United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, FRESNO 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Fresno, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0674

Issued: October 3, 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 April 10, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 25, 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include a left knee lateral meniscal tear as causally 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the October 25, 2022 decision, OWCP receivedadditional 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 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

related to the accepted June 15, 2017 employment injury; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied 

authorization for left knee arthroscopic surgery. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 15, 2017 appellant, then a 51-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she sustained injuries to her right low back, right hip, and 

left knee while placing a tub of mail into the hamper in the performance of duty. She stopped 

work on the date of injury.3 OWCP accepted the claim for left knee sprain.4 

A September 13, 2017 left knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed normal 

findings and no internal derangement. 

On October 10, 2017 OWCP referred appellant, together with an updated statement of 

accepted facts (SOAF), list of questions, and medical record, to Dr. Aubrey A. Swartz, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, for an opinion regarding the medical conditions caused, aggravated, 

or precipitated by the June 15, 2017 employment incident. 

In a report dated October 23, 2017, Dr. Warren J. Strudwick, Jr., a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted appellant’s history of injury and her complaints of some swelling,

locking symptoms, and sharp pain in the anterior aspect of the left knee. On examination, he 

reported left knee medial and lateral joint line tenderness with effusion, no retropatellar tenderness, 

negative pivot, negative anterior drawer, negative Lachman’s, reduced range of motion (ROM), 

and mildly laterally positive Apley’s. Dr. Strudwick related that he had reviewed appellant’s left 

knee MRI scan, and that he did not agree with the reading by the radiologist as the scan 

demonstrated a horizontal lateral meniscus anterior horn cleavage tear. He diagnosed left knee 

lateral meniscal tear. Dr. Strudwick recommended physical therapy and if that did not resolve 

appellant’s symptoms, arthroscopic and partial lateral meniscectomy surgery. 

Dr. Strudwick, in a report dated December 18, 2017, again diagnosed left knee lateral 

meniscal tear. He noted appellant’s continuing symptoms and physical examination findings. 

Dr. Strudwick recommended left knee surgery.

On January 31, 2018 appellant requested authorization for left knee arthroscopy. 

In a report dated February 5, 2018, Dr. Swartz reviewed appellant’s left knee MRI scan 

and reported that there was no evidence of any meniscal or ligamentous tear, but findings of trace 

3 The Board notes that appellant was working a part-time modified job following her accepted July 12, 2014 

employment injury. 

4 On August 8, 2017 OWCP administratively combined the current claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx768,with OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx659, with the latter designated as the master file. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx659, it accepted a 

July 12, 2014 traumatic injury claim for sacroiliac ligament sprain, aggravation of other lumbosacral intervertebral

disc displacement, intervertebral lumbosacral disc disorders with radiculopathy, right hip bursitis, and right leg 

iliotibial band syndrome. The Board notes that OWCP File No. xxxxxx659 contains subsidiary OWCP File Nos. 

xxxxxx586 and xxxxxx694. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx586,OWCP accepted acute lumbar strain and neuropathy 

due to a March17, 1997 traumatic injury. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx694,it accepted a lumbosacral strain for a 

December 2, 2002 occupational disease claim (Form CA-2). 
3

or minimal effusion. He noted that she sustained a left knee sprain as a result of the accepted 

June 15, 2017 employment injury, which would have resolved by August 1, 2017.

In a development letter dated February 27, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the proposed procedure was necessary to treat 

the effects of her accepted left knee sprain. It noted Dr. Swartz’ February 5, 2018 opinion and 

requested that if her physician disagreed with his opinion, that he provide a narrative explanation 

supported by objective findings. OWCPafforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence.

OWCP thereafter received a January 12, 2018 MRI scan of appellant’s left knee which 

reported trace effusion and no evidence of meniscus or ligament tear. In an addendum, the 

reviewing radiologist reported an area of curvilinear signal alteration at the anterolateral horn of 

the meniscus and possible adjacent cyst. 

In a March 5, 2018 report, Dr. Michael Hebrard, a physiatrist specializing in physical 

medicine and rehabilitation, noted appellant’s positive physical examination findings and

diagnosed left knee sprain. He referred her to Dr. Strudwick to consider surgical indications for 

the left knee given that she had failed physical therapy.

Dr. Strudwick, in a March 8, 2018 report, noted that it was unclear whether Dr. Swartz 

reviewed the actual MRI scan, as it clearly demonstrated a left lateral meniscus anterior horn tear. 

