United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

St. Louis, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0854

Issued: May 18, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 19, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 8, 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.3

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.

3 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP following the April 8, 2021 decision. 

However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the 

case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCPat the time of its final 

decision 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP abused its discretion by denying authorization for additional 

cervical surgery. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 13, 2009 appellant, then a 50-year-old data entry operator, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 6, 2009 she sustained injuries to her neck 

while in the performance of duty. In an accompanying statement, she indicated that the injury 

occurred while lifting several boxes.

December 21, 2009 electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) studies 

revealed evidence of severe peripheral neuropathy at the median nerves. 

A July 23, 2010 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine read by

Dr. Greg A. Jamroz, a diagnostic radiology specialist, revealed C3-C4 diffuse disc bulging with 

mild central canal narrowing; C4-C5 diffuse disc bulging with small superimposed central disc 

protrusion, and mild central canal narrowing; and C5-C6 moderate-size right disc protrusion, with 

flattening of the right anterior aspect of the cervical cord, moderate central canal narrowing and 

moderate bilateral neural foraminal narrowing.

OWCP accepted the claim for neck sprain, displacement of cervical intervertebral disc, 

cervical spondylosis without myelopathy, C5-C6 and C6-C7 displacement of cervical disc, C5-C6

cervical spondylosis without myelopathy, and C5-C6 spinal stenosis.

4

 Appellant underwent 

OWCP-approved cervical surgery on March 20, 2014, performed by Dr. Donald A. deGrange, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. The procedure performed included C5-C6 partial corpectomy 

with decompression of the spinal cord and nerve roots; C5-C6 anterior cervical fusion with 

allograft; C6-C7anterior cervical discectomy with decompression of spinal cord and nerve roots;

C6-C7 anterior cervical fusion with allograft; C5-C7 anterior segmental instrumentation with 

cervical plate. 

A February 8, 2018 MRI scan read by Dr. Albert Hammerman, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, revealed mild disc bulging at C2-C3, mild posterior disc bulging at C3-C4 

with mild foraminal narrowing on the right; C4-C5 mild-to-moderate posterior disc bulging mildly 

impressing on the adjacent cervical cord; postsurgical changes at C5-C6 and C6-C7, disc bulging, 

and foraminal narrowing. 

In a May 16, 2019 report, Dr. deGrange diagnosed a C4-C5 herniated nucleus pulposus 

(HNP). After reviewing the February 8, 2018 MRI scan, he noted that it revealed findings of a 

central disc herniation at C4-C5 and a small bulge at C3-C4. Dr. deGrange recommended a C4-C5 

cervical discectomy and fusion. He advised that appellant had a congenital spinal stenosis 

condition that remained present.

4 Appellant has a separate claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx962 for an April27, 2005 injury, accepted for minor 

thoracic sprain and preexisting disc bulge in the cervical area. OWCP denied claimsfor carpal tunnel syndrome due 

to work factors on September 9, 2013 and September 21, 2016 under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx847 and xxxxxx731.
3

On June 10, 2019 OWCP denied authorization for exploration of spinal fusion, neck spine 

fusion and removal of Bel C2, insert spine fixation device and “SP Bone Algrft Struct Add-On.”

In a June 14, 2019 report, Dr. deGrange noted appellant’s history of injury and treatment

and related that she had received multiple epidural injections that no longer provided relief. He

examined her and noted her complaints of neck pain with bilateral upper extremity pain, tingling, 

numbness, and weakness. Dr. deGrange explained that appellant’s symptoms were present on a 

daily basis and were moderate to severe. He noted that a February 2018 MRI scan revealed solid 

fusions at C5-C6 and C6-C7 and a new herniation at C4-C5. Dr. deGrange opined that the prior 

work-related fusion at C5-C6 and C6-C7 was the principal cause of appellant’s further 

degeneration and herniation at C4-C5. He explained that adjacent segment degeneration, also 

known as breakdown, was a well-recognized cause of adjacent segment disease above or below 

the prior fusion levels.

In a July 18, 2019 report, Dr. deGrange noted that he had requested authorization for

hardware removal, fusion exploration at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and decompression and fusion at 

C4-C5. He explained that authorization had been received for hardware removal, but not the other

requested procedures. Dr. deGrange opined that it made no sense to perform the operation to

remove the hardware without the authorization for the C4-C5 decompression and fusion. He 

explained that the prior work-related fusion at C5-C6 and C6-C7 was a well-recognized cause of 

adjacent segment disease, either above or below the prior fusion levels, and opined that the recent 

disc herniation discovered at C4-C5 was the result of the initial work-related injury.

