteopath Boardcertified in orthopedic surgery, diagnosed unilateral primary osteoarthritis of the right hip and 

indicated that this condition was employment related. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) of 

even date, he indicated that appellant could not perform his regular work and diagnosed 

employment-related avascular necrosis of the right hip. Dr. Marshall listed the date of injury as 

August 1, 2013 and recommended work restrictions due to appellant’s accepted employment 

2 OWCP assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx642. Appellant’s letter carrier position required casing mail by standing 

for approximately three hours per day and pitching letters, flats, magazines, and newspapers into a case. The letter 

carrier then delivered mail on assigned routes, a task that required lifting a mailbag weighing up to 35 pounds in and 

out of a postal vehicle, and carrying it on a strap over the shoulder. The position involved walking or standing most 

of the day and lifting mail/mailbags weighing up to 70 pounds. 

3 Appellant also asserted that a fall down icy stairs at work in early-2013 caused injury to his groin and right hip. 

However, he did not seek medical care for this fall or file a claim with OWCP. The question of whether appellant 

sustained a disabling injury due to a fall in early-2013 is not currently before the Board. 

4 The present case record shows that appellant filed a Form CA-2 on January 19, 2018, assigned OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx374, in which he claimed a new occupational injury of the right hip, tail bone, and lower/mid back region due 

to factors of his federal employment. He asserted that pain from the new injury commenced in September 2017. 

OWCP denied that claim by decisions dated March 13, 2018 and July 11, 2019. It has administratively combined File 

Nos. xxxxxx374 and xxxxxx642, designating the latter as the master file. 
3

injury, including lifting/carrying no more than 40 pounds for up to 20 minutes per day,

pushing/pulling no more than 40 pounds for up to 15 minutes per day, sitting for no more than 15 

minutes per hour, and standing or walking for no more than 20 minutes per day.

On December 14, 2018 appellant began working part-time hours in the modified position.

Appellant subsequently filed claims for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) for 

intermittent disability from work from December 14, 2018 through June 28, 2019 causally related 

to his accepted employment injury. The specific periods of disability claimed by appellant were: 

December 14 and December 17 through 21, 2018;June 13 through 14, June 17 through 21, and 

June 24 through 28, 2019. Appellant worked two hours per day on these dates and claimed wageloss compensation for the remaining hours of each workday not covered by leave.

In a January 2, 2019 development letter with regard to OWCP File No. xxxxxx642, OWCP 

informed appellant of the deficiencies of his claim for wage-loss compensation. It advised him of 

the type of additional factual and medical evidence required, including an attending physician’s 

report establishing causal relationship between the claimed periods of disability and an 

employment-related condition. No additional evidence was received. 

On February 7, 2019 OWCP referred appellant, along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) and a series of questions, for a second opinion examination with Dr. William R. Bohl, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. It requested that Dr. Bohl evaluate whether appellant 

continued to have residuals/disability causally related to his accepted pelvis sprain. OWCP also 

requested that Dr. Bohl evaluate whether appellant developed right hip osteoarthritis or whether 

the claim should be expanded to include other previously unaccepted conditions causally related

to the performance of his employment duties. 

On March 15, 2019 appellant underwent right total hip replacement. The procedure was 

not authorized by OWCP. 

In a March 26, 2019 report, Dr. Bohl discussed appellant’s factual and medical history. He

reported his physical examination findings, which included tenderness in appellant’s right 

sacroiliac joint, sciatic notch, and the incision site of his recent right hip surgery. Dr. Bohl opined 

that appellant did not exhibit evidence of his accepted pelvis sprain, and generally noted that he 

had residual pain from “his other diagnoses.”

5

 He opined that appellant could not return to his 

date-of-injury job as a letter carrier, but noted that this was due to his lack of capacity for “walking 

or standing work” while he healed from his right hip surgery. In a March 26, 2019 work capacity 

evaluation report (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Bohl noted that appellant’s right hip surgery prevented 

him from working as a letter carrier. 