He explained that his October 23, 2017 report clearly outlined his disagreement with the 

radiologist’s reading, as he found the scan confirmed a tear of the anterior horn of the lateral 

meniscus. Dr. Strudwick diagnosed left knee lateral meniscal tear and recommended surgery.

By decision dated April 5, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for authorization for 

left knee arthroscopy. It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish 

that the procedure was medically necessary to treat the effects of her accepted work -related 

condition. OWCP noted that Dr. Strudwick failed to provide any medical rationale explaining the 

connection between the meniscus tear and the accepted June 15, 2017 employment injury. It 

further noted that under the master OWCP File No. xxxxxx659 appellant had been referred for a 

second opinion evaluation with Dr. Swartz. In his February 5, 2018 report, Dr. Swartz related that 

her left knee MRI scan was essentially normal. 

In a report dated April 25, 2018, Dr. Strudwick agreed with Dr. Swartz that if appellant 

had sustained a simple left knee strain that it would have resolved by now. However, appellant’s

condition has not resolved as demonstrated by her continued symptoms and objective findings 

supporting a meniscal tear. Dr. Strudwick explained that it is common to diagnosis a simple strain 

of the joint, such as a knee, at the onset, but if symptoms do not resolve with further evaluation 

and time, then one must look for another reason on why the symptoms persist. Based on his serial 

examinations, he found anterolateral joint line tenderness, positive McMurray’s, and positive 

Apley’s tests, which were signs are indicative of meniscal tearing. 

In a report dated May 8, 2018, Dr. Hebrard reviewed and concurred with Dr. Strudwick’s 

findings in his April 25, 2018 report. In support of his agreement with Dr. Strudwick’s diagnosis 

of a meniscus tear, he explained that appellant’s left knee locking and giving way and functional 

instability are consistent with a diagnosis of meniscus tear. Dr. Hebrard opined thatDr. Strudwick
4

clearly identified left knee functional deficits and the need for more definitive testing. He also 

noted that radiologists who are not specifically training in musculoskeletal medicine will not 

identify physical function disorders. 

On May 7, 2018 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. A telephonic hearing was held on October 19, 2018. 

An October 15, 2018 report from Dr. Hebrard was repetitive of priors. 

By decision dated January 3, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative set aside the April 5, 

2018 decision, finding a conflict in the medical opinion evidence between Drs. Hebrard and 

Strudwick, appellant’s treating physicians, and Dr. Swartz, OWCP’s second opinion physician, 

regarding whether she sustained a left lateral meniscus tear causally related to the accepted 

June 15, 2017 employment injury, and whether surgery was necessitated. The case was therefore 

remanded for referral for an impartial medical examination to resolve the conflict.

On March 6, 2019 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Ernest Miller, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, as an impartial medical examiner (IME), to resolve the conflict in the medical 

opinion evidence.

OWCP continued to receive reports from Dr. Hebrard. 

In a report dated April 18, 2019, Dr. Miller noted his review of the SOAF and appellant’s 

medical records. He described the June 15, 2017 employment injury, and noted her complaints of 

left knee pain without any current complaints of swelling, locking, or giving way. Dr. Miller 

provided findings on physical examination. Examination of appellant’s left knee revealed no 

evidence of swelling or effusion, no patella femoral crepitation, and patella tenderness. ROM for 

the left knee was 5 degrees to 90 degrees with pain. Dr. Miller diagnosed a resolved left knee 

sprain with failure to rehabilitate. He found no evidence of a meniscal tear on physical 

examination that day or in the examinations by Dr. Hebrard or Dr. Swartz, or on MRI scans dated 

September 13, 2017 and January 12, 2018. Dr. Miller opined that appellant’s left knee buckling 

problem could not have torn the left knee lateral or medial meniscus. He explained that there was 

no evidence of a meniscal tear based on the objective evidence. Furthermore, the medical records 

revealed that appellant did not have left knee complaints for at least two months following the 

June 15, 2017 employment injury. Dr. Miller concluded that there was no necessity for her to 

undergo left knee arthroscopy. Instead, he recommended medication and an exercise program.

On June 19, 2019 OWCP requested clarification from Dr. Miller on the cause of 

appellant’s reduced left knee ROM and treatment recommendations. 

Dr. Miller, in a supplemental report dated August 7, 2019, opined that appellant’s ROM 

limitations noted in his report were not caused by the left knee sprain. He opined that her left knee 

painful ROM limitation could represent a failure to rehabilitate the left knee sprain. However, 

appellant had no left thigh muscle atrophy, which suggested the cause was not the failure to 

rehabilitate the left knee, but possibly symptom magnification.

