United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAYWOOD POST 

OFFICE, Maywood, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0526

Issued: December 22, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 2, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 23, 2023 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 establish that appellant’s 

accepted lumbar sprain had resolved, effective February 3, 2023. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the issuance of the February23, 2023 decision, OWCP received additional 

evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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 June 27, 2013 appellant, then a 45-year-old mail carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that the repetitive duties of his position, which involved standing, 

lifting, bending, carrying, walking, driving, and standing with heavy loads, caused pressure to his 

left hip and lower back and abnormal sensations in his legs, hip, and back. He first became aware 

of his conditions on September 29, 2012 and realized their relationship to his federal employment 

on April 10, 2013. Appellant stopped work on September 29, 2012. OWCP initially accepted the 

claim for lumbar sprain. By decision dated February 28, 2020, it expanded the acceptance of 

appellant’s claim to include temporary aggravation of degenerative disc disease, lumbar region; 

temporary aggravation of unilateral primary osteoarthritis, left hip; and temporary aggravation of 

avascular necrosis, left hip. By decision dated August 14, 2020, OWCP accepted the additional 

condition of thrombosis of left femoral vein. On September 15, 2022 appellant was involved in a 

nonwork-related motor vehicle accident and placed off work. By decision dated December 12, 

2022, OWCP accepted the additional condition of bilateral pulmonary embolism. It paid appellant 

intermittent wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls as of October 21, 2015, on the 

periodic rolls from July 19, 2020 to February 27, 2021, and again on the supplemental rolls as of 

February 28, 2021.

On January 14, 2023 OWCP referred appellant along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF), the medical record, and a series of questions, to Dr. George K. Myo, an orthopedic 

surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation to determine whether appellant’s accepted work-related 

condition(s) and residuals had resolved and whether he was capable of returning to his date-ofinjury mail carrier position. In a January 20, 2023 report, Dr. Myo reviewed the SOAF and the 

medical record and reported his examination findings. He diagnosed low back pain and right and 

left hip pain with weakness. Dr. Myo opined that appellant’s current left hip pain was no longer 

related to the accepted temporary aggravation of the unilateral primary osteoarthritis of the left hip 

and the accepted temporary aggravation of the avascular necrosis of the left hip because both 

conditions resolved within three months of the initial injury in 2012. He further opined that the 

right hip pain and weakness had no relation to the accepted conditions or employment factors. 

Dr. Myo also opined that appellant’s current low back pain was not related to the accepted lumbar 

sprain because that condition should have resolved shortly after or within three months of the 2012 

employment injury. He noted that he would defer an opinion regarding the current status of the

accepted conditions of bilateral pulmonary embolism, right leg DVT, and thrombosis of the left 

femoral vein to an appropriate specialist. 

Dr. Myo indicated that the September 29, 2012 work injury occurred when appellant was 

carrying mail and walking upstairs when, after three or four stairs, he felt severe pain. He 

explained that this was an extremely low energy injury which would have only caused the 

temporary aggravations and the strains described in the SOAF. Dr. Myo indicated that those 

diagnoses were self-limiting over a period of a few months and would not cause any current 

symptoms. He explained that the September 29, 2012 work injury aggravated a preexisting low 

back pain and that the temporary aggravation had now returned to preinjury status. Dr. Myo 

further opined that the accepted condition of temporary aggravation left hip unilateral primary 

osteoarthritis and temporary aggravation of left hip avascular necrosis resolved within three 

months of the September 29, 2012 employment injury. He noted that the right and left hip pain 

was due to a stent. Dr. Myo deferred to a Board-certified hematology/oncology or 
3

vascular/cardiovascular surgeon for questions related to appellant’s cardiovascular or vascular 

issues. He reiterated that the September 29, 2012 work injury was an extremely low energy stair 

incident which would not have caused any permanent aggravation to the preexisting avascular 

necrosis and osteoarthritis as such conditions were temporary aggravations which resolved in time, 

with the current pain due the stent. Dr. Myo explained that based on his information about 

appellant’s line of work and employment factors, appellant had a temporary aggravation of his 

underlying conditions from the September 29, 2012 work injury. He also opined that the accepted 

temporary aggravation of the intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar spine,resolved within three 

months of the work incident, explaining that the minor energy description of the work incident 

indicated only three months maximum of temporary aggravation. 

Dr. Myo concluded that the accepted conditions of temporary aggravation of intervertebral 

disc degeneration, lumbar region; temporary aggravation of unilateral primary osteoarthritis, left 

hip; temporary aggravation of avascular necrosis, left hip; and sprain of back, lumbar region had 

all resolved within - three months of the September 29, 2012 employment injury. He also 

concluded that appellant’s current low back -- and bilateral hip pain were likely related to his 

September 2022 motor vehicle accident. Dr. Myo opined that these conditions have reached MMI,

and based on clinical presentation, appellant was capable of returning to his date-of-injury letter 

carrier position and performing his current job as a lobby greeter3 as there was no limitation in his 

range of motion and strength and he had complete control of his musculoskeletal system to perform 

complex tasks. He further opined that appellant should immediately, functionally be weaned off 

medications in order to facilitate his return to gainful employment. 

