United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NEW JERSEY 

INTERNATIONAL BULK MAIL & NETWORK 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Jersey City, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0798

Issued: January 12, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant1

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 May 15, 2023 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 1, 2023 

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.

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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective July 22, 2021, as she no longer had disability or 

residuals causally related to her accepted September 9, 2016 employment injury; and (2) whether 

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

July 22, 2021, causally related to her accepted September 9, 2016 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 13, 2016 appellant, then a 45-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 9, 2016 she sustained injuries to her back, arms, 

legs, and hands when she was hit by a container full of mail causing her to fall backwards while 

in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar sprain. Following her injury, 

appellant sought treatment with Dr. Thomas Helbig, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. She

stopped work on September 9, 2016, at which time OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation, and 

she subsequently returned to light-duty work. Appellant stopped work on July 27, 2019 and on 

December 10, 2019 OWCP accepted her claim for a recurrence of disability, effective 

July 27, 2019. 

On April 21, 2020 Dr. David Conyack, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, treated appellant 

for pain management. He diagnosed facet arthropathy, lumbar herniated disc, spasm of back 

muscles, chronic pain, and facet joint pain.

In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated June 17 and July 15, 2020, Dr. Helbig, an 

orthopedic surgeon, determined that appellant was unable to work due to back pain. He further 

noted a diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation and lumbar myospasms. 

On August 4, 2020 OWCP referred appellant, along with the case record, a statement of 

accepted facts (SOAF) and a series of questions to Dr. Paul G. Teja, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation and determination regarding whether she had any 

disability or residuals causally related to the accepted September 9, 2016 employment injury. 

On August 25, 202 Dr. Teja evaluated appellant for the purpose of the second opinion 

evaluation. In his report, he documented her physical examination findings and discussed her 

history of injury. Dr. Teja explained that appellant sustained a work-related injury on 

September 9, 2016 when a driver of a vehicle was speeding and hit several containers, which in 

turn hit her, causing her to fall directly onto her buttocks and back. Appellant sought emergency 

medical treatment that same date. Dr. Teja opined that her work-related lumbar strain had 

resolved, noting that his clinical examination revealed no objective findings that would support 

her continued subjective complaints. He concluded that appellant could return to her date-ofinjury job, full duty, without restrictions as her work-related condition had resolved. 

OWCP subsequently received progress notes dated September 16, 2020, wherein

Dr. Helbig continued to restrict appellant from returning to work and documenting treatment for 

multilevel lumbar disc herniations and low back pain.
3

On October 7, 2020 OWCP determined that, a conflict of medical opinion existed between 

appellant’s treating physician Dr. Helbig, and Dr. Teja, OWCP’s second opinion physician, as to 

whether her work-related conditions had resolved. 

On April 21, 2021 OWCP referred appellant, along with a SOAF, the medical record and 

a series of question to Dr. Sheldon Manspeizer, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an 

impartial medical evaluation.

In a May 26, 2021 report, Dr. Manspeizer documented appellant’s physical examination 

findings and discussed her history of injury. He noted complaints of continued pain in the lower 

back, pain into her left leg, and numbness in the toes. Upon clinical examination, Dr. Manspeizer 

reported findings of degenerative disc disease, associated arthritis of the lumbosacral spine, and a 

resolved lumbosacral sprain. He found no objective physical findings to indicate cord 

compression, nerve root impingement, herniated discs, or neurological deficit. Dr. Manspeizer 

explained that appellant’s examination revealed that she continued to suffer from degenerative 

spinal conditions and preexisting arthritic conditions not caused by the September 9, 2016 

employment injury. He determined that there were no residuals of her work-related medical 

condition as the employment-related lumbosacral sprain had resolved and, thus, she was no longer 

disabled as a result of the accepted September 9, 2016 employment injury. Dr. Manspeizer 

concluded that appellant could return to her date-of-injury job without restrictions. 

By decision dated July 22, 2021, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits, effective that same date. It found that the special weight of the medical 

evidence rested with Dr. Manspeizer, the impartial medical examiner (IME), who opined in his 

May 26, 2021 report that appellant’s accepted work-related condition had resolved and she no 

longer had any disability or residuals as a result of the September 9, 2016 employment injury.

On July 27, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

OWCP received a July 28, 2021 medical report by Dr. Helbig who reported that appellant 

was under his care for a September 9, 2016 employment injury. He noted that her magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan studies revealed lumbar disc herniations in the lower lumbar spine 

on two occasions. Dr. Helbig addressed Dr. Manspeizer’s May 26, 2021 report, which noted 

degenerative findings on her lumbosacral MRI scan. He explained that, while these degenerative 

findings were preexisting, they were clearly aggravated by the work accident. Dr. Helbig further 

asserted that the disc herniations were non preexisting conditions that were traumatic in nature 

directly caused by the September 9, 2016 employment injury. He opined that appellant was 

permanently disabled from her employment as a mail handler and would not be capable of any 

repetitive bending and lifting, explaining that lifting any more than 10 pounds would be impossible 

for her to perform. 

A hearing was held on November 18, 2021. 

By decision dated July 13, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the July 22, 

2021 decision. 
4

On August 15, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. Counsel noted 

submission of medical reports dated July 28, 2021 and August 24, 2022 fromDr. Helbig in support 

of appellant’s claim for continued disability and residuals.

In an August 24, 2022 medical report, Dr. Helbig reported that appellant had been under 

his care following a September 9, 2016 employment injury. He noted that she had been 

consistently treated with physical therapy and MRI scan studies of the lumbar spine revealed 

multilevel disc herniation. Dr. Helbig reported that his most recent examination revealed another 

flare-up of back pain with radiation and numbness down the left leg, consistent with recurrent left 

sciatica. He reported no neurologic deficits and recommended appellant continue with a home 

exercise program. Dr. Helbig opined that appellant was permanently disabled from her 

employment as a mail handler as she was not capable of repetitive bending and lifting. He further

explained that lifting any more than 10 pounds would be impossible for her.

