United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0979

Issued: February 5, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Aaron B. Aumiller, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 29, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an October 1, 

2018 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 Pursuant to the 

 

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 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of the last OWCP 

decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. One hundred and eighty 

days from October 1, 2018, the date of OWCP’s decision, was March 29, 2019. Since using April 2, 2019, the date 

the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards, would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the 

postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is March 29, 2019, 

which renders the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).
2

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 December 22, 2011, as she no longer had 

residuals or disability causally related to the accepted conditions in her claim; and (2) whether 

appellant has met her burden of proof to establish continuing disability and residuals on and after 

December 22, 2011.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.5 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 February 14, 2001 appellant, then a 29-year-old detention enforcement officer, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 17, 2001 she injured her lower back 

and knees when she slipped on a greasy floor while in the performance of duty. On May 15, 2001 

OWCP accepted her claim for the conditions of lumbar and thoracic radiculopathy, cervical sprain, 

and bilateral traumatic knee chondromalacia. It also authorized left knee arthroscopic surgery, 

which was performed on November 15, 2001. On August 16, 2001 OWCP placed appellant on 

the periodic rolls.

In a December 30, 2010 report, Dr. Leonard A. Langman, an attending neurologist,

diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and bilateral knee trauma, which he attributed to the accepted 

January 17, 2001 employment injury. He opined that appellant currently remained totally disabled 

due to the diagnosed conditions. 

On July 29, 2011 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Stanley R. Askin, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation to determine appellant’s disability status with 

regard to her accepted conditions and her ability to return to work.

In a report dated August 12, 2011, Dr. Askin reviewed a statement of accepted facts, the 

history of injury, and the medical record and conducted a physical examination. His examination 

findings included: negative Spurling’s and Apley’s tests; no trapezial, paravertebral, or 

paracervical muscle spasms; her neck was nontender to touch; full right shoulder range of motion;

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 The Board notes that following the October 1, 2018 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 evidence for 

the first time on appeal. Id.

5 Docket No. 17-0838 (issued August 24, 2017).
3

and full bilateral knee range of motion. Dr. Askin observed that appellant moved her neck better 

spontaneously than when tested for formal range of motion. He diagnosed lumbar and thoracic 

radiculopathy, cervical sprain, and bilateral traumatic knee chondromalacia and concluded that 

based on the lack of current objective physical findings that the accepted conditions had resolved 

without residuals or disability. Dr. Askin also concluded that the posterior meniscal horn findings 

were age-appropriate imperfections for someone of appellant’s age and that her physical capability 

was consistent with the aging process. He explained that, while she had continuing complaints of 

pain, there was no objective basis on which he could find disability or a need for treatment.

Dr. Askin concluded that no further medical treatment was necessary and that appellant could 

return to her date-of-injury position.

On September 14, 2011 OWCP issued a notice proposing to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits as she no longer had disability or residuals causally related 

to her accepted lumbar and thoracic radiculopathy, cervical sprain, and bilateral traumatic knee 

chondromalacia. It found, based on Dr. Askin’s report, that she had no current disability and no 

medical residuals requiring further treatment. OWCP allowed appellant 30 days to respond to the 

proposal.

In a September 28, 2011 report, Dr. Alan J. Dayan, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

noted appellant’s treatment history. He explained that she had been followed on a monthly basis. 

Dr. Dayan reviewed January 28, 2010 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of both knees 

which revealed a right knee grade 2 signal on the medical meniscus posterior horn with a small 

joint effusion and left knee grade 2 signal posterior meniscus horn. He noted appellant’s physical 

examination findings and reported that she continued to have significant right knee pain. 

Dr. Dylan opined that she was unable to return to work in her prior position as an “immigration 

officer.” He indicated that appellant should continue physical therapy and in an addendum report

noted that he was awaiting authorization for a right knee arthroscopic procedure. 

In an October 7, 2011 report, Dr. Langman diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. He noted that 

appellant continued to experience lower back and bilateral knee pain complaints with pain 

radiating into her lower extremities. Dr. Langman’s physical examination revealed that she had 

lumbar spasms, decreased left knee reflex, bilateral knee crepitus on palpation, and 20 degrees 

bilateral straight leg raising. He opined that appellant was totally disabled due to her employment 

injuries.

By decision dated December 22, 2011, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits effective that day. 