On August 21, 2019 OWCP expanded acceptance of the claim to include the additional 

conditions of C4-C5 herniated nucleus pulposus, and C4-C5 disc degeneration as causally related 

to the accepted work injury.

On August 21, 2019 OWCP referred the case record and a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) to Dr. Kenechukwu Ugokwe, Board-certified in emergency medicine and serving as the 

OWCP district medical adviser (DMA), for review and an opinion on whether the procedures 

proposed by Dr. deGrange were medically warranted and causally related to the accepted, workrelated medical conditions. 

In a September 19, 2019 report, Dr. Ugokwe noted appellant’s history of injury and 

treatment and the proposed procedures, and advised that he had reviewed reports from

Dr. deGrange dated June 14 and July 18, 2019. He agreed that the current condition was causally 

related to the original work injury because appellant did not have neck pain prior to the work 

injury. However, Dr. Ugokwe advised that he did not agree with Dr. deGrange that the requested 

surgery was medically necessary because there was no recent MRI scan showing significant 

stenosis at C4-C5.

An October 3, 2019 MRI scan of the cervical spine read by Dr. James Douglas, a Boardcertified diagnostic radiologist, revealed that appellant was post C5-C7 anterior/interbody fusion 

with slight straightening of the normal cervical lordosis, but no fracture or subluxation, and 

multilevel disc profile abnormalities and/or spur-disc complexes which contributed to mild-tomoderate multilevel central canal stenosis and multilevel foraminal encroachment. Regarding the 

C4-C5 level, Dr. Douglas noted that the MRI scan revealed left paracentral disc protrusion with 
4

ventral cord contact and flattening, a shallow posterior disc bulge resulting in mild bilateral 

foraminal encroachment, and an AP diameter of the central canal of seven millimeters.

On October 9, 2019 OWCP requested that the DMA, Dr. Ugokwe, review the additional 

medical evidence and provide an updated opinion on the pending request for surgery authorization. 

In an October 31, 2019 report, Dr. Ugokwe explained that he did not agree that the surgery 

was medically necessary because the October 3, 2019 MRI scan report did not show any 

significant stenosis.

On November 5, 2019 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Jose A. Marchosky, a Board-certified neurosurgery specialist, for a current evaluation of the 

accepted conditions and a reasoned medical opinion addressing the request for surgical 

intervention.

In a December 19, 2019 report, Dr. Marchosky noted appellant’s history of injury and 

medical treatment, and provided appellant’s physical examination findings. He diagnosed carpal 

tunnel syndrome of the left and right upper extremities; spondylosis without myelopathy or 

radiculopathy, cervical region; and unspecified obesity. Dr. Marchosky opined that, more likely 

than not, appellant’s ongoing complaints were due to peripheral neuropathy from nerve entrapment 

at the carpal tunnel bilaterally. He explained that a July 23, 2010 MRI scan of the cervical spine 

showed degenerative disc disease at C3-C4, C4-C5, and C5-C6 which had preceded the 

November 6, 2009 work injury by several years. Dr. Marchosky opined that a right paracentral 

disc protrusion at C5-C6 could not have been the result of the work injury and explained that 2010 

EMG/NCV studies, several weeks after the work injury, revealed severe peripheral neuropathy at 

the median nerves, suggesting that wasthe more likely diagnosis for her presenting symptoms. He

noted that in December 2014, appellant underwent C5-C6 and C6-C7 discectomies and fusion and 

opined that her persistent pain and paresthesias in the upper extremities after the surgery suggested 

the true cause of her symptoms had not been treated. Dr. Marchosky also noted that the 2018 and 

2019 MRI scans of the cervical spine confirmed progressive degenerative disc and spondylotic 

disease at the level above the fusion segments and two and three levels above. He explained that 

this mitigated the assumption that this was only an adjacent level syndrome of the cervical spine. 

