United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MONTCLAIR POST 

OFFICE, Montclair, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1380

Issued: September 22, 2023

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 7, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 3, 2021

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 Pursuant to the 

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 Appellant died during the pendency of this appeal. As such, a substitute appellant is required to carry the appeal 

forward as the Board’s jurisdiction was invoked during his lifetime. See M.H., Docket No. 21-1250 n.2 (issued 

February17, 2023); J.W., Docket No. 20-0952 (issued February 2, 2022); D.V., Docket No. 20-1291 (issued 

September 14, 2021); N.D., Docket No. 14-1757 (issued June 2, 2015); AlbertF. Kimbrell, 4 ECAB 662, 666 (1952). 

Accordingly, appellant’s counsel is recognized by the Board as the substitute appellant for the purposes of carrying 

the appeal forward. 
2

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case.4

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board on a different issue. 5 The facts and 

circumstances as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The 

relevant facts are as follows.

On June 17, 2010 appellant, then a 54-year-old part-time flexible carrier, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 12, 2010 she injured her neck, shoulder, and lower 

back, bending, scanning, and lifting a parcel from the floor while in the performance of duty. She 

stopped work on June 12, 2010 and returned to light-duty work on July 5, 2010. OWCP accepted 

the claim for sprain of the lumbar back and sprain of the right shoulder. 6

On November 19, 2006 appellant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of 

her cervical spine which demonstrated slight cervical spondylitic and discogenic change with very 

small subligamentous herniations, most apparent at C5-6, but with minimal thecal sac indention. 

She underwent a right shoulder MRI scan of even date which demonstrated slight impingement as 

a result of downward positioning of the acromion in relation to the distal clavicle, small subdeltoid 

effusion, and minimal cuff tendinosis.

Appellant underwent a repeat cervical MRI scan on March 6, 2008 which demonstrated 

mild cervical spondylitic and discogenic changes, with mild disc protrusions, but without frank 

disc herniation or spinal stenosis. She underwent lumbar spine MRI scan on March 10, 2008 which 

demonstrated no evidence for disc herniation, central stenosis, or neural foraminal stenosis.

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4Counsel also indicated that he was appealing an overpayment decision but did not provide the date of that decision. 

As more than 180 days has elapsed from OWCP’s last overpayment decision dated December 16, 2020, to the filing 

of this appeal, pursuant to FECA and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review this 

aspect of appellant’s claim.

5 Docket No. 13-1850 (issued January 9, 2014).

6 OWCP previously accepted that appellant sustained lumbar and thoracic sprain on October 12, 2006 and expanded 

acceptance of the claim to include cervical spine sprains and right shoulder sprain/strain due to an August 6, 2006 

traumatic employment injury, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx290. OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx563 and xxxxxx290 have 

been administratively combined by OWCP, with File No. xxxxxx563 serving as the master file.
3

On August 10, 2010 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) claiming 

disability and stopped work on July 5, 2010. OWCP paid wage-loss compensation on the 

supplemental rolls beginning on August 26, 2010.7

On October 14, 2014 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. She submitted a July 11, 2014 impairment rating by Dr. Nicholas Diamond, an osteopath, 

who examined appellant and referred to the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, 

Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides)

8 and The GuidesNewsletter, 

Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment Using the Sixth Edition (July/August 2009) (The

Guides Newsletter). Dr. Diamond found 32 percent permanent impairment of the right lower 

extremity due to the lumbar spine. He further evaluated appellant’s right upper extremity and 

found 17 percent permanent impairment due to range of motion (ROM) deficit. Dr. Diamond 

found 1 percent permanent impairment based on the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) estimate 

of epicondylitis, as well as 40 percent of the right upper extremity due to the cervical spine. He 

opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on June 11, 2014.

On October 13, 2014 OWCP requested that Dr. Arthur S. Harris, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon serving as OWCP’s district medical adviser (DMA), review Dr. Diamond’s 

July 11, 2014 report.

In a November 17, 2014 report, Dr. Harris noted that he had reviewed the medical evidence 

and found that Dr. Diamond provided extensive abnormal findings out of proportion to other 

examiners including the attending physician. He concluded that appellant should be referred for a 

second opinion examination to obtain documented findings on examination for rating her spinal 

nerve impairments in accordance with The Guides Newsletter.

