United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Tarentum, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0883

Issued: September 20, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 16, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from two February 25, 

2020 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 Pursuant to 

 

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 a January 13, 2020 decision, regarding denying appellant’s wage-loss compensation claim 

for the period December 19, 2017 through November 23, 2018, is also within the Board’s jurisdiction. However, 

counselonly sought appeal from the two February 25, 2020 merit decisions. Thus, the January 13, 2020 decision is 

not properly before the Board and will not be addressed in this decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3.
2

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.4

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective September 3, 2019, as she no longer had 

residuals or disability causally related to her accepted August 30, 2017 employment injury; and 

(2) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish disability from work commencing

November 24, 2018 causally related to her accepted August 30, 2017 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 30, 2017 appellant, then a 49-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 30, 2017 she injured her left ankle when she exited 

her postal vehicle and fell to the ground while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on 

the date of the claimed injury. OWCP initially accepted appellants’ claim for left ankle sprain. It 

paid her wage-loss compensation for disability from work on the supplemental rolls, commencing 

October 15, 2017.

In a November 29, 2018 report, Dr. Vincent Silvaggio, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant presented for follow up after undergoing posterior cervical 

decompression and fusion surgery. He advised that he suspected that she was exhibiting symptoms 

from the cervical level adjacent to the surgery site. In a November 29, 2018 report, Dr. Silvaggio

noted that appellant had been seen in his office earlier that day and indicated that she should be 

excused from work. In a January 9, 2019 letter, he reported that she was unable to work until 

further notice due to having undergone back surgery. The case record does not contain a report of 

the referenced back surgery and it has not been authorized by OWCP.

On February 1, 2019 OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include 

lumbar sprain. 

On February 5, 2019 OWCP referred appellant, along with a statement of accepted facts,

and a series of questions for a second opinion examination with Dr. Victoria Langa, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. It requested that Dr. Langa provide an opinion regarding whether 

appellant continued to have residuals or disability causally related to the accepted August 30, 2017 

employment injury. OWCP also requested that Dr. Langa indicate whether the August 30, 2017 

employment injury necessitated cervical compression and fusion surgery. 

 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 The Board notes that, following the February 25, 2020 decisions, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. 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.
3

In a February 27, 2019 report, Dr. Langa discussed appellant’s factual and medical history 

and reported the findings of the physical examination she conducted on that date. She noted that 

examination of the lower back revealed no tenderness over the lumbar midline or over the bilateral 

paravertebral soft tissues. There was no muscle spasm palpable in the back and appellant had no 

tenderness over the iliac crests, sacroiliac joints, sciatic notches, or greater trochanters. Dr. Langa 

reported that active range of back motion revealed that appellant flexed forward with her fingertips

at the level of her ankles. There were no localized motor or sensory deficits in either lower 

extremity and pulses were palpable distally. Dr. Langa diagnosed multilevel lumbar degenerative 

disc disease/degenerative joint disease with moderate-to-severe spinal stenosis at L4-5 and 

moderate spinal stenosis at L5-S1, status post posterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery 

(February 2018); and kyphotic deformity C3-4. She opined that the August 30, 2017 employment 

injury might have aggravated appellant’s underlying degenerative back conditions and noted, 

“[appellant] remains symptomatic with regard to her lower back although physical examination 

today was rather unremarkable.” Dr. Langa noted that appellant did not have back 

spasm/tenderness, range of back motion was good, and there were no localized motor or sensory 

deficits in the lower extremities. She indicated that, with respect to the work injury, appellant’s 

back diagnosis was one of a lumbar sprain with an aggravation of underlying degenerative disc 

disease/degenerative joint disease and spinal stenosis. Dr. Langa indicated that appellant had no 

specific restrictions with her back. She further opined that appellant’s cervical spine surgery was 

unrelated to the August 30, 2017 employment injury, noting that appellant was not documented to 

have neck complaints following that incident and that the cervical spinal stenosis documented on 

workup was degenerative in origin rather than related to an acute disc injury. Dr. Langa found 

that, with respect to her August 30, 2017 employment injury, appellant could return to her regular 

work as a rural carrier. In a February 27, 2019 work capacity evaluation Form (OWCP-5), she 

indicated that appellant could perform her usual job, but noted that her inability to work was due 

to her nonwork-related cervical condition.

Appellant subsequently submitted the findings of an April 24, 2018 computerized 

tomography (CT) scan of her brain, which showed no acute intracranial abnormalities. 

November 29, 2018 x-rays of her cervical spine contained an impression of status post anterior 

fusion of C3-4 and prior posterior fusion of C4-6 with no evidence of complication. In a March 22, 

2019 letter, Dr. Silvaggio advised that appellant needed to remain off work until further notice due 

to upcoming surgery.

