United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Ridgewood, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0570

Issued: December 15, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 16, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from December 13 

and 20, 2019 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 

 

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 The Board notes that, following the December 20, 2019 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

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(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 appellant has met her burden of proof to establish continuing

disability or residuals on or after August 14, 2018 due to her accepted employment-related 

conditions of thoracic, lumbar, and cervical sprains/strains; thoracic, lumbar, and cervical 

contusions; and left shoulder contusion; and (2) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to 

establish that OWCP should expand acceptance of her claim to include additional conditions 

causally related to her December 18, 2017 accepted employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

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

follows.

On December 18, 2017 appellant, then a 48-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her left buttock and left shoulder 

when she fell down stairs while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on 

December 18, 2017. OWCP accepted the claim for thoracic sprain/strain, lumbar sprain, cervical 

sprain, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar contusions, and a left shoulder contusion. It paid appellant 

wage-loss compensation for total disability on the supplemental rolls from February 2 through

May 26, 2018 and on the periodic rolls from May 27 until June 23, 2018, when she returned to 

full-time modified employment. 

On January 11, 2018 Dr. Philip Baldeo, who specializes in family medicine, discussed 

appellant’s history of an employment injury on December 18, 2017 and her continued complaints 

of pain in her neck, left shoulder, and lower back and weakness and numbness of the upper and 

lower extremities bilaterally. He diagnosed persisting cervical myofasciitis, traumatic cervical 

pain syndrome, thoracic and lumbosacral sprain/strain, traumatic lumbar radiculitis/radiculopathy, 

and disc herniations, contusions, and internal derangement of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar 

spine. Dr. Baldeo attributed the diagnosed conditions to appellant’s employment injury as long as 

he had an accurate history of injury. He found that she was totally disabled.5

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine dated January 29, 2018 

showed minimal C5-6 disc bulging. A January 31, 2018 MRI scan of the left shoulder revealed 

mild subacromial subdeltoid bursitis and small-to-moderate glenohumeral joint effusion. 

Electrodiagnostic studies obtained January 26, 2018 revealed right carpal tunnel syndrome. 

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019).

5 Dr. Baldeo provided similar reports on February 15 and April 10, 2018. He further provided periodic nerve blocks 

throughout 2018 and 2019.
3

On April 2, 2018 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Leon Sultan, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination. 

In a report dated April 23, 2018, Dr. Sultan discussed appellant’s history of a December 18, 

2017 employment injury and reviewed the January 31, 2018 MRI scans of the cervical spine and 

left shoulder. On examination he found intact sensation of the upper extremities with good grip 

strength. Dr. Sultan measured good range of motion of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine and 

the left shoulder. He further found negative straight leg raise bilaterally and intact sensation of the 

lower extremities. Dr. Sultan opined that the findings on physical examination of appellant’s 

cervical and thoracolumbar spine and left shoulder were unremarkable. He attributed the 

subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis demonstrated on MRI scan to the accepted employment injury, but 

opined that the minimal disc bulging at C5-6 was unrelated to her employment. Dr. Sultan 

concluded that appellant had no further objective findings or residuals of her cervical spine, 

thoracolumbar spine, or left shoulder conditions and that she could resume her usual employment. 

In an accompanying work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), he indicated that she could work 

full time without limitations. 

An April 23, 2018 MRI scan of appellant’s lumbar spine revealed a disc herniation at L3-4, 

a disc bulge at L4-5 with an annular tear on the left, and mild-to-moderate central canal stenosis 

and foraminal narrowing from L3 to L5. 

In an addendum report dated June 18, 2018, Dr. Sultan opined that appellant had sustained 

only a soft trauma injury to her cervical and thoracolumbar spine and left shoulder due to the 

December 18, 2017 employment injury.

6

 In response to the question of whether appellant had 

sustained lumbar disc displacement, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar radiculopathy, and cervical, 

thoracic, and lumbar internal derangement due to the accepted employment injury, he advised that 

his examination had not revealed any evidence of lumbar disc displacement with a lumbar disc 

herniation and radiculopathy. Dr. Sultan further advised that the mild disc bulging at C5-6 was 

unrelated to the December 18, 2017 employment injury. He found no functional impairment of 

the left shoulder, or cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine and opined that appellant could resume 

her usual employment.