On February 12, 2016 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with

Dr. Donald Heitman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon.

On March 29, 2016 appellant underwent a cervical MRI scan, which demonstrated 

straightening of the normal cervical lordosis, broad-based disc bulges at C4-5 and C6-7, central 

disc herniation at C5-6, and multilevel neural foraminal narrowing. She underwent a lumbar MRI 

scan of even date, which demonstrated marked diffuse heterogeneity of the marrow signal, 

presumably degenerative in nature, mild central stenosis L4-5, and neural foraminal narrowing, 

but no disc herniation.

On March 30, 2016, appellant underwent a right shoulder MRI scan, which demonstrated 

diffuse tendinitis of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons, but no discrete rotator cuff tear, 

moderate acromioclavicular (AC) joint hypertrophy resulting in moderate impingement of the 

7 By decision dated February 10, 2011, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation, effective that date, 

finding that she could return to full-time full-duty work. Appellant disagreed with the February 10, 2011 termination 

decision and repeatedly requested reconsideration. OWCP affirmed the February 10, 2011 decision and found that 

she had no continuing disability in decisions dated July 8, 2011 through July 2, 2013. Appellant appealed to the 

Board, and it affirmed the June 2, 2013 decision. Supra note 5. 

8 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009).
4

supraspinatus outlet, a benign lipoma along the anterior surface of the humeral head and neck, and 

no obvious displaced labral tear.

In a February 26, 2016 report, Dr. Heitman noted appellant’s history of injury and 

treatment. He conducted a physical examination and reported findings, including extremes of pain 

to the right trapezium, limited ROM of the neck, significant pain and spasms with resisted internal 

rotation and forward elevation of the right shoulder with limited ROM including forward elevation 

of 95 degrees, and external rotation of 10 degrees. Dr. Heitman found decreased dorsiflexion and 

plantar flexion strength in the right ankle, and a hyper-reflexive response to the patella tendon 

reflex on the right. He applied The Guides Newsletter to appellant’s cervical findings and found 

no impairment. Dr. Heitman then evaluated appellant’s lumbar findings under The Guides

Newsletter and found no impairment. He determined that the loss of ROM in the right shoulder 

resulted in 11 percent permanent impairment. Dr. Heitman found that appellant reached MMI in 

2014.

On June 17, 2016 OWCP requested that Dr. Arnold T. Berman, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon serving as OWCP’s DMA, review Dr. Heitman’s report. Dr. Berman 

completed a report on July 7, 2016 and found that no cervical spine conditions had been accepted. 

He further asserted that the ROM calculation method was not available for appellant’s right 

shoulder strain. After applying the DBI methodology, the DMA determined that appellant had 

four percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity based on the diagnosis of 

impingement syndrome, Table 15-5, page 402 of the A.M.A., Guides.

On August 4 and October 10, 2016 Dr. Heitman reviewed the DMA’s report and agreed 

with his findings.

By decision dated October 5, 2017, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for four 

percent permanent impairment of her right upper extremity. The award ran for 12.48 weeks during 

the period February 26 to May 23, 2016. OWCP noted a zero percent impairment for appellant’s 

right lower extremity.

On October 16, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on 

March 19, 2018.

By decision dated May 31, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative vacated the October 5, 

2017 decision and remanded the case for additional development on the issue of a ROM 

impairment rating.

On December 13, 2018 OWCP referred the claim to the DMA for clarification. In an 

April 2, 2019 note, the DMA found that utilizing Dr. Heitman’s ROM figures for the right upper 

extremity resulted in five percent permanent impairment in accordance with Table 15-34, page 

475.

By decision dated June 6, 2019, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for an 

additional one percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity for a total of five 

percent. On June 20, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 
5

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on 

October 2, 2019.

By decision dated November 22, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative found a conflict of 

medical opinion evidence between Dr. Diamond and Dr. Heitman regarding the extent of 

appellant’s permanent impairment and remanded for referral to an impartial medical examiner 

(IME) to resolve this issue.