5

 

OWCP requested that second opinion physician Dr. Langa submit a supplemental report 

clarifying her February 27, 2019 report. In a June 12, 2019 report, Dr. Langa opined that appellant 

had only temporarily aggravated her preexisting degenerative disc disease, which had resolved by 

the time of her February 27, 2019 examination. She asserted that appellant’s left ankle sprain had 

also resolved, noting that appellant reported that her left ankle complaints had entirely resolved 

shortly after beginning physical therapy in September/October 2017. Dr. Langa stated, “[i]n my 

opinion, lumbar sprain had resolved by the time of the date of my [February 27, 2019] 

examination.” She found that appellant could return to her date-of-injury job of rural carrier.

 

5 The case record does not contain a report of the referenced surgery and it has not been authorized by OWCP. 
4

On July 25, 2019 OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include 

temporary aggravation of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine resolved by February 27, 

2019, the date of Dr. Langa’s initial examination.

6

In a July 25, 2019 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her wageloss compensation and medical benefits. It found that the weight of the medical opinion evidence 

regarding work-related residuals/disability rested with Dr. Langa’s opinion. OWCP afforded 

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

Appellant subsequently submitted a July 17, 2019 report from Dr. Silvaggio who noted 

that she would need to remain off work until further notice.

On August 1, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claiming wage-loss compensation for 

disability from work for the period January 1, 2018 through March 12, 2019.7 She did not return 

to work and later claimed work-related disability continuing beyond March 12, 2019. 

In an August 13, 2019 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional factual and medical evidence in support of her August 1, 2019 wage-loss compensation

claim. It explained that it was developing the claim for disability from work commencing

November 24, 2018 as it had already separately considered her claim for work-related disability 

prior to November 24, 2018.8 OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

OWCP subsequently received an August 15, 2019 letter from Dr. Silvaggio who held 

appellant off work until further notice. 

By decision dated September 3, 2019, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective that same date. It found that the weight of the 

medical opinion evidence regarding residuals/disability due to the accepted August 30, 2017 

employment injury rested with Dr. Langa’s opinion. 

On September 11, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before 

a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the September 3, 2019 

termination decision.

By decision dated October 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s August 1, 2019 Form CA7 claim for wage-loss compensation for disability from work. commencing November 24, 2018, 

 

6 On July 25, 2019 OWCP listed the date of Dr.Langa’s initial examination as March 12, 2019, rather than the 

correct date of February 27, 2019. 

7 A portion of the period that appellant claimed on this Form CA-7 overlapped with the period she had claimed on 

her November 27, 2018 Form CA-7.

8 By decision dated July 26, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s wage-loss compensation claim for the period 

December 16, 2017 through November 23, 2018. On August 8, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a 

telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the July 26, 2019 

decision. By decision dated January 13, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the July 26, 2019 decision.
5

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish disability from work 

during the claimed period due to her accepted August 30, 2017 employment injury. 

On October 30, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the October 22, 2019 

decision.

Appellant submitted the findings of a November 27, 2017 western blot testing with 

negative results, which did not rule out autoimmune hepatitis or primary biliary cirrhosis. A 

December 1, 2017 magnetic resonance imaging scan of her cervical spine showed foraminal

narrowing at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7, cord flattening at C4-5 and C5-6, and likely cysts at C4-5.

A hearing was held on January 14, 2020 regarding OWCP’s denial of compensation for 

disability from work commencing November 24, 2018 and termination of wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits, effective September 3, 2019. 

By decision dated February 25, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

September 3, 2019 termination decision. 

By separate decision dated February 25, 2020, the hearing representative affirmed the 

October 22, 2019 decision denying appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation for the period 

November 24, 2018 and continuing. 

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.9 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.

10

 Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.11

The right to medical benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of 

entitlement for disability compensation.12 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, 

 

9 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).

10 See R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); CharlesE. 

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

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

12 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). Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 361, 364 (1990).
6

OWCP must establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition,

which require further medical treatment.13

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective September 3, 2019, as she no longer had residuals 

or disability causally related to her accepted August 30, 2017 employment injury.

The Board finds that the weight of the medical evidence is represented by the thorough, 

well-rationalized opinion of Dr. Langa, OWCP’s second opinion physician. 

In her February 27, 2019 report, Dr. Langa diagnosed multilevel lumbar degenerative disc 

disease/degenerative joint disease with moderate-to-severe spinal stenosis at L4-5 and moderate 

spinal stenosis at L5-S1, status post posterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery 

(February 2018), and kyphotic deformity C3-4. She opined that the August 30, 2017 employment 

injury aggravated appellant’s underlying degenerative back conditions, but later clarified in her 

supplemental June 12, 2019 report that this aggravation had resolved by February 27, 2019. 