Dr. Marchosky noted that although 25 percent of patients who underwent anterior cervical fusion 

would develop adjacent level disease, the data was contradictory to the assumption that adjacent 

level disease was due only or mostly to the immobilization adjacent to the progression. He opined 

that, rather than embarking on treatment of the adjacent level syndrome, appellant should undergo 

release of the carpal tunnel entrapment of the median nerves as a first therapeutic and diagnostic 

procedure. Dr. Marchosky explained that, if a majority of the symptoms were alleviated by carpal 

tunnel release, then another major operation in the cervical spine with dubious benefits and the 

risk of accelerating degeneration of C3-C4, would be avoided. He explained that the clinical 

findings were substantial enough to indicate the disease process was entrapment of the median 

nerve at the carpal tunnel and noted that the December 21, 2009, EMG/NCV studies were 

indicative of median nerve entrapment neuropathy. Dr. Marchosky noted that, if further 

confirmation was needed, EMG/NCV testing could be repeated, but there was no need to do so.

On January 22, 2020 OWCP determined that a conflict of medical opinion evidence existed 

between Dr. Marchosky, the second opinion physician, and Dr. deGrange, appellant’s treating 

physician, with regard to whether the cervical spine surgery authorization requested by
5

Dr. deGrange was medically necessary and causally related to the accepted employment 

conditions.

On February 3, 2020 OWCP referred appellant for an impartial medical evaluation with

Dr. Michael H. Ralph, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon selected as an impartial medical 

examiner (IME), to resolve the conflict. It provided Dr. Ralph with a SOAF, the medical record, 

and a series of questions.

In a report dated March 4, 2020, Dr. Ralph reviewed the history of injury, medical 

treatment, and the SOAF. He examined appellant and provided detailed examination findings.

Dr. Ralph noted that appellant had EMG/NCV studies prior to the spinal fusion at C5-C6 and 

C6-C7 performed by Dr. deGrange in 2014, which were highly indicative of no nerve root 

compression in the neck. He also noted that she had bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome which had

not been addressed. Dr. Ralph advised that his physical examination revealed marked limitation 

of forward flexion and internal rotation of both shoulders, suggestive of either adhesive capsulitis 

or primary glenohumeral arthritis. He noted a positive Phalen’s test on both hands and that 

appellant complained of waking up at night. Dr. Ralph found there had been no surgical treatment 

for either wrist, range of motion of the elbows and wrists were normal, muscle strength testing 

throughout the upper extremities was normal, reflexes were normal, except for some slight 

decrease in the triceps on the left side, and muscle mass was within normal limits. He noted that 

he reviewed the 2018 and 2019 MRI scans of the cervical spine which revealed minimal changes 

at C4-C5, except for some narrowing of the cervical canal, not of a severe nature. Dr. Ralph noted 

that the 2019 MRI scan showed some stenosis of the nerve root on the left side between C6 and 

C7 that was not any different than the 2018 MRI scan and the description prior to surgery. He 

opined that appellant had some medical conditions that had not been addressed and were 

symptomatic, to include bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, adhesive capsulitis, and degenerative 

arthritis of both shoulders. While he advised that those conditions required treatment, Dr. Ralph

opined that they were unrelated to her work activity. He explained that there can be secondary 

problems long-term after multiple level fusionsin the cervical spine, but that was not the case here. 

Dr. Ralph advised that appellant’s current symptomatology was related to carpal tunnel syndrome 

and primary problems with both shoulders and that she did not require surgical treatment for her 

neck. He opined that from a medical standpoint, it would not be in her best interest to undergo 

surgical treatment at C4-C5.

By decision dated March 9, 2020, OWCP denied authorization for exploration of spinal 

fusion, neck spinal fusion and remove Bel C2, insert spine fixation device and “SP bone ALGRFT
6

Struct Add-On.” It explained that the evidence did not support that the requested surgery was

medically necessary “to address the effects of [her] work-related conditions under FECA.”

On March 17, 2020 counsel for appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on July 16, 2020. 

By decision dated October 1, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the March 9, 

2020 decision as the special weight of the evidence was represented by the report of the IME,

Dr. Ralph.5

On February 15, 2021 counsel for appellant requested reconsideration and submitted new 

medical evidence from Dr. deGrange.