On April 11, 2019 OWCP requested clarification of Dr. Bohl’s opinion with respect to 

whether appellant sustained employment-related conditions other than a pelvis sprain. In a

supplemental April 18, 2019 report, Dr. Bohl indicated that the avascular necrosis of appellant’s 

right hip was not employment related in that the employment exposures were not sufficient to 

5 Dr. Bohl also opined that appellant had right hip arthritis due to femoral head avascular necrosis, which “could be 

secondary to his work injuries”and right gluteus medius tendinitis, which likely was “a result of his work injuries.”
4

cause such a condition. He noted that appellant had a history of right hip problems prior to 

sustaining an employment-related condition. Dr. Bohl further opined that the steroid injections 

that appellant received for his accepted pelvis sprain condition did not cause the avascular necrosis 

of his right hip. He also indicated that appellant’s right gluteus medius tendinitis was not due to 

the employment duties identified in the SOAF.

On April 25, 2019 OWCP determined that there was a conflict in the medical opinion 

evidence between Dr. Bohl and Dr. Marshall regarding whether appellant continued to have

residuals and/or disability due to the accepted pelvis sprain. On May 7, 2019 it referred appellant, 

along with a SOAF and series of questions, to Dr. Dennis Glazer, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, for an impartial medical examination and opinion on the matter. OWCP requested that

Dr. Glazer evaluate whether appellant continued to have residuals/disability causally related to his

accepted pelvis sprain. It also determined that there was a conflict in the medical opinion evidence 

regarding whether appellant sustained an employment-related condition other than a pelvis sprain

and it requested that Dr. Glazer evaluate whether appellant sustained right hip osteoarthritis or 

another previously unaccepted condition causally related to the performance of his employment 

duties. 

In a May 24, 2019 report, Dr. Glazer detailed appellant’s factual and medical history and 

described the findings of the physical examination he conducted on that date. Appellant reported 

that he presently had pain in his groin, buttock, and low back. Dr. Glazer indicated that appellant 

had normal motor and sensory findings in the lower extremities, negative bilateral straight leg test,

and intact bilateral ankle jerks/deep tendon reflexes. Examination of the right hip showed slightly 

limited internal and external rotation. Dr. Glazer found that appellant suffered no residuals or 

disability from the accepted condition of pelvis sprain. He advised that, although appellant had 

complaints with ambulation and groin/right hip/back pain, the nonwork-related avascular necrosis 

of his right hip was “a source of his pain.” Dr. Glazer noted, “[t]he accepted sprain condition is 

self-limiting and should have resolved.” He opined that appellant had avascular necrosis of the

right hip, a nonwork-related degenerative condition, which was the result of wear and tear over 

time, and noted that appellant’s work duties would not have been competent to cause such an 

injury. Dr. Glazer also found that appellant’s facet hypertrophy with left neural foraminal stenosis 

at L4-5 and L5-S1 was not employment related, noting that it would not have been caused by his 

work duties and that such a condition typically developed over the course of time “due to aging 

and degeneration.”

In a July 3, 2019 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate his wageloss compensation and medical benefits because the special weight of medical evidence, as 

represented by Dr. Glazer’s opinion, established that he no longer had residuals or disability 

causally due to his accepted employment-related pelvis sprain. It afforded him 30 days to submit 

argument and evidence challenging the proposed termination action. 

By decision dated July 9, 2019, OWCP found that appellant did not meet his burden of 

proof to establish disability from work for intermittent periods from December 14, 2018 through 

June 28, 2019. In a separate decision dated July 9, 2019, it found that appellant had not met his 

burden of proof to expand the acceptance of his claim to include additional conditions causally 

related to the accepted employment injury.
5

In a July 11, 2019 statement received by OWCP on July 16, 2019, appellant argued that he 

continued to have residuals and disability due to his accepted employment-related pelvis sprain

and additional claimed employment injuries. 

