United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MERIDEN POST 

OFFICE, Meriden, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1072

Issued: May 18, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 8, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 28, 2021 merit decision 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.2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that OWCP received additional evidence following the April28, 2021 decision. 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

ISSUES

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

medical benefits for cervical strain effective March 4, 2020; and (2) whether appellant has met his

burden of proof to establish continuing residuals of cervical strain on or after March 4, 2020.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 2, 1987 appellant, then a 34-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he sustained a neck injury when he was rear-ended in a 

motor vehicle accident, while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on April 3, 1987 and 

returned to work on April 13, 1987. OWCP accepted the claim for cervical muscle spasm under 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx916.

On July 5, 2000 appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that 

he developed depression as a consequence of the chronic pain related to his April 2, 1987 cervical 

injury. He noted that he first became aware of his condition on January 1, 1995. OWCP accepted 

the claim for major depression, recurrent episode, severe, without mention of psychotic behavior,

and other psychogenic pain under OWCP File No. xxxxxx954. It paid appellant on the 

supplemental rolls effective June 17, 2000 and on the periodic rolls effective June 16, 2002. 

On February 25, 2019 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Michael Steingart, Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, to determine whether appellant 

continued to experience residuals of the accepted cervical sprain.

In a March 29, 2019 report, Dr. Steingart noted appellant’s history of injury as cervical 

whiplash injury, with an overlying history of psychological and psychiatric medical issues. He 

related that appellant was still having headaches and pain in the area of the neck at C4, C5, and 

C3, and the head area on the right. Dr. Steingart also noted that appellant provided a history of 

striking his head on a basement wall and landing on his back, which had required low back surgery 

10 years prior. He found that the cervical spine showed some tenderness to palpation into the 

region and provided measurements for range of motion (ROM) of the cervical spine. Dr. Steingart 

advised that there were no objective findings related to the accepted cervical sprain/strain. He 

noted that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan performed in 2005 revealed some 

degenerative findings at the C5-6 level and opined that these findings were more likely than not 

related to appellant’s natural progression of aging and unrelated to the April 2, 1987 work injury.

Dr. Steingart further opined that, strictly on the issue of the accepted cervical spine condition,

appellant was capable of returning to his date-of-injury letter carrier position. However, he also 

noted that appellant was on high doses of fentanyl patches for pain, and appellant could not return 

to work in his letter carrier position while on this medication. 

OWCP received several reports from Dr. Michele Morgan, a Board-certified neurologist. 

In a June 17, 2019 report, Dr. Morgan noted that appellant complained of intermittent back pain 

and anxiety related to his wife’s health issues. She diagnosed recurrent major depression in partial 

remission, bipolar spectrum disorder, unspecified anxiety disorder, unspecified insomnia, and 

attention deficit disorder. 
3

In a September 9, 2019 memorandum, OWCP explained that a second opinion would be 

scheduled to determine appellant’s need for opioid medication.

On January 14, 2020 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. William D. Ross,Board-certified in pain medicine, to obtain an assessment of his work-related 

psychological condition and review of his pain management.

By notice dated January 28, 2020, OWCP advised appellant of its proposed termination of 

his medical benefits due to the accepted condition of cervical strain. It found that the opinion of

Dr. Steingart, as the second opinion physician, constituted the weight of the evidence and 

established that appellant had no further employment-related disability or need for further medical 

treatment due to his cervical sprain. OWCP explained that appellant’s medical and compensation 

benefits arising from his accepted emotional conditions were not affected. It afforded him 30 days 

to submit additional evidence.

In a January 30, 2020 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Morgan diagnosed 

depression and anxiety due to chronic back pain. 

In a February 7, 2020 report, Dr. Ross noted appellant’s history of injury on April 2, 1987. 

He examined appellant and provided findings, which included some tenderness to palpation to the 

cervical paraspinals and temporomandibular joints bilaterally. Dr. Ross opined that the findings 

correspond with an ongoing diagnosis of cervical myofascial pain and temporomandibular (TMJ)

disorder. He further opined that appellant continued to suffer from a chronic myofascial condition 

of the cervical spine with daily headaches and TMJ pain. Dr. Ross opined that appellant would 

continue to be symptomatic from these conditions and recommended a multimodal treatment plan 

for chronic pain, which included additional nonopioid analgesics, trigger point injections, 

myofascial release, and cognitive behavioral therapy. 

By decision dated March 4, 2020, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical benefits with 

regard to the accepted cervical strain, effective that date. It explained that the weight of the medical 

evidence established that he no longer had cervical strain related to the workplace injury. OWCP 

also noted that this decision did not affect any other accepted conditions. 

On February 24, 2021 appellant, through his then-counsel, requested reconsideration

OWCP subsequently received a February 27, 2020 report from Dr. Morgan who diagnosed 

depression secondary to another medical condition, anxiety secondary to another medical 

condition, attention deficit disorder, inattentive presentation, insomnia, and adjustment disorder 

with mixed emotional features. Dr. Morgan also noted appellant’s complaints of ongoing back 

and neck pain.

