United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CASTLE ROCK POST 

OFFICE, Castle Rock, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0145

Issued: September 12, 2023

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 9, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 15, 2022 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP has met its burden of proof to reduce appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation, effective February 17, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8113(b), for failure to cooperate 

with vocational rehabilitation without good cause.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 10, 2005 appellant, then a 42-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 8, 2005 she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle 

accident while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on January 10, 2005. OWCP 

accepted appellant’s claim for lumbosacral sprain/strain, neck sprain/strain, forehead contusion, 

and acute contusion of abdominal wall. It subsequently expanded the acceptance of the claim to 

include displacement of cervical intervertebral disc without myelopathy. OWCP accepted a 

recurrence of disability on January 8, 2010 and paid appellant appropriate wage-loss compensation 

on its supplemental rolls from January 8 through August 20, 2010.3 Appellant stopped work 

completely on October 17, 2012, and has not returned.4 Effective July 28, 2013, OWCP paid her 

wage-loss compensation on its periodic rolls. 

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

(SOAF), the case record, and a series of questions to Dr. Carolyn Yang, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation regarding the nature and extent of her 

employment injury and work capacity. In an October 9, 2020 report, Dr. Yang indicated that she 

reviewed appellant’s records and noted the accepted conditions in the claim. She reported 

appellant’s complaints and presented physical examination findings. In response to OWCP’s 

questions, Dr. Yang indicated that objective findings supported that appellant had residuals from 

her work-related injuries, which included left-sided cervical radiculopathy with persistent 

numbness in the C7-T1 distribution and weakness of her left upper extremity and decreased range 

of motion of the cervical spine. She opined that it would be unsafe for appellant to return to her 

position as a rural carrier as she was not able to turn her neck safely for driving, she had restrictions 

relating to driving a motor vehicle due to narcotic medications, and she had some weight bearing 

restrictions due to cervical pain. Dr. Yang opined that appellant did not requireany further medical 

treatment and could return to sedentary or light work. She reviewed job classification descriptions

for information clerk, receptionist, and customer service representative positions and indicated that 

those were the kinds of jobs that were within appellant’s work restrictions. In an October 9, 2020 

work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Yang indicated that appellant was able to work 

eight hours a day in a permanent sedentary- or light-duty position. 

On November 4, 2020 OWCP referred appellant to a vocational rehabilitation counselor. 

It noted that appellant’s work restrictions were based on Dr. Yang’s October 9, 2020 second 

opinion report and Form OWCP-5c.

Appellant subsequently underwent vocational evaluation. Vocational testing was 

completed on January 26, 2021, and a transferable skill analysis was conducted on March 8, 2021. 

In a May 17, 2021 letter, the vocational rehabilitation counselor recommended that appellant 

undergo short-term training to learn Microsoft office systems. She documented a short training 

plan proposal for computer training at a local college. On June 24, 2021 the rehabilitation 

counselor completed updated labor market surveys for the positions of customer service 

3 OWCP paid reduced wage-loss compensation from July 3 through August 20, 2010 following appellant’s return 

to part-time work.

4 On March 9, 2010 appellant underwent anterior cervical discectomy, partial corpectomy, foraminotomy and 

neural decompression followed by instrumental interbody fusion at C4-5 and C5-6. On June 4, 2013 she underwent 

left C5-8 and C6-7 foraminotomies on June 4, 2013. 
3

representative, Department of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) No. 239.362-014;

information clerk, DOT No. 237.367-022; and receptionist, DOT No. 237.367-038, which she 

noted Dr. Yang had approved as viable employment options for appellant. In her reports, she 

documented that appellant did not believe she could participate in vocational rehabilitation and 

was working with her medical providers to provide such documentation. 

On July 26, 2021 the vocational rehabilitation counselor recommended a rehabilitation 

plan for appellant to undergo online training which included the purchase of a laptop computer 

and software. On August 1, 2021 appellant signed the rehabilitation plan and award form. 

