United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

_________________________________________

A.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

U.S. COAST GUARD, Alameda, CA, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0155

Issued: July 22, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Maynard Pilapil, for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 11, 2021 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a

July 9, 2021 merit decision. 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 terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective July 9, 2021, as he no longer had disability or 

residuals causally related to his accepted employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the issuance of OWCP’s decision appellant submitted additional 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 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 26, 1988 appellant, then a 44-year-old architect technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he experienced palpitations, insomnia, 

nervousness, tension headaches, and abdominal pain with diarrhea due to factors of his federal 

employment, including the way management assigned and demanded jobs outside his job 

description and training. He stopped work on October 20, 1988 and did not return. OWCP 

accepted the claim for cyclothymic disorder on July 14, 1989. It paid appellant wage-loss 

compensation on the supplemental rolls beginning October 25, 1988 and on the periodic rolls

beginning September 24, 1989. 

A medical note by Dr. Caroline O. Garcia, a family medicine specialist dated 

September 30, 2008 related diagnoses of chronic anxiety, depression, and somatization. 

In a second opinion report dated July 13, 2013, Dr. Charles Debattista, a Board-certified 

psychiatrist, diagnosed major depressive disorder, moderate, generalized anxiety disorder, and 

cognitive impairments. He opined that appellant appeared to continue to have problems with 

depression and anxiety, and although it was hard to imagine that these could be related to job stress 

25 years ago, it was possible. Dr. Debattista noted that appellant had no nonindustrial stress 

situation that contributed to his current condition. He further opined that he saw no evidence 

appellant was able to continue to work, as he was markedly impaired in even answering basic 

questions and felt overwhelmed. Dr. Debattista rated appellant’s prognosis as poor, noting that 

appellant had not pursued treatment because it was too stressful for him to get treatment, and that 

appellant had made no significant improvement since the 1980s. He opined that appellant would 

benefit from more active treatment with a psychiatrist and psychotherapist, but appellant seemed 

unable to do so, and that as such, his long-term prognosis was poor. In an accompanying 

psychological assessment dated July 10, 2013, Dr. Jilliann Daly, a psychologist, attempted to 

administer the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. She stated that it was impossible 

to determine if appellant was responding accurately or in a random manner. As such, Dr. Daly

could offer no diagnostic impressions. 

In a work capacity evaluation for psychiatric/psychological conditions (Form OWCP-5a) 

dated May 31, 2006, Dr. Caroline O. Garcia, a family medicine specialist, diagnosed chronic 

depression with anxiety and somatic symptoms. She indicated that appellant was incapable of 

work, explaining that he had low reading comprehension and reacted to stress with headaches and 

abdominal pain. 

In a January 28, 2009 letter, Dr. Garcia, informed appellant that she found it necessary to 

withdraw from his further medical care. 

In work excuse notes dated June 12, 2017, July 16, 2018, and June 3, 2019, Dr. Christi 

Cheng, a family medicine specialist, indicated next to the heading “Restricted as follows” that 

appellant was “under [her] care” and “still ha[d] [a] chronic medical condition.” She did not 

indicate the nature of the chronic medical condition, nor did she indicate the nature of his work 

restrictions. 
3

On January 28, 2021 OWCP referred appellant along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) and a series of questions to Dr. Donald Stanford, a Board-certified psychiatrist, for a 

second opinion examination to determine his disability status and ability to return to work. 

In a report dated April 14, 2021, Dr. Stanford reviewed the SOAF and the medical record,

and conducted a psychiatric examination. He diagnosed cyclothymia. Dr. Stanford noted that 

appellant told him that he had a Bachelor of Science degree from a secondary educational 

institution in the Philippines and served as a lieutenant in the Philippine Army. He opined that it 

was difficult to reach conclusions about appellant’s history and diagnoses because appellant was 

unable to explain his condition. Appellant stated repeatedly that he could not describe or explain 

his employment injury. Dr. Stanford noted that, to a significant degree, appellant’s inability and 

refusal to respond had been documented by appellant’s supervisors when he worked for the 

employing establishment. Appellant told Dr. Stanford that his principal complaint was that he 

became anxious and irritable whenever he had to attend an evaluation related to his workers’

compensation claim or whenever he received any communications regarding the claim. He told

Dr. Stanford that he had been discriminated against by a supervisor at the employing 

establishment, but was unable to describe or provide examples of this hostile behavior. Appellant

noted that he left his position in October 1988 when he “passed out” at work. Dr. Stanford noted 

that medical records did not indicate that appellant had “passed out” at any point, including records 

from Dr. Garcia. Appellant stated that this supervisor had a pattern of “hiring many Filipino 

employees in order to fire them.” Dr. Stanford stated that appellant’s account that he was harassed 

and discriminated against had not been corroborated by the case record and was not an accepted 

fact. He noted that, after pondering the case for several days, he had untimely begun to question 

whether appellant actually did achieve the claimed Bachelor of Science degree earlier in life. 

Dr. Stanford explained that appellantseemed to manifest a form of dementia that was present even 

upon examination in 1989. He noted that appellant’s negative response to questions and criticism 

may reflect passive-aggressive or narcissistic behavior or malingering. Dr. Stanford stated that if 

there had been a massive decline in his cognitive functioning, rather than his having had a low 

level of functioning all along, possible explanations could be dementia, covert alcohol abuse, or 

some other unidentified cause or factor. He noted that appellant probably had sleep apnea, which 

could cause numerous cognitive problems including impaired memory, concentration, and 

executive functioning, but it was doubtful that sleep apnea alone could explain the level of 

impairment appellant demonstrated at least 30 years ago and probably previous to that. 