On December 9, 2019 OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts, and a list 

of questions to Dr. Howard Pecker, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon selected as the IME, to 

resolve the conflict in the medical opinion evidence.

In a January 27, 2020 report, Dr. Pecker reviewed the SOAF and the medical record, and 

discussed his examination findings regarding appellant’s extremities. He noted that her right

shoulder range of motion varied from 0 to forward elevation of 45 degrees actively on three 

separate measurements versus 160 degrees on the left. Dr. Pecker found exaggerated complaints 

of pain during minor motions of the right shoulder. He noted that passive motion was also variable 

with multiple measurements from 60 to 95 degrees with forceful muscular resistance at every level.

Dr. Pecker reported that during the lumbar examination appellant was able to touch her toes and 

forward elevate her shoulder to 125 degrees in this maneuver. He found excellent muscular 

development of the deltoid. Dr. Pecker also reported external rotation to 60 degrees with good 

strength and intermittent effort with right/left confusion. He diagnosed mild arthritis of the AC 

joint of the right shoulder and mild degenerative disc changes of the cervical spine. Dr. Pecker 

opined that the current conditions were not causally related to the June 12, 2010 employment 

injury and that there was no ratable permanent impairment of the upper extremities due to the 

employment injury. He explained that the history of picking up packages from the floor could not 

have caused or aggravated the chronic and preexisting degenerative changes at the AC joint of the 

right shoulder as the symptom complex and the physical examination did not correlate with her 

subjective complaints. Dr. Pecker found no evidence of traumatic pathology to the cervical or 

lumbar spine and no evidence of focal deficits. He determined that the imaging studies showed 

“only minimal chronic and preexisting degenerative changes consistent with claimant’s age.”

Dr. Pecker found that appellant reach MMI as of his January 27, 2020 examination. 

In applying the A.M.A., Guides to his findings regarding appellant’s right shoulder,

Dr. Pecker found that the ROM calculation method could not be used as it was inconsistent 

throughout his examination. He further found that the class of diagnosis (CDX) of sprain/strain 

was a Class 1 impairment, Table 15-5, page 401, that the grade modifier for functional history 

(GMFH) could not be used as appellant’s subjective complains did not match the underlying 

objective findings. Dr. Pecker found that the grade modifier for physical examination (GMPE) 

was zero as appellant’s subjective complaints did not match his objective observation or diagnostic 

findings. He determined that the grade modifier for clinical studies (GMCS) was one as imaging 

studies confirmed the diagnosis of mild pathologies of tendinitis and AC arthritis. He applied the 

net adjustment formula, resulting in 0 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity.

On February 5, 2020 OWCP requested that Dr. Pecker review the reports of Drs. Heitman 

and Diamond and provide a supplemental discussion of his agreement and/or disagreement with 

the findings presented.
6

In an addendum report dated February 7, 2020, Dr. Pecker reviewed the prior medical 

evidence and noted that his physical examination revealed no deficits of either strength, sensory, 

or motion as found by Dr. Diamond. He further indicated that he discounted ROM deficits found 

by Dr. Heitman because of inconsistencies and lack of correlation to his physical examination 

findings.

By decision dated February 25, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s increased schedule award 

claim finding that the opinion of Dr. Pecker as the IME represented the special weight of the 

medical evidence and established that appellant had no permanent impairment to a scheduled 

member as a result of her accepted employment injuries. On March 4, 2020 appellant, through 

counsel, requested telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review.

On February 25, 2020 OWCP issued a preliminary overpayment determination finding that 

appellant had been overpaid compensation benefits for the period February 26 through June 14, 

2016 in the amount of $11,464.29 because she was paid a schedule award for permanent 

impairment affecting her right upper extremity, that it subsequently found that she was not entitled 

to.

On March 4, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a prerecoupment hearing with 

regard to the February 25, 2020 preliminary overpayment determination. On the same date, 

counsel also requested an oral hearing with regard to the February 25, 2020 schedule award 

decision.