Dr. Langa noted that appellant did not have back spasm/tenderness, range of back motion was 

good, and there were no localized motor or sensory deficits in the lower extremities. She indicated 

that appellant had no specific restrictions with respect to her back. Dr. Langa further opined that 

appellant’s cervical spine surgery was unrelated to the August 30, 2017 employment injury, noting 

that appellant was not documented to have neck complaints following that incident and that the 

cervical spinal stenosis documented on workup was degenerative in origin rather than related to 

an acute disc injury. She found that, with respect to her August 30, 2017 employment injury, 

appellant could return to her regular work as a rural carrier. In her June 12, 2019 report, Dr. Langa 

opined that appellant had only temporarily aggravated her preexisting condition of degenerative 

disc disease and that the condition had resolved by the time of her February 27, 2019 examination. 

She found that appellant’s left ankle sprain had resolved, noting that appellant reported that her 

left ankle complaints had entirely resolved shortly after beginning physical therapy in 

September/October 2017. Dr. Langa indicated, “[i]n my opinion, lumbar sprain had resolved by 

the time of the date of my [February 27, 2019] examination.” She found that appellant could return 

to her date-of-injury job of rural carrier.

The Board has reviewed the opinion of Dr. Langa and finds that it has reliability, probative 

value, and convincing quality with respect to its conclusions regarding the relevant issue of workrelated residuals and disability. Dr. Langa provided a thorough factual and medical history and 

accurately summarized the relevant medical evidence. She provided medical rationale for her

opinion by explaining that appellant had no objective findings on examination/testing of her 

August 30, 2017 employment injury. Dr. Langa indicated that appellant’s continuing low back 

problems were due to her underlying degenerative disc disease and that her cervical problems were

also due to a nonwork-related condition.

14

 The Board, thus, finds that February 27 and June 12, 

 

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

14 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).
7

2019 reports of Dr. Langa are sufficient to carry the weight of the medical evidence, establishing 

that appellant no longer had residuals or disability due to her accepted August 30, 2017 

employment injury as of September 3, 2019.

Appellant has not submitted evidence sufficient to overcome the weight accorded to

Dr. Langa or to create a conflict. She had not submitted any contemporaneous reports at the time 

of the termination of her compensation that established employment-related residuals or disability 

due to the August 30, 2017 employment injury. In July 17 and August 15, 2019 reports,

Dr. Silvaggio noted that appellant would need to remain off work until further notice. However, 

these reports are of no probative value regarding the termination of her compensation because they 

do not provide an opinion on the cause of disability. The Board has held that a medical report is 

of no probative value if it does not contain an opinion on the issue of causal relationship.

15

For these reasons, the Board finds that OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

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.16 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.17 Disability is thus not synonymous with 

physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wages.18 

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.19 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.20

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 

 

15 T.H., Docket No. 18-0704 (issued September 6, 2018). See also L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 

2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018); Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988).

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

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

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

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

20 See D.R., Docket No. 18-0323 (issued October 2, 2018).
8

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.21

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

work, commencing November 24, 2018, causally related to her accepted August 30, 2017 

employment injury.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted November 29 and December 20, 2018, and July 17 

and August 15, 2019 reports from Dr. Silvaggio, who advised that appellant would remain off work 

until further notice. In a separate November 29, 2018 report, Dr. Silvaggio indicated that he 

suspected that she was exhibiting symptoms from her cervical compression and fusion surgery. In 

a January 9, 2019 letter, he reported that appellant was not able to work until further notice due to 

having undergone back surgery. In a March 22, 2019 report, Dr. Silvaggio indicated that she

needed to remain off work until further notice due to upcoming surgery. However, these letters

did not contain an opinion that appellant had disability for a specific period due to her accepted 

August 30, 2017 employment injury. As noted above, the Board has held that a medical report is 

of no probative value if it does not contain an opinion on the issue of causal relationship. 22 

Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish appellant’s wage-loss compensation claim.

Appellant also submitted diagnostic test results dated November 27 and December 1 and 

11, 2017, and April 24 and November 29, 2018. The Board has held that diagnostic studies,

standing alone, lack probative value as they do not address whether employment factors/injuries 

caused a diagnosed condition or period disability.

23

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing causal relationship 

between the claimed period of disability and the accepted August 30, 2017 employment injury, the 

Board finds that she has not met 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 OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective September 3, 2019, as she no longer had residuals 

or disability causally related to her accepted August 30, 2017 employment injury. The Board 

further finds that she has not met her burden of proof to establish disability from work,

 

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

22 Supra note 19.

23 C.S., Docket No. 19-1279 (issued December 30, 2019).
9

commencing November 24, 2018 causally related to her August 30, 2017 accepted employment 

injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 25, 2020 decisions of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: September 20, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board