In a letter dated August 17, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that it had approved the 

training plan developed by her vocational rehabilitation counselor for her return to work as a 

receptionist, customer service representative, or an information clerk, and its determination that 

those job duties were within her medical restrictions. It authorized up to $500.00 for a laptop and 

up to $150.00 for Microsoft office software. OWCPalso authorized 90 days of placement services 

after the necessary training was completed. It advised appellant that she was expected to cooperate 

fully so that she may return to work in the specified job or one similar to it. OWCP informed 

appellant that, if she failed to cooperate fully, it would assume that the vocational services would 

have resulted in a wage-earning capacity and, therefore, would reduce her compensation, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8113 and 20 C.F.R. § 10.519.

In a September 27, 2021 report, the vocational rehabilitation counselor reported that 

appellant had been resistant to vocational services during the past month. Appellant was slow to 

enroll in the required training. The rehabilitation counselor related that appellant saw her 

orthopedist who reportedly told her that she was 65 percent disabled. 

OWCP subsequently received a September 14, 2021 report, wherein Dr. Travis C. Philipp, 

an orthopedic surgeon, noted appellant’s history of injury and medical treatment. He indicated 

that she had not worked since 2012 and was considering retraining for desk-type work. Dr. Philipp 

rated appellant’s neck disability index score at 62 percent. He noted her physical examination 

findings and opined that, in the absence of radiculopathy, myelopathy or spinal instability, she was 

not currently a surgical candidate. Dr. Philipp opined that appellant should maintain her current 

multidisciplinary regimen, including physical therapy and pharmacologic management, as she was 

overall able to manage her symptoms. 

In an undated statement, received on October 19, 2021, appellant asserted that she was 

never reimbursed for the new computer and Microsoft program that she bought for her training 

class. She contended that, with her neck condition, it was very difficult to sit and work on a 

computer as her neck seized up and she developed massive headaches, which sometimes lasted for 

days. Appellant also related that she could not safely drive a car due to her neck condition. 

In a November 11, 2021 rehabilitation action report (Form OWCP-44), the vocational 

rehabilitation counselor noted that appellant began her training classes as planned and initially 

appeared to actively participate in her program. However, on October 5, 2021, appellant related 

that her father was gravely ill and she had fallen behind on course work, but was working to catch

up. The vocational rehabilitation counselor indicated that, as of November 2, 2021, appellant was 

missing several assignments, she did not pass her course, and she did not answer telephone calls

or respond to e-mails. She checked again on November 11, 2021 and appellant still had a failing 

grade and was still missing several assignments. The vocational rehabilitation counselor further 
4

noted that the term would end on December 2, 2021 and while appellant may still be able to turn 

the work in and pass her course, she had stopped communicating and was not participating in her 

training program. A copy of appellant’s grades and assignments were attached. The vocational 

rehabilitation counselor continued to report on appellant’s lack of participation in the approved 

training plan. 

On December 15, 2021 OWCP interrupted vocational rehabilitation services, pending 

appellant’s compliance. On December 22, 2021 the vocational rehabilitation counselor reported 

that appellant had not completed her training program. 

By notice dated December 29, 2021, OWCP proposed to reduce appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation because she did not fully cooperate with vocational rehabilitation training. It noted 

that she had not undertaken the training because of her father’s health problems and nonreimbursement of a laptop. OWCP noted that the results of the tests and evaluations performed 

by the rehabilitation counselor as well as medical evidence from Dr. Yang demonstrated that she

had the ability to successfully complete the training program which would provide her with the 

knowledge and skills necessary for placement effort in the fields of clerk, customer service 

representative, and/or receptionist. It again directed appellant to undergo the approved training 

program and provided her 30 days to either make necessary arrangements to participate in the 

training program or submit additional evidence to support good cause if she disagreed with the 

proposed reduction of compensation. No response was received.

By decision dated February 17, 2022, OWCP finalized the December 29, 2021 proposed 

reduction of appellant’s wage-loss compensation, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 8104 and 8113(b), 

because she failed, without good cause, to undergo vocational rehabilitation as directed. It 

included the DOT No. 239.362-014, position description and physical requirements for a customer 

service representative, which it noted to be sedentary strength level. OWCP further noted that the 

physical requirements of the customer service representative position did not exceed appellant’s 

current work restrictions as provided by Dr. Yang on October 9, 2020 and was, therefore, 

medically suitable. It indicated that had appellant successfully completed the approved vocational 

rehabilitation program, she would have been capable of securing reemployment as a customer 

service representative, which had an entry-level wage of $768.65 per week. OWCP applied the 

Shadrick formula,5finding that she had 80 percent wage-earning capacity. It reduced appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation, effective that date.