By decision dated April 28, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the March 4, 2020 

decision.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Once OWCP has accepted a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of proof to 

justify termination or modification of an employee’s benefits.3 The right to medical benefits for 

an accepted condition is not limited to the period of entitlement for disability compensation.4 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.5 OWCP’s 

burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence based 

on a proper factual and medical background.6

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.7 For a conflict to arise, the opposing physicians’ opinions must be of 

virtually equal weight and rationale.8 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.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s medical 

benefits for cervical strain effective March 4, 2020, as he had no further residuals causally related 

to his accepted employment injury.

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Steingart for a second opinion regarding the status of his

accepted condition of cervical strain. Dr. Steingart provided detailed findings on examination, 

including that appellant related that he was still having headaches and pain in the area of the neck 

at C4, C5, and C3 and the head area on the right, and that the cervical spine showed some 

tenderness to palpation into the region. He also provided ROM measurements for the cervical 

spine. Dr. Steingart noted that a 2005 MRI scan showed some degenerative findings at the C5-6 

level and opined that these findings were more likely than not related to appellant’s natural 

3 L.L., Docket No. 18-1426 (issued April5, 2019); C.C., Docket No. 17-1158 (issued November 20, 2018); I.J., 59 

ECAB 408 (2008); VivienL. Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986).

4 A.G., Docket No. 19-0220 (issued August1, 2019); A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August 5, 2009); T.P., 58 

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

5

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

6

See R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018).

7

5 U.S.C. § 8123(a);see E.L., Docket No. 20-0944 (issued August30, 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).

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

9

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

ECAB 1010 (1980).
5

progression of aging and unrelated to the April 2, 1987 work injury. He also noted that appellant 

provided a history of striking his head on a basement wall and landing on his back which required 

low back surgery 10 years prior. Dr. Steingart concluded that there were no objective findings 

related to the accepted cervical sprain/strain. He opined that strictly on the issue of the accepted 

cervical spine condition, appellant was capable of returning to his date-of-injury letter carrier 

position.

The Board finds that the opinion of Dr. Steingart is well rationalized and based on a 

complete factual and medical history. Dr. Steingart accurately summarized the relevant medical 

evidence, provided detailed findings on examination, and reached conclusions regarding

appellant’s condition, which comported with his findings. As such, his opinion is entitled to the 

weight of the evidence.10 The Board, therefore, finds that OWCP has met its proof to terminate 

appellant’s medical benefits for the accepted condition of cervical strain.

While Dr. Ross opined that appellant continued to have ongoing cervical myofascial pain 

and TMJ disorder, the Board notes that these are not accepted conditionsin this claim. Appellant’s 

psychogenic pain disorder is an accepted condition in OWCP File No. xxxxxx954. While Dr. Ross 

opined that appellant continued to have ongoing cervical myofascial pain and TMJ disorder, he 

did not address whether appellant continued to have residuals of the accepted cervical strain. This 

evidence is therefore of no probative value.11 

Similarly, in reports dated June 17, 2019 and January 30, 2020, Dr. Morgan did not address 

the accepted condition of cervical strain and did not provide a complete and ac curate medical 

history. As the reports from Dr. Morgan did not address the accepted condition of cervical strain 

her reports are of no probative value.12

The Board, therefore, finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

medical benefits for the accepted condition of cervical strain as of March 4, 2020. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

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

establish continuing residuals or disability after that date, causally related to the accepted 

employment injury.13 To establish causal relationship between the condition as well as any 

attendant disability claimed and the employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized 

10 See A.M., Docket No 18-1243 (issued October 7, 2019); C.V.,Docket No. 17-1159 (issued April6, 2018); Manuel 

Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001).

11 J.T., Docket No. 20-1470 (issued October 8, 2021); A.M., Docket No. 18-0562 (issued January 23, 2020); L.B., 

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018);D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018); Leslie C. Moore, 52 

ECAB 132 (2000). 

12 Id.

13 See L.S., Docket No. 20-1204 (issued October 4, 2021); S.M., Docket No. 18-0673 (issued January 25, 2019); 

Manuel Gill, supra note 10.
6

medical evidence based on a complete medical and factual background, supporting such causal 

relationship.14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

residuals of cervical strain on or after March 4, 2020.

Subsequent to the termination of his medical benefits for cervical strain, OWCP received 

a February 27, 2020 report from Dr. Morgan. Dr. Morgan, however, did not offer any opinion as 

to whether appellant had residuals of his accepted cervical strain condition. This report, therefore,

lacked probative value regarding the issue on appeal.15

Appellant has not submitted any rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish 

continuing residuals on or after March 4, 2020 due to his accepted cervical strain. Accordingly, 

the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof.16

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 has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s medical 

benefits for cervical strain effective March 4, 2020. The Board further finds that he has not met 

his burden of proof to establish continuing residuals on or after March 4, 2020.

14 Id.

15 J.T., supra note 11. 

16 R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 28, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 18, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board