United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MURRAY HILL POST 

OFFICE, New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0033

Issued: June 8, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 8, 2021 appellant, though counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 27, 

2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(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 OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s 

wage-loss compensationbenefits and medical benefits, effective October 10, 2020, as he no longer 

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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

had disability or residuals causally related to his accepted January 11, 1997 employment injury; 

and (2) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish continuing disability or residuals 

on or after October 10, 2020 causally related to his accepted January 11, 1997 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 21, 1997 appellant, then a 46-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 11, 1997 he sustained injury to his right knee when

the brake pedal snapped on his postal vehicle causing his right knee to jam against the steering 

column while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on January 13, 1997 and returned to 

limited-duty work on January 15, 1997. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx770 

and accepted it for contusion, sprain, and medial meniscus tear of the right knee.

3

 Appellant 

underwent OWCP-authorized right knee medial meniscectomy shortly after the January 11, 1997 

incident. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation for partial disability from work on the 

periodic rolls commencing June 16, 2002. Appellant last worked for the employing establishment 

in November 2007 and OWCP paid him wage-loss compensation for total disability after he

stopped work. 

In a January 16, 2019 report, Dr. Eial Faierman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

indicated that appellant complained of pain in his neck, low back, and knees. He noted that, upon 

physical examination, appellant had active range of motion of the knees to 90 degrees and there 

was full stability of the knees to anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift tests. There was no 

pain or instability on varus or valgus stress testing and moderate joint line tenderness of the knees 

was observed. Dr. Faierman diagnosed cervical and lumbar spine strains, and internal 

derangement of both knees. 

In a March 19, 2020 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Amanda Mohabir, a 

Board-certified family medicine physician, reported the history of the employment injury noting

an injury to the neck, back, and knee that occurred when appellant was driving a truck without 

brakes and hit a cement support column. She listed the diagnoses due to the reported employment 

activity as lumbar pain and cervical radiculopathy. Dr. Mohabir opined that appellant was totally 

disabled from January 11, 1997 to the present. 

On April 8, 2020 OWCP referred appellant, along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) and a series of questions, for a second opinion examination and evaluation to Dr. Stanley 

Askin, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. It requested that he provide an opinion regarding 

whether appellant continued to have disability or residuals causally related to his January 11, 1997 

employment injury.

In a June 5, 2020 report, Dr. Askin discussed appellant’s factual and medical history, 

noting that on January 11, 1997 the brake on his postal vehicle popped up and he hit his right knee 

on the steering column. He indicated that, at the time of the injury, appellant was morbidly obese.

3 Appellant later filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that on October 9, 1997 he sustained injury to his left knee, 

right ankle, back, and wrists when he shifted his weight while boxing mail. However, OWCP denied this traumatic 

injury claim. It administratively combined OWCP File No. xxxxxx483 and OWCP File No. xxxxxx770, designating 

the latter as the master file.
3

Dr. Askin reported the findings of the physical examination he conducted on June 5, 2020, noting 

that appellant presented in a motorized wheelchair and complained of “degeneration” in his neck, 

left shoulder, back, and knees. Dr. Askin indicated that, during the examination, appellant was 

unable to stand from his wheelchair. Straight leg raising was performed while seated and was not 

associated by him with discomfort for either lower extremity. Dr. Askin indicated that appellant 

reported that it hurt everywhere he touched his lower extremities. He reported that muscle function 

of the hip abductors, hip adductors, hip flexors, hip extensors, quadriceps, hamstrings, ankle and 

toe motors were intact, but he noted that appellant “was not a very strong individual.” Calf 

circumferences were 38.5 centimeters equally, but some of the calf circumferences were due to 

substantial edema pitting rather than muscle bulk of the lower extremities. Dr. Askin noted that

appellant reported discomfort in both knees. Right knee motion was permitted from 0 degrees to 

90 degrees with tenderness at the right knee medial joint line, and left knee motion was permitted 

from 10 degrees to 80 degrees with tenderness of the left knee at the lateral joint line.