On March 3, 2022 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearing and Review. In a March 1, 2022 statement, she contended that

Dr. Yang supported that her work-related conditions were still present and her decreased/lack of 

range of motion in the cervical spine/neck were issues that affected her work on a computer and 

no treatment would improve her ability to do the tasks required. She provided a copy of a 

November 21, 2021 e-mail she sent to her vocational rehabilitation counselor, which stated that 

she could not physically do the computer work as it caused her horrible pain and anxiety, as well 

as a copy of the vocational rehabilitation counselor’s November 21, 2021 response. Appellant 

also resubmitted Dr. Philipp’s September 14, 2021 report.

5 Albert C. Shadrick, 5 ECAB 376 (1953); codified at 20 C.F.R. § 10.403.
5

By decision dated June 15, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

February 17, 2022 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Once OWCP accepts a claim, it has the burden of proof to establish that the disability has 

ceased or lessened before it may terminate or modify compensation benefits.6 Section 8104(a) of 

FECA provides that OWCP may direct a permanently disabled employee to undergo vocational 

rehabilitation.7

Section 8113(b) of FECA8 provides:

“If an individual without good cause fails to apply for and undergo vocational 

rehabilitation when so directed under section 8104 of this title, the Secretary, on 

review under section 8128 of this title and after finding that in the absence of the 

failure the wage-earning capacity of the individual would probably have 

substantially increased, may reduce prospectively the monetary compensation of 

the individual in accordance with what would probably have been his wage-earning 

capacity in the absence of the failure, until the individual in good faith complies 

with the direction of the Secretary.”

9

Section 10.519 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations details the actions OWCP 

will take when an employee without good cause fails or refuses to apply for, undergo, participate 

in, or continue to participate in a vocational rehabilitation effort when so directed. Section 

10.519(a) provides, in pertinent part:

“Where a suitable job has been identified, OWCP will reduce the employee’s future 

monetary compensation based on the amount, which would likely have been his or 

her wage-earning capacity had he or she undergone vocational rehabilitation. [It] 

will determine this amount in accordance with the job identified through the 

vocational rehabilitation planning process, which includes meetings with the 

OWCP nurse and the [employing establishment]. The reduction will remain in 

effect until such time as the employee acts in good faith to comply with the direction 

of OWCP.”

10

OWCP’s procedures state that specific instances of noncooperation include a failure to 

appear for the initial interview, counseling sessions or other interviews conducted by the 

rehabilitation counselor, vocational testing sessions, and work evaluations, lack of response or 

6

S.B., Docket No. 19-0781 (issued February 2, 2022); S.C., Docket No. 19-1680 (issued May 27, 2020); Betty F. 

Wade, 37 ECAB 556 (1986).

7

Supra note 1 at § 8104(a).

8

Supra note 1.

9

Id. at § 8113(b).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.519(a).
6

inappropriate response to directions in a testing session, as well as failure to attend an approved 

training program.11

ANALYSIS

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

compensation, effective February 17, 2022, for failure to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation 

without good cause.

When determining whether OWCP properly reduced appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

benefits based on herfailure to participate in vocational rehabilitation, the Board must first analyze 

whether OWCP properly determined appellant’s work restrictions and ability to work.12 OWCP 

referred appellant to vocational rehabilitation based on the October 9, 2020 report of Dr. Yang, an 

OWCP second opinion examiner, who conducted an examination and opined that appellant 

continued to suffer residuals of her accepted work-related injuries. Dr. Yang indicated that 

appellant could not work at her date-of-injury position but could work full time in a permanent 

sedentary or light category position, such as that of an information clerk, receptionist, or customer 

service representative, positions for which she had reviewed job classification descriptions. As

Dr. Yang’s report was sufficiently rationalized and based on the objective findings of record, the 

Board finds that OWCP properly determined that Dr. Yang’s opinion represents the weight of the 

medical evidence and, accordingly, that appellant had the physical capacity to perform the duties 

of a customer service representative.13 The position was classified as sedentary, which the Board 

finds falls within the sedentary work requirements set forth by Dr. Yang.

