United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, INTERNATIONAL

SERVICE CENTER NEW YORK NY, 

Jamaica, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0973

Issued: January 2, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, 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 July 1, 20232 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 6, 2023 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).3 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 Underthe Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of the last OWCP 

decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e)-(f). 

One hundred and eighty days from January6, 2023, the date of OWCP’s decision, was July 5, 2023. Since using 

July 7, 2023, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards, would result in the loss of appeal 

rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark is July 1, 

2023, which renders the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

3 The Board notes that, following the January 6, 2023 decisions, OWCP received additional evidence. 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 additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

Federal Employees’Compensation Act4(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case.5

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss 

compensation and medical benefits, effective January 6, 2023, as she no longer had disability or 

residuals causally related to her accepted April 4, 2018 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 8, 2018 appellant, then a 25-year-old mail handler filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her left ankle when she stepped down from a 

platform and tripped on a hand jack while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on 

April 8, 2018. OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of the left foot and ankle. It paid appellant 

wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls beginning June 9, 2018, and on the periodic 

rolls beginning March 30, 2019.

On April 1, 2019 appellant underwent OWCP-authorized left ankle arthroscopy with 

synovectomy and left lateral ankle ligament reconsideration with internal brace.

Appellant accepted a full-time light-duty position as a modified mail handler on 

July 2, 2019.

On February 22, 2021 appellant accepted a modified mail handler position working six 

hours a day; lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling up to 10 pounds for one hour a day; walking, 

standing, twisting, and bending for one hour a day; reaching above the shoulder for three hours a 

day, and sitting with repetitive movements for six hours a day. She stopped work on June 30, 2021.

Beginning on July 1, 2021 appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Manoj Sadhnani, a 

podiatrist, supported her total disability from work and reported findings including pain and 

weakness after prolonged standing. He diagnosed instability of the left ankle and possible 

osteochondritis.

On January 21, 2022 OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), and 

a series of questions to Dr. Sean Lager, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion 

examination regarding the extent and degree of any employment-related disability, whether 

appellant was capable of returning to her date-of-injury position, or whether she was a candidate 

for vocational rehabilitation. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence. In a January 11, 2022 report, Dr. Sadhnani

recounted appellant’s ongoing symptoms of pain and weakness after prolonged standing. He 

diagnosed left ankle instability and possible osteochondritis of the left ankle. Dr. Sadhnani 

continued to support total disability and recommended additional physical therapy.

4

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

5 Counsel did not appeal the January 9 and April26, 2023 OWCP decisions. The Board will not address these 

issues in this appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3.
3

In a February 21, 2022 report, Dr. Lager recounted appellant’s history of injury on April 8, 

2018 and performed a physical examination listing a shuffling labored gait and loss of plantar 

flexion of her left toes. He opined that her subjective complaints did not correspond with his 

objective findings. Dr. Lager diagnosed left foot and ankle sprain. He related that the work-related

condition had resolved as there was no evidence to support that it was still active and causing 

objective findings. Dr. Lager further related that appellant could return to her date-of-injury 

position as a mail handler without restrictions. He determined that she did not demonstrate full 

effort on examination.

In a March 1, 2022 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Lager indicated that 

appellant could perform sedentary work lifting up to five pounds for three hours a day.

Dr. Sadhnani completed a note on March 24, 2022 and continued to find that appellant was 

totally disabled due to her accepted left ankle ligament repair, instability, and possible 

osteochondritis.

In an April 14, 2022 Form OWCP-5c, Dr. Lager found that appellant could return to her 

date-of-injury position without restrictions. 

Dr. Sadhnani provided a treatment note dated June 4, 2022 and found that appellant was 

totally disabled.

On September 17, 2022 Dr. Sadhnani continued to recount appellant’s pain and weakness 

after prolonged standing and repeated his diagnoses. He found that she was totally disabled.

On November 22, 2022 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits based on the report of Dr. Lager, the second opinion physician, who found 

that appellant no longer had any disability or residuals causally related to her accepted employment 

injury. It afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence or argument, in writing, if she 

disagreed with the proposed termination.

Appellant responded on December 8, 2022 and disagreed with Dr. Lager’s conclusions. 

She provided a December 22, 2022 note from Dr. Sadhnani in which he related that appellant had 

weakness and pain with range of motion and ambulation.

By decision dated January 6, 2023, OWCP finalized the termination of appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective that date. It found that the weight of the medical 

evidence rested with Dr. Lager, the second opinion physician, who found that appellant no longer 

had any disability or residuals causally related to her accepted employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of proof to justify 

termination or modification of an employee’s benefits.6 After it has determined that an employee 

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

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

6 K.T., Docket No. 22-1038 (issued June 22, 2023); M.M.,Docket No. 17-1264 (issued December 3, 2018); KellyY. 

Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003).
4

the employment.7 Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background. 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 (IME)) who 

shall make an examination.9 For a conflict to arise the opposing physicians’ viewpoints must be 

of virtually equal weight and rationale.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation, effective January 6, 2023.

Dr. Sadhnani, in reports dated from July 1, 2021 through December 22, 2022, related that 

appellant had not fully recovered from her accepted employment injury, and that she remained 

disabled. He held appellant off work due to continued left ankle and foot pain and weakness. 

Dr. Sadhnani opined that appellant had poor stamina and was unable to stand for eight hours a day.

Dr. Lager, in his February 21, 2022 report, opined that work-related left foot and ankle 

sprains had resolved as there was no evidence to support that the work-related conditions were still 

active and causing objective findings in appellant’s subjective symptomsrelated to the accepted 

April 8, 2018 employment injury. He provided two OWCP-5c forms. In the first OWCP-5c form 

dated March 1, 2022, Dr. Lager indicated that appellant could perform sedentary work lifting up 

to five pounds for three hours a day. He completed a second OWCP-5c form on April 14, 2022 

and found that she could return to her date-of-injury position without restrictions.

It is well established that where there are opposing medical reports of virtually equal 

probative value between an attending physician and a second opinion physician, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8123(a) requires OWCP to refer the case to a referee physician to resolve the conflict. 11 The 

Board finds that the medical reports of Drs. Lager and Sadhnani are in equipoise on the issue of 

whether appellant was capable of returning to work, and are thus in conflict. The Board, therefore, 

finds that OWCP should have resolved this conflict of medical evidence before terminating 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation.12

As there is a conflict of medical opinion as to whether appellant was disabled from work, 

OWCP failed to meet its burden of proof to justify termination of her wage-loss compensation.

7 T.N.,Docket No. 22-0721 (issued September 14, 2022); A.T.,Docket No. 20-0334 (issued October 8, 2020); E.B.,

Docket No. 18-1060 (issued November 1, 2018).

8 T.N., id.; R.L., Docket No. 20-1611 (issued September 30, 2022); C.R., Docket No. 19-1132 (issued October 1, 

2020); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284 (1988).

9

5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); R.H., Docket No. 20-1442 (issued February 9, 2022); Q.S., Docket No. 20-0701 (issued 

November 10, 2021).

10 R.H., id.; Darlene R. Kennedy, 57 ECAB 414, 416 (2006); James P. Roberts, 30 ECAB 1010 (1980).

11 Id.

12 Id.
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP did not meet its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation, effective January 6, 2023.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 6, 2023 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: January 2, 2024

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