In a report dated January 28, 2021, Dr. deGrange noted that he performed the surgery on 

appellant for a two-level disc herniation at C5-C6 and C6-C7 in March 2014. He explained that 

despite good relief, in the ensuing six to seven years, appellant started to develop increasingly 

severe neck pain owing to a disc herniation at C4-C5, which was just above the previously fused 

levels. Dr. deGrange referred to the October 3, 2019 MRI scan of the cervical spine and noted that 

it revealed C4-C5 left paracentral disc protrusion with ventral cord contact and flattening and an 

AP diameter of the central canal of seven millimeters. He explained that the “key concept” was 

that there was flattening of the spinal cord and that the seven-millimeter diameter was severe 

stenosis compared to the normal diameter at that level, which is expected to be 12 to 15 

millimeters. Dr. deGrange advised that the rationale for the requested surgery was that

“[d]ecompression of the area would relieve the flattening of the spinal cord and provide resolution 

of the spinal stenosis.” He opined that if the evidence of cord contact and flattening did not 

constitute stenosis, “I do not know what would.” Dr. deGrange also recommended bilateral carpal 

tunnel surgery prior to the spinal fusion, as the hands recovered more quickly, and appellantwould 

experience relief from the troubling symptoms. 

In a February 19, 2021 report, Dr. deGrange noted that the diagnostic studies, including 

the 2018 and 2019 MRI scans of the cervical spine, revealed a disc herniation at C4-C5 which had 

noticeably worsened and now there was compression of the spinal cord that was not present earlier. 

He explained that the spinal compression was causing flattening and deformed the cord, and cord 

signal changes were inevitable. Dr. deGrange also determined that there was complete effacement 

of the cerebrospinal fluid around the cord, consistent with moderate-to-severe spinal stenosis. He 

also found a smaller disc herniation at C3-C4, without the attendant compression of the cord. 

Dr. deGrange diagnosed C4-C5 herniated disc and opined that based upon appellant’s subjective 

complaints and objective findings on physical examination and diagnostic studies, she was a 

candidate for the C4-C5 decompression and fusion. He explained that, while the DMA did not 

find any significant stenosis, the 2019 MRI scan report noted “C4-C5: Left paracentral disc 

protrusion with ventral cord contact and flattening” and “AP diameter of the central canal of 7 

mm.” Dr. deGrange explained that this was a “textbook definition of spinal stenosis regardless of 

the omission of those specific words.” Furthermore, he opined “[f]lattening of the spinal cord is 

5 On December 21, 2020 appellant’s representative filed an appeal with the Board, assigned Docket No. 21-0825. 

On February 15, 2021counsel for appellant requested that the appeal be dismissed. The Board subsequently dismissed 

the appeal on February 26, 2021. Docket No. 21-0825 (issued February 26, 2021). 
7

the consequence of spinal stenosis.” Dr. deGrange requested that a Board-certified neurosurgeon 

review the case.

By decision dated April 8, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its October 10, 2020 

decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8103(a) of FECA6 provides that the United States shall furnish to an employee who 

is injured while in the performance of duty, the services, appliances, and supplies prescribed by or 

recommended by a qualified physician, which OWCP considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce 

the degree or the period of disability, or aid in lessening the amount of the monthly compensation. 7 

In interpreting this section of FECA, the Board has recognized that OWCP has broad discretion in 

determining whether a particular type of treatment is likely to cure or give relief. 8 The only 

limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of reasonableness.9

While OWCP is obligated to pay fortreatment of employment-related conditions, appellant 

has the burden of proof to establish that the expenditures were incurred for treatment of the effects 

of an employment-related injury or condition.10 Proof of causal relationship in a case such as this 

must include supporting rationalized medical evidence.11 In order for a surgical procedure to be 

authorized, appellant must establish that the procedure was for a condition causally related to the 

employment injury and that the procedure was medically warranted.12 Both of these criteria must 

be met in order for OWCP to authorize payment.13

Abuse of discretion is 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.14

6

5 U.S.C. § 8103(a).

7

Id.; see J.K., Docket No. 20-1313 (issued May 17, 2021); Thomas W. Stevens, 50 ECAB 288 (1999).

8 R.C., Docket No. 18-0612 (issued October 19, 2018); W.T., Docket No. 08-812 (issued April 3, 2009).

9 D.C., Docket No. 18-0080 (issued May 22, 2018); Mira R. Adams, 48 ECAB 504 (1997).

10 R.M., Docket No. 19-1319 (issued December 10, 2019); J.T., Docket No. 18-0503 (issued October 16, 2018); 

Debra S. King, 44 ECAB 203, 209 (1992).