On August 7, 2019 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review with respect to the July 9, 2019 decisions. 

By decision dated August 20, 2019, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective August 21, 2019. It found that the special weight of 

the medical opinion evidence with respect to work-related residuals/disability rested with the 

opinion of Dr. Glazer. 

By decision dated September 11, 2019, a hearing representative set aside OWCP’s July 9, 

2019 decisions and remanded the case to OWCP for further development.

6

 The hearing 

representative directed OWCP to ask Dr. Glazer to provide a supplemental report clarifying 

whether appellant’s work duties, including walking, standing, and handling mail, contributed to 

his right hip osteoarthritis and, if so, to comment on the nature and extent of any injury-related 

disability. The hearing representative further directed that, after requesting such a supplemental 

report and engaging in any further development deemed necessary, OWCP was to issue a de novo

decision. 

OWCP then referred appellant’s case to Dr. Glazer, along with an updatedSOAF and series 

of questions, and requested that he provide an opinion on whether appellant’s employment duties

contributed to the diagnosis of right hip osteoarthritis and, if so, to comment on any related periods 

of disability.

7

 In an October 28, 2019 supplemental report, Dr. Glazer opined that appellant’s work 

duties as described in the SOAF did not cause or contribute to the diagnosis of right hip 

osteoarthritis. He explained that such a diagnosis is often associated with aging and natural 

deterioration. Dr. Glazer indicated, “[h]is job duties would be unlikely to cause or accelerate his 

hip osteoarthritis.”

By decision dated November 19, 2019, OWCP determined that appellant did not meet his 

burden of proof to expand the acceptance of his claim to include additional conditions causally 

related to the accepted employment injury. It also found that he did not meet his burden of proof 

to establish disability from work for intermittent periods from December 14, 2018 through 

June 28, 2019 causally related to the accepted employment injury.

6 Although it was suggested in parts of the September 11, 2019 decision that only the July 9, 2019 decision 

regarding appellant’s expansion claim was being set aside, the hearing representative effectively set aside both of the 

above-described July 9, 2019 decisions.

7

In its referral documents, OWCP instructed Dr.Glazer to only consider the effects of the work duties delineated 

in the updated SOAF with respect to appellant’s expansion and disability claims. It indicated that he should not 

consider the effects of a purported fall at work in early 2013. 
6

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.8 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.9 Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background. 10 The right to medical 

benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of entitlement for disability 

compensation.11 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.12

Section 8123(a) of FECA provides that if there is a disagreement between the physician 

making the examination for the United States and the physician of an employee, the Secretary shall 

appoint a third physician (known as a referee physician or impartial medical specialist) who shall 

make an examination.13 For a conflict to arise, the opposing physicians’ opinions must be of 

virtually equal weight and rationale.14 In situations where the case is properly referred to an 

impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving the conflict, the opinion of such specialist, 

if sufficiently well rationalized and based upon a proper factual background, must be given special 

weight.15

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective August 21, 2019.

The Board finds that OWCP improperly determined that there was a conflict in the medical 

opinion between Dr. Marshall, an attending physician, and Dr. Bohl, an OWCP referral physician, 

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

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

9

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

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

10 M.C., Docket No. 18-1374 (issued April23, 2019); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988).

11 A.G., Docket No. 19-0220 (issued August 1, 2019); A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August5, 2009); T.P., 58 

ECAB 524 (2007); KathrynE. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005). FurmanG. Peake, 41 ECAB 361, 364 (1990).

12 See A.G., id.; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003); PamelaK. Guesford, 53 ECAB 727 (2002).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see E.L., Docket No. 20-0944 (issued August 30, 2021); R.S., Docket No. 10-1704 (issued 

May 13, 2011); S.T., Docket No. 08-1675 (issued May 4, 2009); M.S., 58 ECAB 328 (2007).