Dr. Askin opined that appellant ceased to have residuals of the accepted conditions related 

to the January 11, 1997 employment injury, i.e., contusion, sprain, and medial meniscus tear of the 

right knee. He explained that appellant’s current presentation did not manifest any residue of the 

accepted conditions. Dr. Askin indicated that the accepted conditions had sufficiently healed for 

appellant to return to full duty on a full-time basis, but he noted that appellant had “substantial 

general health issue[s] that would be otherwise prohibitive.” Appellant did not have disability 

imposed by the accepted conditions and there were no objective findings that supported “a 

perception or allegation that his accepted conditions have persisted.” Dr. Askin indicated that 

appellant had been troubled by nonwork-related complications of obesity and tobacco abuse that 

had detracted from his capacity for physical exertion. He noted that appellant had also suffered 

from diabetes and heart disease and indicated, “I do not doubt that there was an injury that occurred 

in 1997 but that has not left him with any residue that is preclusive of resumption of his date -ofinjury employment.” Dr. Askin reiterated that appellant did not have any disability related to the 

January 11, 1997 employment injury and noted that he did not have any residue of the conditions 

accepted in the SOAF for which medical treatment was reasonable, necessary, or appropriate.

Appellant requested expansion of the acceptance of his claim to include back and cervical 

conditions sustained on January 11, 1997. By decision dated August 11, 2020, OWCP denied his

expansion claim, noting that appellant failed to submit medical evidence with a rationalized 

medical opinion relating any medical condition, other than the accepted right knee conditions, to 

the January 11, 1997 employment injury.

4

In an August 13, 2020 notice, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate his 

wage-loss compensation benefits and medical benefits as he no longer had disability or residuals 

causally related to his accepted January 11, 1997 employment injury. It informed him that the 

proposed termination action was justified by the June 5, 2020 opinion of Dr. Askin, the OWCP 

referral physician. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit evidence and argument 

challenging the proposed termination action.

4 The Board notes that the issue of the denial of appellant’s expansion claim is not presently before the Board.
4

Appellant submitted an August 20, 2020 report from Dr. Faierman who indicated that 

appellant presented for a routine follow-up visit complaining of continued pain in his neck, lower 

back, and knees. Dr. Faierman advised that appellant used a rollator and had not been working. 

He noted that, upon physical examination, appellant had active range of motion of the knees to 80 

degrees and there was full stability of the knees to anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift tests. 

There was no pain or instability on varus or valgus stress testing and moderate joint line tenderness

of the knees was observed. Dr. Faierman diagnosed cervical and lumbar spine strains, and internal 

derangement of both knees. 

By decision dated October 9, 2020, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits, effective October 10, 2020, as he no longer had disability or residuals 

causally related to his accepted January 11, 1997 employment injury. It found that the weight of 

the medical evidence with respect to continuing work-related disability or residuals rested with the 

opinion of Dr. Askin.

On May 29, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of his claim. He 

submitted a March 24, 2021 report from Dr. Faierman who provided a discussion of the 

January 11, 1997 accident, noting that appellant reported he was driving a mail carrier truck when 

the brakes on the truck malfunctioned. Appellant further indicated that the brakes kicked back, 

causing him to strike his right knee against the steering wheel and then to hit a cement column to

avoid hitting pedestrians. Dr. Faierman discussed his physical examination findings and 

diagnosed: post-traumatic cervical spondylosis at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7; post-traumatic lumbar 

spondylosis at L4-5 and L5-S1; right knee post-traumatic degenerative changes status post right 

knee medial meniscectomy; and post-traumatic left knee degenerative changes. He maintained

that, if the history of injury was accurate, there was a causal relationship between the January 11, 

1997 incident and the injuries to appellant’s cervical spine, lumbar spine, and bilateral knees. 

Dr. Faierman noted that appellant advised that he suffered a “recurrent work injury” when he fell 

at work on an unspecified date due to instability in his knees and aggravated his cervical spine, 

lumbar spine, and bilateral knees. He opined that, based on the history, clinical examination and 

medical records reviewed, there was a causal relationship between the January 11, 1997 incident 

and the injuries to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and bilateral knees, as well as with the 

“recurrent injury” at work, which aggravated the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and bilateral knees. 

Dr. Faierman found that appellant was totally disabled and noted that, during the last several years, 

he had required a rolling walker and occasionally a wheelchair.