By decision dated February 1, 2023, OWCP denied modification of the July 13, 2022 

decision. 

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.3 After it has been determined that an 

employee has a disability causally related to his or her employment, OWCP may not terminate 

compensation without establishing that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related to 

the employment.4 Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background. 5

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

entitlement for disability compensation.6 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.7

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

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

3

See P.B., Docket No. 21-0894 (issued February 8, 2023); D.G., Docket No. 19-1259 (issued January 29, 2020);

R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 

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

4

See R.P., id.; Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); VivienL. 

Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986).

5

See P.T., Docket No. 21-0328 (issued May 2, 2022); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988).

6

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

7 T.C., Docket No. 20-1163 (issued July 13, 2021); James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003); Pamela K. Guesford, 

53 ECAB 727 (2002).
5

shall appoint a third physician who shall make an examination.8 When there are opposing reports 

of virtually equal weight and rationale, the case must be referred to an IME, pursuant to section 

8123(a) of FECA, to resolve the conflict in the medical evidence.9 Where a case is referred to an 

IME for the purpose of resolving a conflict, the opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well 

rationalized and based on a proper factual and medical background, must be given special weight.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective July 22, 2021, as she no longer had disability or 

residuals causally related to her accepted September 9, 2016 employment injury.

OWCP determined that there was a conflict in the medical opinion evidence between

Dr. Helbig, appellant’s treating physician, and Dr. Teja, OWCP’s second opinion examiner, as to 

whether she continued to have disability or residuals causally related to the accepted September 9, 

2016 employment injury. It properly referred her, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a), to

Dr. Manspeizer for an impartial medical examination and an opinion to resolve the conflict. 11

In a May 26, 2021 report, Dr. Manspeizer, serving as the IME, reviewed appellant’s history 

of injury, provided physical examination findings, and opined that her current condition was 

caused by preexisting age-related degenerative disc disease and osteoarthritis, which was not 

related to the September 9, 2016 employment injury. He further explained that his examination 

revealed no objective physical findings to indicate cord compression, nerve root impingement, 

herniated discs, or neurological deficit. Dr. Manspeizer concluded that appellant’s work-related 

condition had resolved, and that no further treatment was medically warranted.

The factors that comprise the evaluation of medical opinion evidence include the 

opportunity for and thoroughness of physical examination, the accuracy, or completeness of the 

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

medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.12 The Board finds that the 

opinion of the IME, Dr. Manspeizer, is entitled to the special weight of the medical opinion 

evidence and establishes that appellant no longer had employment-related disability or residuals 

8

5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). See M.E., Docket No. 21-0281 (issued June 10, 2022); R.C., Docket No. 18-0463 (issued 

February 7, 2020); see also G.B., Docket No. 16-0996 (issued September 14, 2016).

9

See M.E., id.; M.R., Docket No. 19-0526 (issued July 24, 2019); C.R., Docket No. 18-1285 (issued 

February 12, 2019).

10 M.E., id.; P.B., Docket No. 20-0984 (issued November 25, 2020); Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414 (2006);

Gloria J. Godfrey, 52 ECAB 486 (2001); James P. Roberts, 31 ECAB 1010 (1980).

11 Supra note 9.

12 See P.J., Docket No. 22-0905 (issued November 15, 2022); K.R., Docket No. 22-0019 (issued July 11, 2022);

Nicolette R. Kelstrom, 54 ECAB 570 (2003); Anna M. Delaney, 53 ECAB 384 (2002).
6

causally related to the accepted September 9, 2016 employment injury. Accordingly, OWCP 

properly relied on his opinion in terminating her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits.13

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Once OWCP properly terminated compensation benefits, the burden shifts to appellant to 

establish continuing disability on or after that date causally related to the accepted injury. 14 To 

establish causal relationship between the accepted conditions 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 her burden of proof to establish continuing 

disability or residuals on or after July 22, 2021, causally related to her accepted September 9, 2016 

employment injury.

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

submitted medical reports dated July 28, 2021 and August 24, 2022 from Dr. Helbig who asserted 

that the September 9, 2016 employment injury had not resolved and expressed disagreement with

Dr. Manspeizer’s IME evaluation. He noted that she had objective evidence of multilevel disc 

herniations as evidenced in diagnostic studies consistent with the September 9, 2016 employment

injury. Dr. Helbig further reported that appellant’s preexisting degenerative lumbar conditions 

were aggravated by the employment injury. However, he failed to provide sufficient medical 

rationale to establish that she had continuing residuals of her accepted lumbar sprain.16 The Board 

has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not 

contain sufficient medical rationale explaining how an employment activity could have caused or 

aggravated a medical condition.17 Accordingly, these reports are of limited probative value.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish continuing work -related 

disability or residuals causally related to her accepted September 9, 2016 employment injury, the 

Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof. 18

13 S.V., Docket No. 23-0474 (issued August 1, 2023).

14 See J.N., Docket No. 20-1030 (issued November 20, 2020); L.C., Docket No. 18-1759 (issued June 26, 2019).

15 Id.

16 A.V., Docket No. 23-0230 (issued July 28, 2023).

17 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).

18 See R.G., Docket No. 22-0165 (issued August 11, 2022).
7

CONCLUSION

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective July 22, 2021, as she no longer had disability or 

residuals causally related to her accepted employment injury. The Board further finds that 

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

July 22, 2021 causally related to her accepted employment injury. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 1, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 12, 2024

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