11 K.W., Docket No. 18-1523 (issued May 22, 2019); C.L., Docket No. 17-0230 (issued April24, 2018); M.B., 58 

ECAB 588 (2007); Bertha L. Arnold, 38 ECAB 282 (1986).

12 T.A., Docket No 19-1030 (issued November 22, 2019); Zane H. Cassell, 32 ECAB 1537, 1540-41 (1981); JohnE. 

Benton, 15 ECAB 48, 49 (1963).

13 J.L., Docket No. 18-0990 (issued March 5, 2019); R.C., 58 ECAB 238 (2006); Cathy B. Millin, 51 ECAB 331, 

333 (2000).

14 D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued February 18, 2020); 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).
8

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

making the examination for the United States and the physician of an employee, the Secretary shall 

appoint a third physician (known as a referee physician or impartial medical examiner) who shall 

make an examination.15 This is called an impartial medical examination and OWCP will select a 

physician who is qualified in the appropriate specialty and who has no prior connection with the 

case.16 When there exist opposing medical reports of virtually equal weight and rationale and the 

case is referred to an impartial medical examiner 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.17

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization of 

additional cervical surgery.

OWCP properly referred appellant, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a), to Dr. Ralph for an 

impartial medical examination and opinion in order to resolve the conflict in the medical opinion 

evidence between Dr. deGrange, appellant’s treating physician, and Dr. Marchosky, an OWCP 

second opinion examiner, with regard to whether the proposed cervical surgery was medically 

necessary and causally related to the November 6, 2009 employment injury.

OWCP provided Dr. Ralph with a SOAF, which listed the accepted conditions and noted 

appellant’s prior cervical surgery at C5-C7. In his March 4, 2020 report, Dr. Ralph opined that 

the proposed C4-C5 decompression and fusion was not medically necessary. He explained that

appellant’s 2018 and 2019 MRI scans showed minimal changes at C4-C5, except for some 

narrowing of the cervical canal not of a severe nature. Dr. Ralph explained that there could be 

secondary problems long term after multiple level fusions in the cervical spine, but that was not 

the case here. He advised that appellant’s current symptomatology was related to carpal tunnel 

syndrome and primary problems with both shoulders, and that she did not require surgical 

treatment relating to her cervical spine. Dr. Ralph opined that from a medical standpoint, it would 

not be in her best interest to undergo cervical surgery.

In situations where the case is referred to an IME for the purpose of resolving a medical 

conflict, the opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based upon a proper 

factual background, must be given special weight.18 The Board finds that Dr. Ralph provided a 

well-rationalized opinion based on a complete background, his review of the SOAF, the medical 

record, and his examination findings. Thus, Dr. Ralph’s opinion that the requested procedure was

15 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see R.S., Docket No. 10-1704 (issued May 13, 2011); S.T., Docket No. 08-1675 (issued 

May 4, 2009).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.321.

17 Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006); Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001).

18 See D.S., Docket No. 19-1698 (issued June 18, 2020); C.W., Docket No. 17-0918 (issued January 5, 2018);

Patricia J. Glenn, 53 ECAB 159 (2001); James P. Roberts, 31 ECAB 1010 (1980).
9

not medically warranted for the accepted conditions is entitled to the special weight of the 

evidence.19

The Board further finds that Dr. deGrange’s reports, are insufficient to overcome the 

special weight accorded to Dr. Ralph, because reports from a physician who was on one side of a 

medical conflict resolved by an IME are insufficient to overcome the special weight accorded the 

report of the IME or to create a new conflict.20

The only limitation on OWCP’s authority in approving or denying service under FECA is 

one of reasonableness.21 OWCP obtained an impartial medical examination by Dr. Ralph who 

opined that the requested cervical surgery was neither medically warranted, nor causally related to

the accepted employment conditions. It, therefore, had sufficient evidence upon which to deny 

surgery and did not abuse its discretion.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization of 

additional cervical surgery.

19 See D.S., id.; P.F., Docket No. 16-0693 (issued October 24, 2016).

20 J.M., Docket No. 18-1387 (issued February 1, 2019); D.M., Docket No. 17-1992 (issued September 12, 2018);

S.F., Docket No. 17-1427 (issued May 16, 2018).

21 See T.A., Docket No. 19-1030 (issued November 22, 2019); Cathy B. Millin, 51 ECAB 331, 333 (2000).
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 8, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 18, 2023

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board