14 P.R., Docket No. 18-0022 (issued April9, 2018).

15 See D.M., Docket No. 18-0746 (issued November 26, 2018); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008); James P. Roberts, 31 

ECAB 1010 (1980).
7

on the issue of whether appellant continued to have residuals or disability causally related to the 

accepted employment-related pelvis sprain. Dr. Marshall opined, in a December 12, 2018 duty 

status report, that appellant had residuals/disability related to his accepted pelvis sprain. However,

Dr. Bohl, in his March 26 and April 18, 2019 second opinion reports, did not provide an opinion 

that appellant ceased to have residuals/disability related his accepted pelvis sprain. He did not 

directly address the question of whether this accepted condition had resolved. 16 Given that the

case record lacked conflicting reports on the termination issue at the time of the referral to

Dr. Glazer, there was no conflict in the medical opinion evidence on this issue at that time.

17

 

Therefore, Dr. Glazer, who produced a May 24, 2019 report finding that appellant ceased to have 

residuals/disability of the accepted pelvis sprain, actually served as an OWCP referral physician 

with respect to the termination issue.18

Consequently, the Board further finds that there remains an outstanding conflict in the 

medical opinion evidence with respect to the termination issue between Dr. Glazer, OWCP’s

referral physician who found no continuing employment-related residuals/disability, and

Dr. Marshall, the attending physician who found continuing employment-related 

residuals/disability. Because OWCP relied on the opinion of Dr. Glazer to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss and medical benefits, effective August 21, 2019, without having resolved the existing 

conflict in the medical opinion evidence, OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to terminate 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits.

19

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

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.20 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a specific 

condition, and the employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must 

be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

16 In his March 26, 2019 report, Dr. Bohl indicated that he did not observe signs of a pelvis sprain during the 

examination conducted on that date, but he did not provide an opinion on whether the accepted pelvis sprain had 

resolved. In his April18, 2019 report, he also did not indicate whether the accepted pelvis sprain had resolved.

17 See supra note 13 and 14.

18 See R.H., Docket No. 17-1477 (issued March 14, 2018) (finding that, due to the lack of a conflict in the medical 

evidence at the time of the referral to the putative impartial medical specialist, the physician actually served as an 

OWCP referral physician rather than an impartial medical specialist).

19 See P.J., Docket No. 20-0550 (issued April26, 2021); Gail D. Painton, 41 ECAB 492, 498 (1990); Craig M. 

Crenshaw, Jr., 40 ECAB 919, 922-23 (1989) (finding that termination was not supported when there was continuing 

conflict in medical opinion evidence regarding work-related residuals/disability). 

20 J.R., Docket No. 20-0292 (issued June 26, 2020); W.L., Docket No. 17-1965 (issued September 12, 2018); V.B., 

Docket No. 12-0599 (issued October 2, 2012); JajaK. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004).
8

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.21 

The Board has held that, when the medical evidence supports an aggravation or 

acceleration of an underlying condition precipitated by working conditions or injuries, such 

disability is compensable.22 However, the normal progression of untreated disease cannot be stated 

to constitute “aggravation” of a condition merely because the performance of normal work duties 

reveals the underlying condition.23

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to expand the acceptance of 

his claim to include additional conditions causally related to his accepted employment injury.

As noted above, Dr. Glazer served as a second opinion physician with respect to the 

termination of appellant’s compensation due to a lack of conflict in the medical opinion evidence 

on that issue. The Board finds, however, that Dr. Glazer did serve as an impartial medical 

specialist with respect to the expansion issue as there was, in fact, a conflict in the medical opinion 

evidence with respect to this issue at the time of referral. In his March 26 and April 18, 2019 

reports, Dr. Bohl found that appellant did not sustain an employment-related condition other than 

a pelvis sprain. Appellant’s attending physicians produced opinions on the expansion issue, which 

conflicted with Dr. Bohl’s opinion. In a June 19, 2018 report, Dr. Candage noted a diagnosis of

facet hypertrophy at L4-5 and left neural foraminal stenosis at L5-S1, and advised that appellant’s 