Based on Dr. Yang’s findings, OWCP referred appellant for vocational rehabilitation. The 

vocational rehabilitation counselor indicated that appellant had the vocational capacity to perform 

the positions of an information clerk, receptionist, or customer service representative, as identified 

by Dr. Yang, and provided a rehabilitation plan, including online computer training, which OWCP 

approved. On November 11, 2021 she informed OWCP that while appellant had initially appeared 

to actively participate in her classes at a local college as planned, on October 5, 2021 she related 

that her father was gravely ill and she had fallen behind on course work. While appellant indicated 

she was working to catch up, the rehabilitation counselor documented on November 2 and 11, 

2021 that appellant had not completed several assignments, she had failing grades, and she did not 

answer her telephone or respond to her e-mails. She concluded that the semester term would end 

on December 2, 2021 and that appellant had stopped communicating with her and was not 

participating in her training program. The vocational rehabilitation counselor thereafter continued 

to report on appellant’s lack of participation in the approved training plan. OWCP’s procedures 

state that specific instances of noncooperation include lack of response or inappropriate response 

to directions in a testing session, as well as failure to attend an approved training program; failure 

to attend classes; failure to apply appropriate effort to succeed in such classes; and failure to 

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Vocational Rehabilitation Services,Non-Cooperation and Sanction 

Decisions, Chapter 2.813.17 (February 2011).

12 See J.S.,Docket No. 22-0386 (issued October 19, 2022); F.N., Docket No. 20-0435 (issued February 26, 2021);

L.C., Docket No. 12-972 (issued November 9, 2012).

13 See S.C., supra note 6; see also M.P., Docket No. 19-1364 (issued February 4, 2020).
7

undergo training after a training program had been approved.14 The Board finds that the evidence 

of record establishes that appellant failed to continue in vocational rehabilitation with out good 

cause.

Appellant has alleged that she was unable to continue vocational rehabilitation as she could 

not physically sit and complete the required computer tasks due to her neck condition. While she

correctly noted that Dr. Philipp, in his September 14, 2021 report, rated her disability score at 62 

percent, Dr. Philipp failed to offer any opinion regarding her ability to participate in the vocational 

rehabilitation training plan or perform sedentary work as a customer service representative. An 

appellant cannot self-certify her own medical condition or physical limitations.

15

 While appellant 

also alleged that Dr. Yang supported that she continued to suffer residuals of her work-related 

conditions and she still was under medical treatment, Dr. Yang specially supported that the 

targeted positions were within appellant’s medical limitations. She submitted no medical evidence 

which established that her work-related conditions prevented her from participating in the online 

training or which explained why she could not return to work as a customer service representative. 

Thus, there is no evidence that appellant had good cause for her failure to continue vocational 

rehabilitation. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant had, without 

good cause, failed to continue vocational rehabilitation.16 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8113(b) and the 

implementing regulations, OWCP may reduce appellant’s compensation based on the amount 

which would likely have been her wage-earning capacity had she undergone vocational 

rehabilitation. The vocational rehabilitation counselor identified the position of customer service 

representative, DOT No. 239.362-014, with wages of $768.65 per week. This represents the 

amount, which would likely have been appellant’s wage-earning capacity had she completed 

vocational rehabilitation. OWCP followed its procedures and advised her that, if she did not 

continue vocational rehabilitation, her compensation would be reduced. It properly applied the 

Shadrick formula, as codified in section 10.403 of its regulations, 17 in determining appellant’s 

wage-earning capacity and reducing her compensation. The Board, thus, finds that appellant had, 

without good cause, failed to continue participation in vocational rehabilitation. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP has met its burden of proof to reduce appellant’s 

compensation, effective February 17, 2022, for failure to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation 

without good cause.

14 Supra note 12.

15 See B.M., Docket No. 19-1075 (issued February10, 2021); R.A.,Docket No. 19-1752 (issued March 25, 2020);

A.W., Docket No. 18-0589 (issued May 14, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

16 J.S., supra note 12; D.T., Docket No. 16-1590 (issued January 17, 2018); M.K., Docket No. 16-1676 (issued 

February 16, 2017).

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.403.
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 15, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 12, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board