Following a preliminary review, by decision dated May 4, 2020, OWCP’s hearing 

representative vacated both the February 25, 2020 schedule award denial and the February 25, 

2020 preliminary overpayment determination and remanded the case for a supplemental report 

from Dr. Pecker providing discussion of all the conditions accepted by OWCP as job related, 

including the August 6, 2006 injuries of lumbar sprain, thoracic sprain, cervical sprain and right 

shoulder sprain, as well as any preexisting permanent impairment, and a proper application of the 

A.M.A., Guides and The Guides Newsletter.

On May 11, 2020 OWCP requested a supplemental report from Dr. Pecker and provided 

him with a May 11, 2020 updated SOAF, which listed the accepted conditions resulting from the 

August 6, 2006 employment injury as cervical sprain/strain and right shoulder sprain/strain, only. 

It further listed the accepted conditions resulting from the June 12, 2010 employment injury as 

lumbar sprain and right shoulder sprain. OWCP asked that Dr. Pecker address the application of 

The Guides Newsletter to his findings and to consider all accepted employment injuries.

In his May 22, 2020 supplemental report, Dr. Pecker reviewed The Guides Newsletter and 

found that a rating for a spinal nerve injury was not required as appellant had no evidence of 

radiculopathy and therefore no need to translate radiculopathy into extremity injury.

On June 10, 2020 OWCP issued a de novo preliminary overpayment determination finding 

that appellant was overpaid schedule award benefits for the period February 26 through June 14, 

2016 in the amount of $11,464.29 as she was paid a schedule award for permanent impairment 
7

affecting her right upper extremity that she was not due. It found that she was without fault in the 

creation of this overpayment.

By de novo decision dated June 10, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim 

finding that the opinion of Dr. Pecker as the IME represented the special weight of the medical 

evidence and established that appellant had no permanent impairment to a scheduled member or 

function of the body as a result of her accepted employment injuries. 

On June 18, 2020 appellant, through counsel requested a telephonic hearing from “the 

de novo decision dated June 10, 2020.” A hearing was held on September 17, 2020.

By decision dated December 2, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

June 10, 2020 schedule award decision, finding that Dr. Pecker’s reports were entitled to the 

special weight and established that appellant had no permanent impairment of a scheduled member 

warranting a schedule award. She reported that she did not make findings in regard to the 

preliminary overpayment determination as a separate prerecoupment hearing had not been 

formally requested.

By decision dated December 16, 2020, OWCP found that appellant had received an 

overpayment of compensation in the amount of $11,464.29 for the period from February 26 

through June 14, 2016, for which she was without fault. It denied waiver of recovery of the 

overpayment.

On February 10, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

December 2, 2020 schedule award decision and provided additional medical evidence including 

electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) studies dated September 6, 2018. In 

a January 29, 2021 report, Dr. Diamond reviewed his July 11, 2014 report, Dr. Pecker’s report,

and the September 6, 2018 EMG/NCV studies. He diagnosed bilateral C5 and C6 radiculopathy 

as well as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of this testing. Dr. Diamond disagreed with

Dr. Pecker’s finding on examination and opined that carpal tunnel syndrome should be included 

in the impairment rating.

On April 5, 2021 OWCP requested a supplemental report from Dr. Pecker and provided 

him with the EMG/NCV studies.

In an April 5, 2021 report, Dr. Pecker reviewed the additional medical evidence and opined 

that appellant had not incurred any permanent impairment of her upper or lower extremities as a 

result of the accepted injuries on August 6, 2006 and June 12, 2010. He asserted that appellant 

had not responded to questions regarding subjective response in an accurate or rationally 

physiologic way and that she was an unreliable historian. Based on this assessment, Dr. Pecker 

found that functional history and symptomatic complaints could not be used. He further noted that 

EMG/NCV studies must only be used when correlated with physical findings. Dr. Pecker again 

reported that there were no physical findings of neurologic deficit at the time of his physical 

examination of appellant and therefore that the EMG/NCV study findings could not be used.