By decision dated June 17, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand the 

acceptance of her claim to include lumbar disc displacement, lumbar radiculitis/radiculopathy, 

cervical disc herniation, and cervical, thoracic, and lumbar internal derangement. It found that she 

had not submitted reasoned medical evidence explaining how the diagnosed conditions were 

caused or aggravated by her December 18, 2017 employment injury.7

On July 2, 2018 OWCP advised appellant of its proposed termination of her wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits as the evidence established that she no longer had any 

 

6

In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated April 13 through June 15, 2018, Dr. Baldeo diagnosed bursitis of the 

left shoulder and a cervical and lumbar spine condition. He provided restrictions and indicated that he had not advised 

appellant to resume work. In a June 15, 2018 return to work certificate, Dr. Baldeo advised that he was treating 

appellant for an employment injury and that he was unsure when she could resume her usual activities. 

7 Appellant on June 23, 2018 returned to limited-duty full-time employment with the employing establishment. 
4

employment-related residuals or disability due to employment injury. It afforded her 30 days to 

submit additional evidence or argument if she disagreed with the proposed termination.

Thereafter, appellant submitted a May 24, 2018 report from Dr. Baldeo. Dr. Baldeo 

reviewed her history of falling while walking down concrete stairs and current complaints of pain 

in her neck, left shoulder, back, and buttocks. He reviewed the diagnostic studies, noting that a 

January 26, 2018 electromyogram (EMG) showed evidence of right carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Dr. Baldeo provided findings on examination and diagnosed resolving cervical myofasciitis, 

traumatic cervical spine syndrome, resolved thoracic sprain/strain, traumatic lumbosacral spine 

sprain and disc displacement, traumatic lumbar radiculitis/radiculopathy, resolving traumatic disc 

herniations of the cervical and lumbar spine, traumatic internal derangement of the lumbar spine, 

and contusions of the cervical and lumbar spine and the left shoulder. He opined, “If the history 

given by [appellant] is true, I conclude with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the 

accident on December 18, 2017 is a competent producing cause of [her] injuries and there is a 

causal relationship between the accident and the injuries.” Dr. Baldeo provided a substantially 

similar report on June 25, 2018.8 

By decision dated August 13, 2018, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and entitlement to medical benefits effective August 14, 2018. It found that the 

opinion of Dr. Sultan constituted the weight of the evidence and established that she had no further 

residuals of her accepted employment injury.

On August 23, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing regarding 

the August 13, 2018 decision before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

OWCP thereafter received a July 6, 2018 report from Dr. Baldeo. Dr. Baldeo reviewed

Dr. Sultan’s report and advised that he did not review all the MRI scans and electrodiagnostic test 

results, noting that some test results were not available at the time of his report. He maintained 

that his examination was brief and questioned his findings. Dr. Baldeo noted that Dr. Sultan’s 

report was “being used to terminate [appellant’s] injury in a work[-]related trauma that I believe 

is legitimate....”

On August 22, 2018 Dr. Baldeo indicated that appellant was currently working with left 

shoulder, neck, and low back pain. He diagnosed persisting cervical myofasciitis and cervical pain 

syndrome, resolved thoracic sprain/strain, persisting lumbosacral disc displacement and 

radiculitis, cervical and lumbar disc herniations and internal derangement, and contusions of the 

cervical and lumbar spine and left shoulder. Dr. Baldeo found that appellant was partially disabled 

due to her employment injury.9

 

8 On July 24 and 25 and August 3, 2018 Dr. Baldeo provided a physical performance evaluation. On July 25, 2018 

he described the range of motion and strength findings and recommended treatment. In a duty status report dated 

July 26, 2018, Dr. Baldeo indicated that appellant was partially disabled from employment and provided work 

restrictions. 