In a letter dated December 29, 2011, appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic 

hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. The hearing was held on April 20, 2012.

In a February 24, 2012 report, Dr. Dayan indicated that she complained of right knee pain. 

He provided right knee examination findings and attributed appellant’s pain to chondromalacia 

patella and possible knee synovitis. Dr. Dayan also noted his disagreement with Dr. Askin’s 

opinion that right knee arthroscopic surgery would not benefit appellant.
4

Dr. Dayan, in an April 4, 2012 report, detailed appellant’s medical treatment provided since 

2001, summarized examination findings from prior reports, and discussed findings from diagnostic 

tests he reviewed. He again reiterated his disagreement with Dr. Askin’s opinion that further 

arthroscopic surgery was unnecessary.

By decision dated July 11, 2012, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

December 22, 2011 decision finding that the weight of the medical opinion evidence rested with

Dr. Askin.

On July 23, 2012 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In support of her 

request, she submitted a May 4, 2012 report by Dr. Dayan. 

In his May 4, 2012 report, Dr. Dayan provided examination findings and noted the physical 

duties of an “immigration officer.” He reported that appellant continued to have symptoms from 

her bilateral knee chondromalacia and lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Dayan indicated that she had 

significant limitations from her low back and bilateral knee conditions, which rendered her

disabled from performing the duties of an “immigration officer” which included being unable to 

pursue a detainee and having difficulty ascending and descending stairs.

By decision dated October 18, 2012, OWCP denied modification. It found Dr. Dayan’s 

May 4, 2012 report was of insufficient probative value to create a conflict with Dr. Askin’s second 

opinion report. OWCP found that Dr. Dayan failed to provide a rationalized opinion explaining 

how the accepted employment conditions prevented appellant from performing the duties of her 

date-of-injury position. 

In a March 28, 2013 report, Dr. R.C. Krishna, a Board-certified neurologist, reported that 

appellant continued to have pain in her neck, right arm, and low back including bilateral hand 

numbness due to the accepted January 17, 2001 employment injury. He described how the 

employment injury occurred and noted her medical history. Dr. Krishna indicated that appellant 

had difficulty with pushing/pulling objects, climbing stairs, and bending. He noted that her upper 

extremity complaints were consistent with a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and her 

lumbar complaints were suggestive of possible lumbosacral radiculopathy or lumbosacral pain 

syndrome.6

In a June 17, 2013 follow-up report, Dr. Dayan referenced OWCP’s hearing 

representative’s decision and noted the job-duty requirements of a detention enforcement officer. 

He opined that appellant’s knee conditions of significant right knee patella chondromalacia and 

left knee symptoms following surgery rendered her disabled from performing the duties of a 

detention officer. Dr. Dayan noted that he referred appellant to Dr. Krishna as Dr. Langman was 

no longer practicing.

 

6 Dr. Krishna performed an electromyography study on March 28, 2013, which showed C5-6 cervical 

radiculopathy. A May 4, 2013 nerve conduction velocity study, performed by Dr. Krishna, supported a diagnosis of 

chronic L4-5 radiculitis and nerve root irritation. The record also contains an April 3, 2013 cervical MRI scan report 

and April 8, 2013 lumbosacral MRI scan report.
5

On October 17, 2013 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. Counsel 

asserted that the medical evidence he had submitted from Dr. Krishna and Dr. Dayan demonstrated 

that appellant continued to have residuals from the accepted employment injury. He further 

asserted that the weight of the medical opinion evidence should rest with appellant’s treating 

physicians rather than Dr. Askin.

By decision dated March 14, 2014, OWCP denied modification. It found the reports from 

Drs. Krishna and Dayan failed to explain how appellant had continuing residuals or disability due 

to the accepted employment-related conditions and as such were insufficient to create a conflict in 

the medical opinion evidence. 

On March 17, 2015 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In support of 

the request, she submitted a January 9, 2015 report from Dr. Laura E. Ross, an osteopath Boardcertified in orthopedic surgery.