By decision dated August 27, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its October 9, 2020

decision. It found that the termination of appellant’s compensation was proper and that appellant 

failed to meet his burden of proof to establish disability and residuals on or after October 10, 2020 

causally related to the accepted January 11, 1997 employment injury.

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.5 After it has determined that, an employee 

5 D.G., Docket No. 19-1259 (issued January 29, 2020); S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); KellyY. Simpson, 57 ECAB 

197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824(2003).
5

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.6 Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.7

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

entitlement for disability compensation.8 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.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

compensation benefits and medical benefits, effective October 10, 2020, as he no longer had 

disability or residuals causally related to his accepted January 11, 1997 employment injury.

The weight of the medical evidence is represented by the thorough, well-rationalized 

opinion of Dr. Askin, OWCP’s referral physician. The June 5, 2020 report of Dr. Askin 

establishes that appellant had no disability or residuals due to his accepted January 11, 1997 

employment injury after October 10, 2020.

In his June 5, 2020 report, Dr. Askin discussed appellant’s factual and medical history, 

noting that on January 11, 1997 the brake on his postal vehicle popped up and he hit his right knee 

on the steering column. He reported the findings of the physical examination he conducted on 

June 5, 2020, noting that appellant presented in a motorized wheelchair and complained of 

“degeneration” in his neck, left shoulder, back, and knees. Dr. Askin indicated that, during the 

examination, appellant was unable to stand from his wheelchair. Straight leg raising was 

performed while seated and was not associated by him with discomfort for either lower extremity. 

Right knee motion was permitted from 0 degrees to 90 degrees with was tenderness at the right 

knee medial joint line, and left knee motion was permitted from 10 degrees to 80 degrees with 

tenderness of the left knee at the lateral joint line. Dr. Askin opined that appellant ceased to have 

residuals of the accepted conditions related to the January 11, 1997 employment injury, i.e., 

contusion, sprain, and medial meniscus tear of the right knee. He explained that appellant’s current 

presentation did not manifest any residue of the accepted conditions. Dr. Askin indicated that the 

accepted conditions had sufficiently healed for appellant to return to full duty on a full-time basis, 

but he noted that appellant had “substantial general health issue[s] that would be otherwise 

prohibitive.” He indicated that appellant had been troubled by nonwork-related complications of 

obesity and tobacco abuse that had detracted from his capacity for physical exertion. Dr. Askin

6

See R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); JasonC. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. 

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

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

8 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).

9

See A.G., id.; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003); PamelaK. Guesford, 53 ECAB 727 (2002).
6

noted that appellant had also suffered from diabetes and heart disease and indicated, “I do not 

doubt that there was an injury that occurred in 1997 but that has not left him with any residue that 

is preclusive of resumption of his date-of-injury employment.”

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

value, and convincing quality with respect to its conclusions regarding the relevant issue of

continuing work-related residuals and disability. Dr. Askin provided a thorough factual and 

medical history and accurately summarized the relevant medical evidence. He provided medical 

rationale for his opinion by explaining that appellant did not exhibit objective findings of the right 

knee conditions he sustained on January 11, 1997.

10

 

The case record contains a March 19, 2020 Form CA-20 report from Dr. Mohabir who 

reported the history of the employment injury, noting an injury to the neck, back, and knee that 

occurred when appellant was driving a motor vehicle without brakes and hit a cement support 

column. Dr. Mohabir listed the diagnoses due to the reported employment activity as lumbar pain 

and cervical radiculopathy. She found that appellant was totally disabled from January 11, 1997 

to the present.

The Board finds, however, that Dr. Mohabir’s March 19, 2020 report is of limited 

probative value regarding continuing residuals/disability causally related the accepted January 11, 

1997 employment injury. Dr. Mohabir’sreport is not based a complete and accurate factual history 

as she described a mechanism of injury, i.e., hitting a cement support column on January 11, 1997,

that is not supported by the factual evidence of record.