An August 30, 2019 report from Dr. Strudwick was unchanged from prior reports. 
5

By decision dated October 11, 2019, OWCP denied expansion of the acceptance of 

appellant’s claim to include left knee meniscus tear. It also denied authorization for left 

arthroscopic knee surgery.

On November 9, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A telephonic hearing was held on March 20, 2020. 

OWCP received a report dated December 2, 2019, report from Dr. Strudwick and reports 

dated December 2, 2019 and January 20, 2020 from Dr. Hebrard, which were repetitive of prior 

reports. 

Following the telephonic hearing, OWCP received a May 9, 2019 MRI arthrogram scan of 

appellant’s left knee, which showed thin medial plica, intact cruciate and collateral ligaments, no 

meniscal tear, and no osteochondral lesion. It also received a March 9, 2020 report form

Dr. Hebrard, which was unchanged from prior reports. 

By decision dated June 4, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative set aside the October 11, 

2019 decision, finding that OWCP failed to provide Dr. Miller with all the records for the medical 

issue in question. She found that Dr. Miller’s opinion failed to resolve the conflict in the medical 

opinion evidence. On remand, OWCP was instructed to ensure that the May 2019 MRI scan and

Dr. Swartz’ evaluation reports were provided to Dr. Miller.

In reports dated March 20 and November 24, 2020, Dr. Strudwick diagnosed lateral 

meniscal tear based on review of MRI scans. He reiterated his opinion that appellant had a left 

knee meniscus tear requiring surgery.

An October 12, 2020 progress report from Dr. Hebrard was repetitive of prior reports. 

On December 17, 2020 OWCP again referred appellant for an examination with Dr. Miller 

to resolve the conflict in the medical opinion evidence. In a February 18, 2021 supplemental 

report, Dr. Miller described the June 15, 2017 employment injury and noted her complaints of left 

knee pain without any complaints of swelling, locking, or giving way. He recounted appellant’s 

medical history, reviewed diagnostic and medical reports, and provided findings on physical 

examination. Examination of appellant’s left knee revealed no evidence of swelling or effusion, 

some anterior lateral joint line tenderness, and mild anterior drawer. Dr. Miller reported full ROM. 

He diagnosed left knee sprain and chronic moderate-to-severe pain since the accepted June 15, 

2017 injury. Dr. Miller noted the first three MRI scans were read as normal by Board-certified 

radiologists while Dr. Strudwick read the initial MRI scan as abnormal with a horizontal lateral 

meniscus cleavage tear. He advised that his opinion was unchanged from his prior report. 

Dr. Miller explained that he had reviewed the May 9, 2019 MRI scan, reiterating the lack of any

objective evidence of a left knee meniscal tear based on diagnostic testing or examination findings. 

Thus, he opined that there was no necessity for arthroscopic surgery, as there was no evidence of 

a meniscal tear. Dr. Miller noted that Dr. Strudwick recommended arthroscopic surgery to further 

evaluate appellant’s diagnosis. He indicated that he did not have any criticism of Dr. Strudwick’s 

recommendation for arthroscopic surgery to determine if there is a pathologic reason for 

appellant’s ongoing left knee complaints and symptoms. While the surgery might reveal that there 

is a torn lateral or medial meniscus, osteoarthritis, osteochondral fracture, cancer, rheumatoid 
6

arthritis, osteomyelitis, or other diagnoses, none of these diagnoses would be due to the accepted

injury of knee sprain.

A March 31, 2021 report from Dr. Hebrard was unchanged from prior reports. 

By decision dated May 18, 2021, OWCP denied expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s 

claim to include left knee meniscus tear. It also denied authorization for left arthroscopic knee 

surgery.

On May 4, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration. 

A September 7, 2021 operative report containing a preoperative diagnosis of left knee 

lateral meniscal tear and chondromalacia of the patella and postoperative diagnosis of intact lateral 

meniscus and chondromalacias of the median ridge, medial and lateral facet, and patella with 

chondral flap of the medium ridge. 

By decision dated May 6, 2022, OWCP denied modification. 

Following the May 6, 2022 decision, OWCP received MRI scans dated June 3, 2019 and

November 12, 2020. Both the June 3, 2019 and November 12, 2020 left knee MRI scans of the 

left knee showed no meniscal, cruciate, or collateral ligament injury. The November 12, 2020 

scan also showed a grade 1 chondromalacia medial patellar facet and thin medial plica.

OWCP continued to receive reports from Dr. Hebrard, which were repetitive of prior 

reports. 

On August 5, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence.