In her January 9, 2015 report, Dr. Ross noted appellant’s history of an employment injury, 

accepted diagnoses, medical treatment, and that she had been out of work for 14 years as a result 

of the injury. A physical examination demonstrated bilateral knee crepitus and tenderness along 

the joint line on range of motion, active quadriceps contracture, decreased bilateral L5 and S1 

distributions, lumbar paravertebral muscle spasms, and limited range of motion. Diagnoses 

included bilateral knee chondromalacia patella, left lateral meniscus tear and synovectomy, and 

multiple neck and back disc protrusions. Dr. Ross explained that chondromalacia patella was a 

form of traumatic arthritis, which she attributed to the accepted January 17, 2001 employment 

injury. In addition, she determined that the accepted January 17, 2001 employment injury also 

damaged appellant’s nerves in both legs resulting in radiculopathy and radiculitis. As a result of 

these conditions, Dr. Ross opined that appellant was only capable of performing sedentary work 

and was disabled from performing her date-of-injury position. She also concluded that appellant 

sustained permanent injuries from the accepted January 17, 2001 employment injury.

By decision dated June 8, 2015, OWCP denied modification. It found the medical opinion 

evidence that appellant had submitted was insufficiently rationalized and failed to establish 

disability or the need for continued medical treatment due to the accepted January 14, 2001 injury.

On June 7, 2016 appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration and submitted 

an August 4, 2015 report from Dr. Ross. In her report, Dr. Ross noted OWCP’s five specific 

concerns regarding continuing residuals and disability from the accepted employment conditions. 

She indicated that OWCP accepted that appellant sustained lumbar and thoracic radiculopathy, 

cervical sprain, and bilateral traumatic knee chondromalacia, as a result of the accepted 

January 2001 work injury. Dr. Ross described appellant’s work duties and noted findings from 

diagnostic tests which showed bilateral knee chondromalacia, an L5-S1 disc herniation, an L4-5 

disc bulge, cervical (C3-4, C4-5, and C6-7) disc herniations, chronic L4 and L5 radiculitis, and 

right L5 and S1 radiculopathy. She explained that appellant’s inability to perform her duties as a 

detention enforcement officer were due to the limitations caused by her medical conditions which 

had previously been accepted by OWCP. Dr. Ross noted limitations that included difficulty with 

sitting, walking, and standing, which precluded appellant from performing her date-of-injury job. 

As a result of the injuries sustained, she opined that appellant had a permanent disability and was 

only capable of performing sedentary work. Dr. Ross also noted that OWCP had accepted the 
6

condition of bilateral knee chondromalacia is a type of traumatic arthritis, which she explained is

a deteriorating and ongoing condition for which appellant would require additional medical 

treatment.

By decision dated September 2, 2016, OWCP denied reconsideration finding that the 

evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant review of its prior decision as it was cumulative of 

evidence previously of record and which had already been considered by OWCP. 

On March 1, 2017 appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board. By decision dated 

August 24, 2017, the Board found that OWCP had improperly denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).7 The Board, therefore, set 

aside the September 2, 2016 decision and remanded the case for a merit review. 

On remand OWCP conducted a merit review and, by decision dated September 7, 2017, 

denied modification of its prior decision. It specifically found that the August 14, 2015 report 

from Dr. Ross was insufficient to create a conflict in the medical opinion evidence with Dr. Askin 

as her opinion was conclusory and not well rationalized.

On September 7, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. In support 

of her request, she submitted a March 13, 2018 report from Dr. Calvin C. Matthews, Boardcertified in forensic orthopedics and pain medicine, and asserted that this new report was sufficient 

to create a conflict in the medical opinion evidence.

Dr. Matthews, in his March 13, 2018 report, noted the history of injury, his review of the 

medical record, and his finding on physical examination. He reported: lower cervical, lumbar, 

and thoracic tenderness on palpation; moderate-to-severe bilateral sacroiliac tenderness; mild-tomoderate bilateral sciatic notch tenderness; bilateral knee crepitus on range of motion; left knee 

patellofemoral joint tenderness; bilateral knee positive medial McMurray sign; and negative 

bilateral drawer sign. Dr. Matthews diagnosed C5-6 cervical radiculopathy, bilateral knee internal 

derangement, bilateral patella chondromalacia, and L4-5 radiculitis and lumbar nerve root 

irritation. He noted that appellant’s bilateral knee internal derangement signs were suggestive of 

bilateral medial meniscal tears. Dr. Matthews opined that the bilateral knee and spinal injuries she 

had sustained from her injury remained unresolved and that she had permanent bilateral knee 

injuries.