9 Dr. Baldeo continued to treat appellant with nerve blocks. In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated March 5 

through May 6, 2019, he diagnosed bursitis of the left shoulder and a cervical and lumbar spine condition, and 

provided work restrictions. 
5

A telephonic hearing was held on January 3, 2019 on OWCP’s August 13, 2018 

termination decision. Appellant described her difficulties performing activities because of her left 

shoulder and back condition.

In a report dated January 30, 2019, Dr. Baldeo asserted that Dr. Sultan had inaccurately 

represented appellant’s condition. He described her continued complaints and opined that she was 

partially disabled due to her employment injury. Dr. Baldeo recommended electrodiagnostic 

testing.

By decision dated March 7, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the August 13, 

2018 termination decision. He found that the opinion of Dr. Sultan established that appellant had 

no further disability or need for medical treatment due to her accepted conditions. The hearing 

representative determined, however, that upon return of the case record OWCP should further 

develop the issue of whether her claim should be expanded to include a lumbar or cervical

condition, carpal tunnel syndrome, or any other conditions due to her accepted employment injury, 

noting that Dr. Sultan had not reviewed all of the diagnostic studies in reaching his opinion 

regarding claim expansion. He instructed OWCP, on remand, to obtain an opinion from Dr. Sultan 

regarding whether appellant had sustained additional conditions due to the accepted employment 

injury and to discuss the finding from the lumbar MRI scan.

Thereafter, OWCP received a report dated March 6, 2019 from Dr. Baldeo, who discussed 

appellant’s history of injury, provided examination findings, and reviewed the diagnostic studies. 

Dr. Baldeo noted that she currently complained of pain in her neck, left shoulder, upper and lower 

back, and buttocks, and numbness in the left upper extremity. He advised that Dr. Sultan had 

inaccurately represented appellant’s clinical findings. On examination Dr. Baldeo found pain with 

palpation at L3 to L5 with intact sensation and full motor strength. He diagnosed persistent 

cervical and lumbar myofasciitis10 with radiculopathy, to rule out radiculopathy versus myopathy, 

and to rule out internal derangement of the left shoulder, cervical, and lumbar spine. Dr. Baldeo

found that appellant was partially disabled from her employment injury.

On March 14, 2019 OWCP requested that Dr. Sultan review the April 23, 2018 MRI scan 

of the lumbar spine and explain whether the findings were causally related to the December 18, 

2017 employment injury. It further requested that he advise whether appellant sustained carpal 

tunnel syndrome or a further injury to her lumbar or cervical discs as a result of the work injury.

On April 1, 2019 appellant appealed the March 7, 2019 termination decision to the Board. 

On May 14, 2019 OWCP expanded acceptance of the claim to include subacromial/

subdeltoid bursitis of the left shoulder. 

Dr. Baldeo provided progress reports on April 15 and June 6, 2019 with the same diagnoses 

and causation finding as in his March 16, 2019 report. In a May 6, 2019 duty status report (Form 

CA-17), he diagnosed cervical and lumbar myofasciitis and bursitis and listed work restrictions. 

 

10 Dr. Baldeo provided the diagnoses as “cmf” and “lmf,” which appear to be cervical and lumbar myofasciitis. 
6

In an addendum report dated June 6, 2019, Dr. Sultan advised that his April 23, 2018 

examination had revealed no abnormal findings for the cervical spine, thoracolumbar spine, or left 

shoulder. He noted, “From an orthopedic point of view, there was no correlation between this 

claimant’s lumbar spine examination and the lumbar spine MRI [scan] reading of April 23, 2018.”

Dr. Sultan indicated that he had reviewed the MRI scans and his findings regarding appellant’s 

condition was unchanged as his examination findings had demonstrated no residual post-traumatic 

impairment. He found that she had not sustained carpal tunnel syndrome or a cervical or 

thoracolumbar spine condition due to her fall on December 18, 2017 noting that his examination 

failed to “confirm any positive examination findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome nor 

were there any positive examination findings consistent with traumatic injury to the cervical spine 

or thoracolumbar spine.” Dr. Sultan determined that appellant could perform her regular 

employment duties.