Dr. Strudwick, in a report dated July 6, 2022, noted that appellant underwent left knee 

surgery in September 2021. He reported that he suspected a left knee lateral meniscal tear and 

chondromalacia based on her ongoing symptoms since the 2017 injury. Dr. Strudwick indicated 

that he did not find a lateral meniscal tear during the surgery, but did find a cartilaginous flap 

which had been the cause of appellant’s symptoms. He reported that she had improved 

significantly since the surgery. Dr. Strudwick opined that her symptoms were causally related to 

the 2017 injury based on her continued symptoms following the injury, which continued following 

her retirement in 2018.

In an October 11, 2022 report, Dr. Hebrard noted an initial diagnosis of left knee sprain. 

He reviewed Dr. Strudwick’s July 6, 2022 report and concurred with his assessment. 

By decision dated October 25, 2022, OWCP denied modification. 
7

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

When an employee claims that, a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due 

to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is 

causally related to the employment injury.

5

To establish causal relationship, the employee must submit rationalized medical opinion 

evidence.

6

 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported 

by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the accepted employment injury.

7

 

Section 8123(a) of FECA which provides that, if there is disagreement between the 

physician making the examination for the United States and the physician of the employee, OWCP 

shall appoint a third physician (known as a referee physician or IME) who shall make an 

examination.

8

 This is called a referee examination and OWCP will select a physician who is 

qualified in the appropriate specialty and who has no prior connection with the case.

9

 When there 

exist opposing medical reports of virtually equal weight and rationale and the case is referred to 

an IME 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.

10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include a left knee lateral meniscal tear as causally 

related to the accepted June 15, 2017 employment injury.

OWCP properly determined that, a conflict existed between appellant’s treating physicians,

Dr. Hebrard and Dr. Strudwick, and Dr. Swartz, an OWCP referral physician, as to whether she

sustained left knee lateral meniscal tear due to the accepted June 15, 2017 employment injury. It 

properly referred her to Dr. Miller for an impartial medical examination to resolve the conflict 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8123(a).

5 L.R., Docket No. 21-0018 (issued February 17, 2021); D.H., Docket No. 19-9687 (issued March 31, 2021); J.R., 

Docket No. 20-0292 (issued June 26, 2020); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

6 L.R., id.; D.H., id.; E.W., Docket No. 20-0338 (issued October 9, 2020).

7 L.R., id.; D.H., id.; L.P., Docket No. 20-0609 (issued October 15, 2020); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

8

5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); M.N., Docket No. 22-0488 (issued February15, 2023); L.S., Docket No. 19-1730 (issued 

August 26, 2020); M.S., 58 ECAB 328 (2007).

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.321;M.N., id.; P.B., Docket No. 20-0984 (issued November 25, 2020); R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006).

10 See D.M., Docket No. 22-1139 (issued January 19, 2023); Y.I., Docket No. 20-0263 (issued November 30, 2020);

Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006); James P. Roberts, 31 ECAB 1010 (1980).
8

In a report dated April 18, 2019, Dr. Miller noted his review of the SOAF and the medical 

record. He opined that the June 5, 2017 injury did not cause a left knee meniscal tear. Dr. Miller 

found no examination findings or diagnostic evidence supporting a meniscal tear. Moreover, it 

did not appear that appellant had a left knee problem until two months following the injury based 

on review of the medical records. In an August 7, 2019 supplemental report, Dr. Miller opined 

that her painful left knee ROM was unrelated to the left knee sprain. He, in a February 18, 2021

report, noted his examination findings and that a review of the May 9, 2019 MRI scan did not 

change his opinion. Dr. Miller reiterated that the lack of any objective evidence supporting a left 

knee meniscal tear based on diagnostic tests or examination findings. Thus, he concluded that 

there was no evidence of a left knee meniscal tear causally related to the accepted June 15, 2017 

employment injury

The Board finds that Dr. Miller accurately described the accepted employment injury and 

noted his review of the medical record. Dr. Miller performed a thorough clinical examination, 

reviewed medical evidence and the SOAF, and provided detailed findings. He provided a 

rationalized opinion regarding whether appellant’s claim should be expanded, finding that there 

was no evidence of a left knee lateral meniscal tear resulting from the accepted June 15, 2017 

employment injury. Dr. Miller’s opinion, as set forth in his reports constitutes probative and 

reliable evidence. The Board therefore finds that his opinion is entitled to the special weight 

accorded to an IME with regard to the issue of whether acceptance of appellant’s claim should be 

expanded to include a left knee lateral meniscal tear.11 Consequently, appellant has not met her 

burden of proof to expand the acceptance of her claim.

OWCP subsequently received additional reports from Dr. Strudwick and Dr. Hebrard.

