United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RIVERDALE 

BRANCH, Riverdale, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1348

Issued: May 3, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Dr. Rita N. Oganwu, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 17, 2020 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

February 3, 2020 merit decision 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 September 3, 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

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization for 

diagnostic studies.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 18, 2015 appellant, then a 48-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 17, 2015 she sustained a right shoulder strain when a 

mailbox fell out of the wall and injured her while in the performance of duty. She sto pped work 

on April 17, 2015 and returned to light-duty work on April 27, 2015. On August 20, 2015 OWCP 

accepted the claim for right shoulder strain and lumbar strain.

OWCP subsequently received additional medical evidence. A July 10, 2015 report 

indicated that on that date appellant underwent a right shoulder x-ray, which demonstrated mild 

degenerative changes involving the acromioclavicular (AC) joint without evidence of a fracture or 

subluxation. Lumbar spine x-rays of even date demonstrated degenerative changes of the mid-tolower facet joints. On September 8, 2015 appellant underwent electromyogram and nerve 

conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) testing of the lower extremities, which demonstrated no 

electrodiagnostic evidence of sensory motor polyneuropathy nor lumbosacral radiculopathy. On 

May 6, 2016 she underwent a lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, which 

demonstrated mild degenerative disc disease at L5-S1.

In a series of reports dated July 10, 2015 through June 9, 2016, appellant’s attending 

physician, Dr. Rita N. Oganwu, Board-certified in internal and geriatric medicine, noted her

history of right shoulder and lower back pain. She provided a variety of diagnoses including

degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder, tendinitis right shoulder, trigger point left lumbar 

region, right bicipital tendonitis, hip joint pain, right hip trochanteric bursitis, left ischial tuberosity 

bursitis, sacroiliitis cervical and lumbosacral radiculopathies. Dr. Oganwu found that appellant 

was partially disabled from work as she could not lift or carry more than 10 pounds. In an 

August 4, 2015 duty status report (Form CA-17), she provided restrictions of lifting and carrying 

up to 10 pounds, and limited climbing, kneeling. and stooping up to two hours a day. 

On February 1 and June 17 2016 Dr. Srinivasu Kusuma, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, described appellant’s April 17, 2015 employment injury and performed a physical 

examination. He diagnosed right AC joint osteoarthrosis, right rotator cuff strain, right shoulder 

rotator cuff tendinosis and L5-S1 degenerative disc disease with left lower extremity 

radiculopathy. Dr. Kusuma opined that appellant’s conditions were work related. He found that 

appellant could perform light-duty work.

On June 23, 2016 Dr. Christopher Morgan, a Board-certified internist, described 

appellant’s employment injury and reviewed her diagnostic testing. He noted that she had 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3

experienced right shoulder pain since her injury on April 17, 2015 and diagnosed mild 

degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 and possible lumbosacral radiculitis of the left lower extremity. 

Dr. Morgan recommended left L4-5 and L5-S1 facet joint injections. Dr. Neeraj Jain, a Boardcertified anesthesiologist, performed these procedures on August 18, September 15, and 

October 6, 2016.

In notes dated July 30, 2016 through December 31, 2018, Dr. Oganwu diagnosed lumbar 

strain, shoulder strain, bicipital tendinitisright shoulder, bursitis of the right shoulder, left shoulder 

lesions, lumbar trigger point syndrome, gluteal tendinitis, left hip bursitis, hip joint pain, cervical 

and lumbar radiculopathies. She completed CA-17 forms dated from January 23 through 

December 31, 2018 repeating her prior work restrictions, and also restricting appellant’s pushing 

and pulling to 10 pounds.

Dr. Blair Rhode, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, examined appellant on March 14 

through April 16, 2018 due to left shoulder and low back pain. He noted that her symptoms were 

secondary to her April 17, 2015 injury at work when she turned and twisted injuring her lumbar 

spine and sustaining a right shoulder rotator cuff strain. Dr. Rhode diagnosed sprain of the right 

rotator cuff capsule, superior glenoid labrum lesion of the right shoulder, lumbar radiculopathy, 

and rotator cuff strain. He found that appellant could perform light-duty work. Dr. Rhode 

requested a repeat MRI scan of the lumbar spine due to the persistent symptomatology.

Dr. Oganwu continued to provide treatment notes from January 30 through July 11, 2019 

and reported that appellant was experiencing pain in the shoulder, neck and lower back radiating 

down her left lower leg. She diagnosed shoulder strain, lumbar strain, bicipital tendinitis right 

shoulder, cervical radiculopathy, and lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Oganwu noted that appellant had 

a workers’ compensation claim, but did not address the specific cause of her diagnosed conditions. 