11

 She did not provide a rationalized medical 

opinion relating appellant’s condition to the accepted employment injury. The Board notes that 

OWCP has not accepted that appellant sustained a neck or back condition on January 11, 1997and

Dr. Mohabir’s report does not otherwise support such a finding. The Board has held that a report 

is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale 

explaining how an employment activity could have caused or aggravated a medical condition.12

Prior to the termination of his compensation, appellant also submitted an August 20, 2020 

report in which Dr. Faierman indicated that appellant presented for a routine follow-up visit 

complaining of continued pain in his neck, lower back, and knees. He reported the findings of his 

physical examination of appellant and diagnosed cervical and lumbar spine strains, and internal 

derangement of both knees. The Board finds that this report is of no probative value regarding 

whether appellant had continuing residuals and disability related to the January 11, 1997 

employment injury as Dr. Faierman did not provide an opinion on the cause of the disability. The 

10 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) (regarding the importance, when a ssessing medical evidence, of such factors 

as a physician’s knowledge of the facts and medical history, and the care of analysis manifested and the medical 

rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion).

11 See supra note 7.

12 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).
7

Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s condition or disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.

13

As the evidence of record is insufficient to overcome the weight of the medical evidence 

accorded to Dr. Askin, the Board finds that OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective October 10, 2020.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

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

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

employment injury.14 To establish causal relationship between the condition 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.15

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

disability or residuals on or after October 10, 2020 causally related to his accepted January 11, 

1997 employment injury.

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

appellant submitted additional medical evidence that he felt showed that he was entitled to 

compensation after October 10, 2020 due to residuals of his January 11, 1997 employment injury. 

Given that the Board has found that OWCP properly relied on the opinion of the OWCP referral 

physician, Dr. Askin, in terminating appellant’s compensation effective October 10, 2020, the 

burden shifts to appellant to establish that he is entitled to compensation after that date.16 The 

Board has reviewed the additional evidence submitted by appellant and finds that it is not of 

sufficient probative value to establish that he had residuals of his January 11, 1997 employment 

injury after October 10, 2020.

Appellant submitted a March 24, 2021 report from Dr. Faierman who provided a history 

of the January 11, 1997 incident, noting that appellant reported he was driving a mail carrier truck 

when the brakes on the truck malfunctioned. He further indicated that the brakes kicked back, 

causing him to strike his right knee against the steering wheel and then to hit a cement column to 

avoid hitting pedestrians. Dr. Faierman discussed his physical examination findings and 

diagnosed: post-traumatic cervical spondylosis at C4-5, C5-6, and C6-7; post-traumatic lumbar 

spondylosis at L4-5 and L5-S1; right knee post-traumatic degenerative changes status post right 

13 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

14 See S.M., Docket No. 18-0673 (issued January 25, 2019); C.S., Docket No. 18-0952 (issued October 23, 2018); 

Manuel Gill, 52 ECAB 282 (2001).

15 Id.

16 See supra note 14.
8

knee medial meniscectomy; and post-traumatic left knee degenerative changes. He maintained 

that, if the history of injury was accurate, there was a causal relationship between the January 11, 

1997 incident and the injuries to appellant’s cervical spine, lumbar spine, and knees. Dr. Faierman

noted that appellant advised that he suffered a “recurrent work injury” when he fell at work on an 

unspecified date due to instability in his knees and aggravated his cervical spine, lumbar spine, 

and bilateral knees. He opined that, based on the history, clinical examination and medical records 

reviewed, there was a causal relationship between the January 11, 1997 incident and the injuries 

to the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and bilateral knees, as well as with the “recurrent injury” at 

work which aggravated the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and bilateral knees. Dr. Faierman found 

that appellant was totally disabled.

The Board finds, however, that Dr. Faierman’s March 24, 2021 report is of limited 

probative value regarding continuing disability or residuals causally related the accepted 

January 11, 1997 employment injury. Dr. Faierman’s report is not based on a complete and 

accurate factual history as he described a mechanism of injury, i.e., hitting a cement column on 

January 11, 1997, that is not supported by the factual evidence of record. 17 He did not provide a 

rationalized medical opinion relating appellant’s condition to the accepted employment injury. As 

noted above, the Board has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal 

relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how an employment activity could 

have caused or aggravated a medical condition.18 Therefore, this report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

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 benefits and medical benefits, effective October 10, 2020, as he no longer had 

disability or residuals causally related to his accepted January 11, 1997 employment injury. The 

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

or residuals on or after October 10, 2020 causally related to his accepted January 11, 1997 

employment injury.

17 See supra note 15.

18 See supra note 12.
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 27, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 8, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board