work duties aggravated his lumbar spine conditions. In December 12, 2018 reports, Dr. Marshall 

diagnosed unilateral primary osteoarthritis of the right hip and indicated that the condition was 

employment related.24

The Board finds that the special weight of the medical opinion evidence regarding 

appellant’s expansion claim rests with the well-rationalized opinion of Dr. Glazer.25 In his May 24

and October 28, 2019 reports, Dr. Glazer opined that appellant did not sustain an employment 

injury other than the accepted pelvis sprain, and specifically indicated that appellant’s degenerative 

conditions of necrosis of the right hip and facet hypertrophy with left neural foraminal stenosis at

L4-5 and L5-S1 were not employment related. He explained that appellant’s employment 

activities would not have been competent to cause such conditions, and that they developed due to 

nonwork-related degenerative processes associated with aging. The opinion of Dr. Glazer 

21 See E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010).

22 C.H., Docket No. 17-0488 (issued September 12, 2017).

23 Id.

24 See supra note 13 and 14.

25 See supra note 15.
9

regarding the expansion issue was based on a complete and accurate factual and medical history.26 

For these reasons, the opinion of Dr. Glazer serves as a proper basis for OWCP’s denial of 

appellant’s expansion claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 3

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that any disability or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.27 

Under FECA the term “disability” means the incapacity, because of an employment injury, 

to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury. 28 Disability is thus not 

synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages.29 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment 

injury, but who nevertheless has the capacity to earn the wages he or she was receiving at the time 

of injury, has no disability as that term is used in FECA.30 When, however, the medical evidence 

establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an employment injury are such that, from a medical 

standpoint, they prevent the employee from continuing in his or her employment, he or she is 

entitled to compensation for loss of wages.31

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed period 

of disability and an employment injury is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must 

be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment injury.32

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 3

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for intermittent periods from December 14, 2018 through June 28, 2019 causally related to 

his accepted employment injury. 

26 See W.C., Docket No. 18-1386 (issued January 22, 2019); D.W., Docket No. 18-0123 (issued October 4, 2018); 

Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443 (1987) (regarding the importance, when assessing medical evidence, of such factors 

as a physician’s knowledge of the facts and medical history, and the care of analysis manifested and the medical 

rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion).

27 S.W., Docket No. 18-1529 (issued April19, 2019); J.F., DocketNo. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009).

28 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

29 See L.W.,Docket No. 17-1685 (issued October 9, 2018).

30 See K.H., Docket No. 19-1635 (issued March 5, 2020).

31 See D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).

32 Y.S., Docket No. 19-1572 (issued March 12, 2020).
10

Appellant claimed that, due to his accepted pelvis sprain, he sustained disability from work 

on the following dates: December 14 and December 17 through 21, 2018; June 13 through 14, 

June 17 through 21, and June 24 through 28, 2019. He worked two hours per day on these dates 

and claimed wage-loss compensation for the remaining hours of each workday not covered by 

leave.

The Board finds, however, that appellant did not establish disability for these claimed dates 

because he did not submit any medical reports that contained an opinion on disability relating to 

these specific dates. As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing 

causal relationship between his claimed periods of disability and the accepted employment injury,

the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim.

33

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 terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective August 21, 2019. The Board further finds that 

appellant has not met his burden of proof to expand the acceptance of his claim to include 

additional conditions causally related to his accepted employment injury or to establish disability 

from work for intermittent periods from December 14, 2018 through June 28, 2019 causally 

related to his accepted employment injury.

33 See A.D., Docket No. 21-0143 (issued November 15, 2021). The Board notes that none of the government 

physicians in the present case, whether serving as an OWCP referral physician or impartial medical specialist, was 

asked to provide an opinion on the above-noted specific dates of claimed intermittent disability. Therefore, there is 

no opinion of an OWCP referral physician or impartial medical specialist in the case record which would be dispositive 

on this issue.
11

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 20, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. The November 19, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 10, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board