By decision dated October 1, 2018, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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

modification or termination of an employee’s benefits.8 After it has determined that an employee 

has a 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 

 

7 Supra note 3.

8 R.S., Docket No. 19-0552 (issued September 6, 2019); M.M., Docket No. 17-1264 (issued December 3, 2018).
7

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.11 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must 

establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition, which would 

require further medical treatment.12

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective December 22, 2011, as she no longer had residuals 

or disability causally related to the accepted conditions in her claim

In his August 12, 2011 report, Dr. Askin, OWCP’s second opinion physician, opined that 

there was no objective evidence of ongoing disability or medical residuals from appellant’s

accepted conditions. He explained that while appellant had continuing complaints of pain, there 

was no objective basis on which he could find disability or a need for further treatment. Dr. Askin 

found that the conditions he observed were consistent with those of someone appellant’s age. He 

concluded by noting that there were no objective findings on clinical examination and that 

appellant did not require further medical treatment or work restrictions. The Board finds that

Dr. Askin’s opinion represents the weight of the medical evidence. Dr. Askin provided a detailed 

medical report reviewing the statement of accepted facts and the medical record. He unequivocally 

opined that appellant did not have objective physical findings and therefore there were no residuals 

or disability from the accepted employment-related condition. Dr. Askin’s opinion provides a 

thorough medical explanation, supported by objective findings, in response to the questions posed 

to him.

13

 

Appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Langman, in his December 10, 2010 and October 7, 

2011 narrative reports, opined that appellant had residuals and disability due to the January 17, 

2001 employment incident. However, he failed to provide a well-rationalized opinion, with 

supporting objective evidence, to explain why appellant had continuing residuals and disability 

due to her accepted conditions. While Dr. Langman provided examination findings in his 

October 7, 2011 report, he did not support his opinion of continued work-related residuals and 

disability with medical reasoning in either report.14 The Board has held that a medical report is of 

limited probative value regarding a period of disability if it does not contain medical rationale 

 

9 M.C., Docket No. 19-0549 (issued October 7, 2019); E.B., Docket No. 18-1060 (issued November 1, 2018).

10 W.F., Docket No. 18-0653 (issued September 26, 2019); G.H., Docket No. 18-0414 (issued November 14, 2018).

11 J.W., Docket No. 19-1014 (issued October 24, 2019); L.W., Docket No. 18-1372 (issued February 27, 2019).

12 L.S., Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019); R.P., Docket No. 18-0900 (issued February 5, 2019).

13 T.W., Docket No. 18-1573 (issued July 19, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 18-1199 (issued April 5, 2019); see also 

A.C., Docket No. 16-1670 (issued April 6, 2018).

14 T.W., id.; A.G., Docket No. 18-0479 (issued November 7, 2018).
8

explaining how such disability was related to an accepted employment injury.15 Dr. Langman’s

reports are therefore of limited probative value and are insufficient to create a conflict with the 

opinion of Dr. Askin.

OWCP also received a September 28, 2011 report from Dr. Dayan opining that appellant 

was totally disabled. While Dr. Dayan provided an opinion on the issue of whether appellant was 

capable of a return to work, his report is merely conclusory in nature. He did not support his 

opinion of disability with medical reasoning.16 The Board has held that a mere conclusion, without 

the necessary rationale as to whether a period of disability is due to an accepted employment 

condition, is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.17 Thus, Dr. Dayan’s opinion is of 

limited probative value and is also insufficient to create a conflict with Dr. Askin.

18

Therefore, the Board finds that the medical evidence of record at the time that appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits were terminated failed to support continued 

disability or residuals from the accepted employment injury and therefore OWCP met its burden 

of proof.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Once OWCP properly terminates compensation benefits, the burden of proof shifts to the 

claimant to establish that she has continuing disability or residuals causally related to the accepted 

employment injury.19 

To establish causal relationship between the disability claimed and the employment injury, 

the claimant must submit rationalized medical evidence, containing an opinion based on a 

complete medical and factual background, supporting causal relationship.20

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

disability and residuals on and after December 22, 2011.

Subsequent to the December 22, 2011 decision, which terminated appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits effective that day, the burden shifted to appellant to establish 

 

15 D.L., Docket No. 19-0900 (issued October 28, 2019); Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017);

C.M., Docket No. 14-0088 (issued April 18, 2014).