Dr. Stanford stated that appellant’s level of impairment as described on initial examination was 

probably present during his employment with the employing establishment, resulting in his 

performance problems. He explained that appellant then denied these problems and dismissed 

them by projecting blame in the form of appellant’s claim that he was discriminated against and 

harassed. Dr. Stanford noted that appellant did file a complaint concerning discrimination with 

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but that the outcome was not described in 

any records.

Dr. Stanford opined that appellant’s stress overall had been entirely nonindustrial resulting 

from a combination of his cognitive impairment and maladaptive personality features. He noted 

that appellant was generally passive and unable to respond meaningfully to standard mental status 

questions. Although there were signs of possible significant cognitive impairment, it was difficult 

to determine whether these signs were produced voluntarily or involuntarily. Dr. Stanford further 

opined that the accepted diagnosis of cyclothymia could not by definition have been caused by 
4

appellant’s employment, although it was possible that a preexisting condition had been worsened 

by criticism of work performance that was either provided appropriately, as the SOAF appeared 

to indicate, or in a discriminatory manner -- the latter of which, if true, Dr. Stanford noted, may 

have temporarily aggravated his questionable diagnosis of cyclothymia.

Dr. Stanford opined that there was no question that appellant’s work-related condition had 

resolved. He noted that Dr. Debattista, in his 2013 report, as much made this statement, but that 

he was not fully explicit in stating that it was “hard to imagine that this could be related to job 

stress from 25 years ago.” Dr. Stanford noted that, based on a review of the SOAF, it would appear 

that appellant was probably incapable of performing his job as an architecture technician all along 

as a result of his cognitive and personality disorder problems. He further opined that it would be 

unlikely that appellant would be capable of performing effectively in any job . Dr. Stanford

concluded by stating that he did not believe that appellant’s psychiatric conditions were the results 

of his negative employment experience, but instead, they were the cause of that negative 

employment experience. 

On April 22, 2021 OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, finding that the report of the second opinion physician,

Dr. Stanford, represented the weight of the medical evidence that appellant no longer had any 

residuals or continuing disability from work due to his accepted work-related injury. It afforded 

him 30 days to submit additional evidence or argument. 

By decision dated July 9, 2021, OWCP finalized the proposed termination of appellant’s 

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective July 9, 2021. It found that the weight of 

the medical evidence, represented by Dr. Stanford’s report, established that appellant no longer 

had residuals or disability from work due to his accepted employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

According to FECA,3 once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the 

burden of proof to justify termination or modification of an employee’s benefits.4 OWCP may not 

terminate compensation without establishing that the disability had ceased or that it was no longer 

related to the employment.5 Its burden of proof 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 for disability compensation.7 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP 

3

Supra note 1. 

4

S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008);Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005); PaulL. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003).

5 A.G., Docket No. 18-0749 (issued November 7, 2018);see I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Elsie L. Price, 54 ECAB 

734 (2003).

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0173 (issued May 2, 2019); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988).

7 L.W., Docket No. 18-1372 (issued February 27, 2019); KathrynE. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).
5

must establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition, which 

require further medical treatment.8

ANALYSIS

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective July 9, 2021, as he no longer had disability or 

residuals causally related to his accepted employment injury. 

In order to determine the extent and degree of any disability or residuals, OWCP referred 

appellant, a SOAF, and the medical evidence of record to Dr. Stanford, for a second opinion 

examination. In his April 14, 2021 report, Dr. Stanford noted that it was difficult to reach 

conclusions about appellant’s history and diagnoses because appellant was unable to explain his 

problems in person in multiple contexts. He noted that appellant’s negative response to questions 

and criticism may reflect passive-aggressive or narcissistic behavior or malingering. Dr. Stanford 

opined that appellant’s stress overall had been entirely nonindustrial resulting from a combination 

of his cognitive impairment and maladaptive personality features. He noted that appellant was 

generally passive and unable to respond meaningfully to standard mental status questions. 

Dr. Stanford further opined that the accepted diagnosis of cyclothymia could not by definition have 

been caused by appellant’s employment, although it was possible that a preexisting condition had 

been worsened by criticism of work performance that was either provided appropriately, as the 

SOAF appeared to indicate, or in a discriminatory manner -- the latter of which, if true, he noted, 

may have temporarily aggravated his questionable diagnosis of cyclothymia.

Dr. Stanford opined that there was no question that appellant’s work-related condition had 

resolved. He further opined that it would be unlikely that appellant would be capable of 

performing effectively in any job.

Dr. Stanford accurately summarized the relevant medical evidence, provided detailed 

findings on examination, and reached conclusions about appellant’s condition which rationally and 

logically comported with his findings.

The Board thus finds that Dr. Stanford’s opinion is sufficiently well-rationalized and based 

on a proper factual and medical history such that his opinion is entitled to the weight of the medical 

evidence, establishing that appellant had no ongoing employment-related disability or residuals.9

CONCLUSION

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

compensation and medical benefits, effective July 9, 2021, as he no longer had disability or 

residuals causally related to his accepted employment injury.

8 R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August 5, 2009).

9 K.S.,Docket No. 19-0082 (issued July 29, 2019); see also R.R.,supranote 6.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 9, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 22, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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