She reviewed a March 28, 2018 lumbar MRI scan and found multilevel degenerative joint disease. 

Dr. Oganwu completed CA-17 forms dated from January 29 through April 30, 2019 and reiterated 

appellant’s prior work restrictions.

In notes beginning October 14, 2019, Dr. Oganwu noted that appellant’s left shoulder pain, 

back pain, and numbness and tingling in the left leg had been increasing since August 2019. She 

diagnosed shoulder strain, lumbar strain, lumbar radiculopathy, and left shoulder pain. On 

January 2 and 28, 2020 Dr. Oganwu requested authorization for an additional EMG/NCV study of 

the lumbar spine and an x-ray of the left shoulder.

By decision dated February 3, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for authorization of 

an x-ray and EMG/NCV testing. It found that these procedures were not medically necessary to 

address the effects of her accepted work-related conditions of right shoulder strain and lumbar 

strain.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8103(a) of FECA4 provides that the United States shall furnish to an employee who 

is injured while in the performance of duty, the services, appliances, and supplies prescribed by or 

4

Supra note 3.
4

recommended by a qualified physician, which OWCP considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce 

the degree or the period of disability, or aid in lessening the amount of the monthly compensation. 5 

While OWCP is obligated to pay for treatment of employment-related conditions, the employee 

has the burden of proof to establish that the expenditure is incurred for treatment of the effects of 

an employment-related injury or condition.6

Section 10.310(a) of OWCP’s implementing regulations provide that an employee is 

entitled to receive all medical services, appliances, or supplies which a qualified physician 

prescribes or recommends and which OWCP considers necessary to treat the work-related injury.7

In interpreting section 8103 of FECA, the Board has recognized that OWCP has broad 

discretion in approving services provided, with the only limitation on OWCP’s authority being 

that of reasonableness.8 OWCP has the general objective of ensuring that an employee recovers 

from his or her injury to the fullest extent possible, in the shortest amount of time. It, therefore,

has broad administrative discretion in choosing means to achieve this goal. 9

Abuse of discretion is shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise 

of judgment, or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deductions from 

established facts. It is not enough to merely show that the evidence could be construed so as to 

produce a contrary factual conclusion.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization for 

diagnostic studies.

On January 2 and 28, 2020 Dr. Oganwu requested authorization for an additional 

EMG/NCV study of appellant’s lumbar spine and an x-ray of her left shoulder.

In notes beginning October 14, 2019, Dr. Oganwu reported that appellant’s left shoulder 

pain, back pain, and numbness and tingling in the left leg had been increasing since August 2019. 

She diagnosed shoulder strain, lumbar strain, lumbar radiculopathy, and left shoulder pain. 

5

Id.; see D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued May18, 2020); L.D., 59 ECAB 648 (2008); Thomas W. Stevens, 50 

ECAB 288 (1999).

6 M.P., Docket No. 19-1557 (issued February 24, 2020); M.B., 58 ECAB 588 (2007).

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.310(a); see D.W.,Docket No. 19-0402 (issued November 13, 2019).

8 B.I., Docket No. 18-0988 (issued March 13, 2020); see also Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990) (holding 

that abuse of discretion by OWCP is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise 

of judgment, or administrative actions which are contrary to both logic, and probable deductions from established 

facts).

9 D.S., supra note 5.

10 Id.; P.L., Docket No. 18-0260 (issued April14, 2020); L.W., 59 ECAB 471 (2008).
5

However, Dr. Oganwu did not attribute the change in appellant’s symptoms to her accepted 

April 17, 2015 employment injury. 

As noted, the only restrictions on OWCP’s authority to authorize medical treatment is one 

of reasonableness.11 In the instant case, appellant has not submitted evidence to support that the 

requested repeat diagnostic studies were medically necessary to assess her accepted conditions of

right shoulder and lumbar sprains. The Board, thus, finds that OWCP has not abused its discretion 

by denying her request for authorization for x-rays and EMG/NCV studies.12

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 abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s request for 

authorization for diagnostic studies.

11 Supra note 9; see also E.F., Docket No. 20-1680 (issued November 10, 2021)(the Board found that OWCP did 

not abuse its discretion when the claimant failed to submit evidence to support that the requested medical service was 

medically necessary to treat her accepted conditions); A.W., Docket No. 14-0708 (issued January 2, 2015) (the Board 

found that OWCP did not abuse its discretion by relying on the opinion of its second opinion examiner as the weight 

of evidence to deny approval for elective spinal surgery).

12 D.C., Docket No. 18-0080 (issued May 22, 2018); B.J.,Docket No. 17-1825 (issued February 23, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 3, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 3, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board