Dr. Strudwick, in a report dated July 6, 2022, noted that appellant underwent left knee surgery in 

September 2021, during which he did not find a lateral meniscal tear, but did find a cartilaginous 

flap which had been the cause of her symptoms. In an October 11, 2022 report, Dr. Hebrard noted

that he had reviewed Dr. Strudwick’s July 6, 2022 report and concurred with his assessment. 

While both Dr. Strudwick and Dr. Hebrard ultimately concurred that appellant had not sustained 

a lateral meniscal tear, they continued to opine that her left knee condition, was causally related to 

the accepted employment injury. Both Dr. Hebrard and Dr. Strudwick, were on one side of the 

conflict resolved by Dr. Miller. The Board has held that reports from a physician who was on one 

side of a medical conflict are generally insufficient to overcome the special weight accorded to the 

IME, or to create a new conflict.

12

 The reports from Dr. Hebrard and Dr. Strudwick, thus, are

insufficient to overcome the special weight accorded to Dr. Miller’s opinion, or to create a new 

conflict in medical opinion regarding expansion of appellant’s claim.

13

11 F.A., Docket No. 20-1652 (issued May 21, 2021); W.C., Docket No. 19-1740 (issued June4, 2020); M.M., Docket 

No. 16-1655 (issued April 4, 2018).

12 See P.T., Docket No. 22-0841 (issued January 26, 2023); N.U.,Docket No. 20-1022 (issued January 25, 2022);

W.C., id.

13 Id.
9

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish expansion of appellant’s claim 

to include a left knee lateral meniscal tear as causally related to the accepted June 15, 2017 

employment injury, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8103(a) of FECA provides for the furnishing of services, appliances, and supplies 

prescribed or recommended by a qualified physician which OWCP, under authority delegated by 

the Secretary, considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce the degree or the period of disability, or 

aid in lessening the amount of monthly compensation.14 In interpreting section 8103(a), the Board 

has recognized that OWCP has broad discretion in approving services provided under FECA to 

ensure that an employee recovers from his or her injury to the fullest extent possible in the shortest 

amount of time.

15

 OWCP has administrative discretion in choosing the means to achieve this goal 

and the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of reasonableness. Abuse of discretion is 

generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or 

actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deductions from established facts. It 

is not enough to merely show that the evidence could be construed so as to produce a contrary 

factual conclusion.

16

While OWCP is obligated to pay for treatment of employment-related conditions, a 

claimant has the burden of proof to establish that the expenditure is incurred for treatment of the 

effects of an employment-related injury or condition.

17

 In order to prove that a procedure is 

warranted, a claimant must establish that the procedure was for a condition causally related to the 

employment injury and that the procedure was medically warranted. Both of these criteria must 

be met in order for OWCP to authorize payment.18

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied authorization for the left arthroscopic knee 

surgery.

As previously noted, OWCP properly found a conflict in the medical opinion evidence 

relating to whether appellant’s claim should be expanded to include left knee lateral meniscal tear

and whether arthroscopic repair should be authorized.

In his reports dated April 18, 2019 and February 18, 2021, Dr. Miller, the IME, opined that 

appellant’s left knee arthroscopic surgery was not necessary or appropriate to treat her accepted 

14 Supra note 10.

15 Id. at § 8103.

16 L.R., supra note 5; E.L., Docket No. 17-1445 (issued December 18, 2018);L.W., 59 ECAB 471 (2008); P.P., 58 

ECAB 673 (2007); Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214 (1990).

17 See L.R., id.; L.S., Docket No. 18-1746 (issued April9, 2019); Kennett O. Collins, Jr., 55 ECAB 648, 654 (2004).

18 Id.
10

work-related condition of left knee sprain. His opinion is entitled to the special weight accorded 

to an IME with regard to the issue of authorization for the left arthroscopic knee surgery.

19

 As the 

conditions for which surgery was requested are not employment related, the procedure was not 

medically warranted.20 Thus, the Board finds that OWCP has not abused its discretion by denying 

appellant authorization for left arthroscopic knee surgery.

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 appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of her claim should be expanded to include a left lateral meniscal tear as causally 

related to the accepted June 15, 2017 employment injury. The Board further finds that OWCP 

properly denied her request for authorization for left knee arthroscopic surgery.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT October 25, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 3, 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

19 See L.R., supra note 5; Y.I., supra note 10; Darlene R. Kennedy, supra note 10.

20 J.B., Docket No. 21-0854 (issued May 18, 2023); see D.S., Docket No. 19-1698 (issued June 18, 2020).