On February 9, 2023 OWCP requested that appellant’s physician, Dr. Michael A. 

Steingart, D.O., an osteopath and sports medicine specialist, respond to Dr. Myo’s January 20, 

2023 opinion addressing whether appellant had reached MMI, whether the accepted conditions

had resolved, and appellant’s work capacity. It afforded him 30 days to respond. 

On February 15, 2023 OWCP requested a supplemental report from Dr. Myo providing

detailed rationale to support his MMI determination and opinion that the accepted conditions or 

injuries would not have caused permanent or long-term damage.

By decision dated February 23, 2023, OWCP expanded the accepted conditions to include

other intervertebral disc degeneration, lumbar region; unilateral primary osteoarthritis, left hip and 

other osteonecrosis, left femur; acute embolism and thrombosis of left femoral vein; other 

pulmonary embolism without acute cor pulmonale; acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified 

deep veins of right lower extremity; and sprain of back, lumbar region (resolved as of 

February 3, 2023). Regarding the accepted condition of resolved back sprain, it afforded the 

weight of the medical opinion evidence to Dr. Myo’s opinion that this condition had resolved 

before the September 29, 2012 employment injury.

3 Dr. Myo noted that on August 5, 2017 appellant was reassigned from Illinois to Arizona and placed in another 

custodian craft position, but he never worked as a custodian. Rather, he performed modified duties as a lobby director 

with restrictions based on his work limitations, up to 33 hours per week.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Once OWCP accepts a claim, it has the burden of justifying termination or modification of 

an employee’s compensation benefits.4 It may not terminate compensation without establishing 

that the disability ceased, or that it was no longer related to the employment injury. 5 OWCP’s 

burden of proof in terminating compensation includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized 

medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background. 6

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

entitlement to compensation for disability.7 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, 

OWCP must establish that the employee no longer has residuals of an employment-related 

condition that require further medical treatment.8

Where OWCP has accepted a resolved aggravation of a preexisting condition, the date by 

which the condition resolved must be established by probative medical evidence. 9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that appellant’s 

accepted lumbar sprain had resolved, effective February 3, 2023.

In his January 20, 2023 report, Dr. Myo noted his review of the SOAF and the medical 

record, and related appellant’s physical examination findings. He opined that appellant’s current 

low back pain was not causally related to the accepted lumbar sprain because that condition had 

resolved within three months of the accepted September 29, 2012 employment injury and long 

before his nonwork-related September 2022 motor vehicle accident. Dr. Myo indicated that the 

accepted lumbar condition had reached preinjury status. He noted that the employment-related 

injury was an extremely low energy injury which would have only caused the accepted temporary 

aggravations of his prior lumbar and bilateral hip conditions and the accepted lumbar sprain.

Dr. Myo concluded that the accepted conditions had all reached MMI and, based on clinical 

4 A.M.,Docket No. 18-1243 (issued October 7, 2019); Gewin C. Hawkins, 52 ECAB 242, 243 (2001); Alice J. 

Tysinger, 51 ECAB 638, 645 (2000).

5

S.P., Docket No. 19-0196 (issued June 24, 2020); R.P.,Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); JasonC. 

Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); VivienL. Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986).

6 D.G., Docket No. 19-1259 (issued January 29, 2020); M.C.,Docket No. 18-1374 (issued April23, 2019); Del K. 

Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988).

7

S.P., supra note 5; J.W., Docket No. 19-1014 (issued October 24, 2019); L.W.,Docket No. 18-1372 (issued 

February 27, 2019).

8 D.G., supra note 6; L.S.,Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019); R.P.,Docket No. 18-0900 (issued 

February 5, 2019).

9 C.P., Docket No. 21-1120 (issued January 27, 2023); J.C.,Docket No. 13-1200 (issued November 1, 2013);

F.M., Docket No. 12-590 (issued September 24, 2012); J.D.,Docket No. 11-131 (issued December 21, 2011); and

Daniel A. Davis, 39 ECAB 151 (1987)
5

presentation, appellant was capable of returning to his date-of-injury letter carrier position and 

current job as a lobby greeter without restrictions.

Dr. Myo’s opinion that the accepted lumbar sprain had resolved within three months of the 

September 2012 employment injury and returned to preinjury status was conclusionary in nature. 

He failed to explain how appellant’s physical examination findings and medical course three 

months following the September 2012 employment injury supported this conclusion.10 On

February 9, 2023 OWCP requested that appellant’s physician, Dr. Steingart, respond to Dr. Myo’s 

January 20, 2023 opinion. Further, on February 15, 2023 OWCP requested that Dr. Myo provide 

a supplemental opinion, with further medical rationale supporting his opinion that appellant’s 

accepted condition had resolved. OWCP granted both physicians 30 days to respond. However, 

OWCP did not receive a response from these physicians prior to prematurely issuing its 

February 23, 2023 decision.

For these reasons, the Board finds that OWCP failed to meet its burden of proofto establish 

that the accepted lumbar sprain had resolved, effective February 3, 2023.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that appellant’s 

accepted lumbar sprain had resolved, effective February 3, 2023.

10 R.O., Docket No. 19-0885 (issued November 4, 2019); Roger Dingess, 47 ECAB 123 (1995).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 23, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: December 22, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board