16 Id.

17 A.T., Docket No. 19-0410 (issued August 13, 2019); E.L., Docket No. 17-1632 (issued January 3, 2018). 

18 Id.

19 D.M., Docket No. 17-1052 (issued January 24, 2019). 

20 T.W., supra note 13; A.M., Docket No. 17-1192 (issued September 19, 2018). 
9

that she continued to have disability or residuals of her accepted conditions on and after 

December 22, 2011 due to her employment-related injury.

Following the termination of her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, appellant 

submitted reports from Dr. Dayan dated February 24, April 4, and May 4, 2012, and June 17, 2013

in which he diagnosed right knee pain, bilateral knee chondromalacia, lumbar radiculopathy, and 

possible knee synovitis and opined that she was disabled from performing her work duties. The 

Board finds that his opinion is of limited probative value because he merely provided a conclusory 

statement regarding the fact that he believed appellant was disabled from work. Dr. Dayan did not 

provide medical rationale in support of his opinion on continuing work-related residuals. A 

medical opinion not fortified by medical rationale is of diminished probative value.21 Because

Dr. Dayan failed to provide sufficient medical rationale for his conclusion, his opinion is of limited 

probative value.

Dr. Ross, in her January 9, 2015 report, diagnosed bilateral knee chondromalacia patella, 

left lateral meniscus tear and synovectomy, and multiple neck and back disc protrusions. She 

opined that appellant’s January 17, 2001 accepted work injury caused permanent damage to her 

bilateral leg nerves resulting in radiculitis and radiculopathy and that her chondromalacia patella 

was a form of traumatic arthritis. In her June 7, 2016 report, Dr. Ross noted that OWCP had 

accepted the conditions of lumbar and thoracic radiculopathy. She referenced diagnostic testing 

and opined that the injuries appellant sustained on January 17, 2001 resulted in a permanent injury. 

Dr. Ross also explained that bilateral knee chondromalacia is a type of traumatic arthritis which is 

an ongoing and deteriorating condition. However, she did not support her findings of continued 

work-related residuals and disability with medical reasoning, supported by objective medical 

findings, in either of her reports.22 Thus, the reports from Dr. Ross are of limited probative value.

In a March 13, 2018 report, Dr. Matthews found that appellant’s bilateral knee and spinal 

injuries were unresolved. He indicated that appellant continued to have residuals and disability 

causally related to the accepted January 17, 2001 injury. The Board finds that Dr. Matthews’

report is of limited probative value because it contains a mere conclusory opinion without 

explaining how and why the January 17, 2001 work injury caused residuals or disability after 

December 22, 2011. Such an opinion is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

23

 

The record also contains an opinion from Dr. Krishna diagnosing bilateral carpal tunnel 

syndrome and possible lumbosacral radiculopathy or lumbosacral pain syndrome. Dr. Krishna did 

not, however, address the relevant issue of whether appellant was disabled from employment or 

 

21 T.W., supra note 13; T.L., Docket No. 18-0536 (issued November 27, 2018); W.W., Docket No. 09-1619 (issued 

June 2, 2010).

22 Supra note 12.

23 L.G., Docket No. 19-0142 (issued August 8, 2019); see also J.D., Docket No. 14-2061 (issued 

February 27, 2015).
10

required further medical treatment due to her accepted employment-related medical conditions, 

and thus his opinion is of limited probative value.24

Other medical evidence submitted, such as reports of diagnostic testing, are of limited 

probative value because they do not contain a physician’s explanation regarding how any 

diagnosed medical condition is due to appellant’s accepted January 17, 2001 work injury.

25

On appeal counsel asserts that the reports from Dr. Ross and Dr. Matthews are wellrationalized and sufficient to establish a conflict in the medical opinion evidence from Dr. Askin

regarding whether appellant had continuing residuals and disability due to the accepted 

employment injuries on and after December 22, 2011. However, as explained above, the Board 

finds the reports submitted by appellant in support of her claim are insufficient to either establish 

her claim for continuing disability or to create a conflict as the reports are of limited probative 

value.

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 wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective December 22, 2011, as she no longer had residuals 

or disability causally related to the accepted conditions in her claim. The Board further finds that 

appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing residuals or disability on and 

after December 22, 2011.

 

24 R.R., Docket No. 19-0173 (issued May 2, 2019).

25 See M.C., Docket No. 18-1374 (issued April 23, 2019); K.V., Docket No. 18-0723 (issued November 9, 2018); 

S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009) (medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause 

of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship).
11

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 1, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 5, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board