By decision dated May 3, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its December 2, 2020 

decision regarding appellant’s schedule award claim.
8

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA9 and its implementing regulations10 set forth the 

number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent impairment from 

loss, or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. However, FECA does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. OWCP has adopted the 

A.M.A., Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants. As of May 1, 2009, the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.11

Neither FECA nor its implementing regulations provide for the payment of a schedule 

award for the permanent loss of use of the back/spine or the body as a whole. 12 However, a 

schedule award is permissible where the employment-related spinal condition affects the upper 

and/or lower extremities.13 The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides (2009) provides a specific 

methodology for rating spinal nerve extremity impairment in The Guides Newsletter. It was 

designed for situations where a particular jurisdiction, such as FECA, mandated ratings for 

extremities and precluded ratings for the spine. The FECA-approved methodology is premised on 

evidence of radiculopathy affecting the upper and/or lower extremities. The appropriate tables for 

rating spinal nerve extremity impairment are incorporated in the Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual.14

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 

shall appoint a third physician who shall make an examination.15 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.16 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.17

9

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 

2.808.5.a. (March 2017); id. at Part 3 --Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

12 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c); 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(a) and (b); see A.G., Docket No. 18-0815 (issued January 24, 2019); 

Jay K. Tomokiyo, 51 ECAB 361, 367 (2000).

13 Supra note 11 at Chapter 2.808.5.c(3) (March 2017).

14 Supra note 11at Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 4 (January 2010); see L.H.,Docket No. 20-1550 (issued April13, 2021); 

N.G., Docket No. 20-0557 (issued January 5, 2021).

15 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a). See R.C.,Docket No. 18-0463 (issued February 7, 2020); see also G.B., Docket No. 16-0996 

(issued September 14, 2016).

16 See M.R.,Docket No. 19-0526 (issued July 24, 2019); C.R.,Docket No. 18-1285 (issued February 12, 2019).

17 V.H., Docket No. 20-0012 (issued November 5, 2020).
9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

The record reflects that Dr. Pecker was provided an updated SOAF dated May 11, 2020 

which did not list all the accepted conditions resulting from the August 6, 2006 employment injury. 

The May 11, 2020 updated SOAF listed the accepted conditions resulting from the August 6, 2006 

employment injury as cervical sprain/strain and right shoulder sprain/strain, only. It did not 

reference the accepted lumbar and thoracic sprain. It is OWCP’s responsibility to provide a 

complete and proper frame of reference for a physician by preparing a SOAF.18 OWCP’s 

procedures dictate that when a DMA, second opinion specialist, or IME renders a medical opinion 

based on a SOAF which is incomplete or inaccurate or does not use the SOAF as the framework 

in forming his or her opinion, the probative value of the opinion is seriously diminished or negated 

altogether.19 As Dr. Pecker did not have a complete and accurate SOAF as the framework in 

forming his opinion, his opinion is of diminished probative value and is not entitled to the special 

weight typically afforded to an IME.

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is 

OWCP a disinterested arbiter. While the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement 

to compensation, OWCP shares the responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that 

justice is done.20 Once it undertakes development of the record, it must do a complete job in 

procuring medical evidence that will resolve the relevant issues in the case. 21 Accordingly, the 

Board finds that the case must be remanded to OWCP.22

On remand OWCP shall clarify the accepted conditions and prepare an updated SOAF. It 

shall then refer the case record, together with the SOAF, to another IME who specializes in the 

appropriate field of medicine for a reasoned opinion regarding appellant’s permanent impairment 

in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides. Following this and other such further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

18 C.E., Docket No. 19-1923 (issued March 30, 2021); B.K., Docket No. 19-0976 (issued December 15, 2020); 

M.B., Docket No. 19-0525 (issued March 20, 2020); J.N., Docket No. 19-0215 (issued July 15, 2019); KathrynE. 

Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

19 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Requirements for Medical Reports, Chapter 3.600.3 

(October 1990); see also C.C., Docket No. 19-1948 (issued January 8, 2021); N.W., Docket No. 16-1890 (issued 

June 5, 2017).

20 J.R., Docket No. 19-1321 (issued February 7, 2020); S.S., Docket No. 18-0397 (issued January 15, 2019).

21 Id.; see also R.M., Docket No. 16-0147 (issued June 17, 2016).

22 See L.F., Docket No. 20-0459 (issued January 27, 2021); J.T.,Docket No. 18-1300 (issued March 22, 2019).
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 3, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: September 22, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board