By decision dated June 17, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand her claim to 

include lumbar disc displacement, lumbar radiculitis/radiculopathy, cervical disc herniation, and 

cervical, lumbar, and thoracic internal derangement. 

Thereafter, OWCP received Form CA-17 duty status reports dated June through 

September 2019 from Dr. Baldeo. 

On June 25, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the June 17, 2019 decision 

denying her request for claim expansion. 

By decision dated September 24, 2019, the Board affirmed the March 7, 2019 decision.11 

Thereafter, OWCP received progress reports dated July through October 2019 from

Dr. Baldeo. Dr. Baldeo discussed the history of the December 18, 2017 employment injury and 

again asserted that Dr. Sultan had inaccurately represented appellant’s condition. He provided 

examination findings and opined that her condition was causally related to the accepted 

employment injury. Dr. Baldeo diagnosed persistent cervical and lumbar myofasciitis with 

radiculopathy and to rule out internal derangement of the left shoulder, and cervical and lumbar 

areas of the spine. 

A telephonic hearing was held on October 16, 2019 regarding the issue of claim expansion. 

Appellant advised that she was currently working limited duty. Counsel argued that a conflict 

existed between Dr. Sultan and Dr. Baldeo. 

On October 17, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

termination of her compensation. In support of her request, she submitted an April 5, 2019 letter 

of medical necessity from Dr. Baldeo requesting authorization for diagnostic testing. Dr. Baldeo

advised that electrodiagnostic testing could evaluate appellant’s symptoms and differentiate 

between possible conditions.

 

11 Supra note 4.
7

In a Form CA-17 report dated October 23, 2019, Dr. Baldeo diagnosed cervical and lumbar 

myofasciitis and provided work restrictions. In a medical information and restriction assessment 

form from the employing establishment, he listed work restrictions. 

By decision dated December 13, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its March 7, 2019 

decision.

12 It found that appellant had not established continuing disability or the need for medical 

treatment due to her accepted employment injury.

By decision dated December 20, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

June 17, 2019 decision denying appellant’s request for expansion. He found that she had not 

established that her claim should be expanded to include lumbar radiculitis/radiculopathy, a 

cervical disc herniation, or cervical, lumbar, and thoracic internal derangement.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Once OWCP properly terminates compensation benefits, the burden shifts to appellant to 

establish continuing disability after that date causally related to the accepted injury.13 To establish 

causal relationship between the accepted conditions 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 causal relationship.14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

disability or residuals after August 14, 2018 due to her accepted employment-related conditions of 

thoracic, lumbar, and cervical sprains/strains; thoracic, lumbar, and cervical contusions; and left 

shoulder contusion. 

Preliminarily, the Board notes that it is unnecessary to consider the evidence appellant 

submitted prior to the issuance of OWCP’s March 7, 2019 decision because the Board previously 

considered that evidence in its September 24, 2019 decision. Findings made in prior Board 

decisions are res judicata absent any further review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA.15 

Following OWCP’s March 7, 2019 decision, appellant submitted progress reports dated 

March 6 through October 2019 from Dr. Baldeo. In these reports, Dr. Baldeo discussed her history 

of a December 18, 2017 employment injury and advised that Dr. Sultan had inaccurately 

represented her clinical condition. He diagnosed persistent cervical and lumbar myofascitis with 

radiculopathy, to rule out radiculopathy versus myopathy, and to rule out internal derangement of 

 

12 OWCP indicated that it was denying modification of the prior Board decision. However, decisions of the Board 

become final after 30 days and are not subject to further review. 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d). The proper subject of 

modification was OWCP’s March 7, 2019 termination decision.

13 See S.M., Docket No .18-0673 (issued January 25, 2019); L.C., Docket No. 18-1759 (issued June 26, 2019).

14 Id.

15 L.K., Docket No. 19-0313 (issued January 15, 2020); A.L., Docket No. 19-0285 (issued September 24, 2019).
8

the left shoulder, cervical, and lumbar spine. Dr. Baldeo found that appellant was partially 

disabled from her employment injury. The issue, however, is whether the accepted conditions of 

cervical, thoracic, and lumbar sprains and contusions, and left shoulder contusion caused 

continuing disability on or after August 14, 2018. Dr. Baldeo failed to offer adequate medical 

rationale explaining how the accepted conditions resulted in continued disability after the 

termination on or after August 14, 2018. Medical reports without adequate rationale are of 

diminished probative value and insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.16 Additionally, 

the Board previously addressed Dr. Baldeo’s finding that Dr. Sultan had inaccurately represented 

her condition and found that it was insufficient to support continuing residuals or disability. 

Appellant further submitted Form CA-17 reports dated June through October 2019 from

Dr. Baldeo. The report, however, is merely a form report and does not contain an opinion on 

whether the accepted employment injury caused disability from employment; consequently, it is 

of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.17 Appellant therefore has not met her 

burden of proof to establish continuing disability or residuals after August 14, 2018 causally 

related to the accepted employment injury.18

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.19

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires medical opinion evidence to resolve 

the issue.20 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

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

explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the accepted 

employment injury.21

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

should expand acceptance of her claim to include additional conditions causally related to her 

accepted December 18, 2017 employment injury. 

OWCP requested clarification from Dr. Sultan regarding whether appellant’s claim should 

be expanded to include additional employment-related conditions. In a report dated June 6, 2019,

 

16 E.H., Docket No. 19-1352 (issued December 18, 2019); E.C., Docket No. 17-1645 (issued June 11, 2018).

17 L.S., Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019). 

18 See H.Y., Docket No. 18-1673 (issued May 20, 2019).

19 K.T., Docket No. 19-1718 (issued April 7, 2020); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

20 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

21 Id.
9

Dr. Sultan opined that his examination had demonstrated no abnormalities of the cervical spine, 

thoracolumbar spine, or left shoulder. He advised that the findings on lumbar MRI scan did not 

correlate to any findings on examination. Dr. Sultan found that appellant had not sustained carpal 

tunnel syndrome, or a condition of the lumbar, thoracolumbar, or cervical spine due to her 

December 18, 2017 employment injury based on the lack of findings supporting a traumatic injury 

on examination. The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Sultan, who relied upon an accurate 

history of injury and provided rationale for his findings, represents the weight of the evidence and 

establishes that she has not met her burden of proof to establish that her claim should be expanded 

to include additional employment-related conditions.

Appellant submitted progress reports from Dr. Baldeo that both predated the Board’s prior 

decision and those dated March through September 2019 which address the issue of claim 

expansion. In these reports Dr. Baldeo reviewed her history of injury and provided findings on 

examination. He diagnosed persistent cervical and lumbar myofascitis with radiculopathy, to rule 

out radiculopathy versus myopathy, and to rule out internal derangement of the left shoulder, 

cervical, and lumbar spine and found that appellant was partially disabled from her employment 

injury. Dr. Baldeo failed, however, to provide any rationale explaining how the additional 

diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted employment injury.22 A medical 

opinion not fortified by medical rationale is of diminished probative value.23 Dr. Baldeo’s reports 

are insufficient to overcome the weight accorded to Dr. Sultan or create a conflict in the medical 

opinion evidence and therefore are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

Appellant further submitted Form CA-17 reports, but as these form reports fail to address 

the cause of the conditions diagnosed, they are of no probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship.

24

 

On appeal counsel contends that OWCP failed to apply the appropriate causation standard 

or give sufficient deference to appellant’s attending physician. As discussed, appellant failed to 

provide sufficient reasoned medical evidence supporting either continued disability or residuals of 

her accepted employment injury or that her claim should be expanded to include additional 

conditions, and thus failed to meet her burden of proof.

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 appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing 

disability or the need for further medical treatment after August 14, 2018 causally related to her 

accepted December 18, 2017 employment injury. The Board further finds that she had not met 

 

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

23 Id.; T.W., Docket No. 18-1573 (issued July 19, 2019).

24 See L.S., supra note 17.
10

her burden of proof to establish that OWCP should expand acceptance of her claim to include 

additional conditions causally related to her December 18, 2017 accepted employment injury. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 20 and 13, 2019 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: December 15, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board