United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BALTIMORE MAIN 

POST OFFICE, Baltimore, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0862

Issued: October 31, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 June 9, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 6, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective April 6, 2023, as she no longer had disability 

or residuals causally related to her accepted May 15, 1989 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 22, l989 appellant, then a 31-year-old flat sorter operator, filed a claim for 

occupational disease (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an employment-related respiratory 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

condition. She indicated that she became aware of the condition and its relationship to her 

employment on May 15, 1989. OWCP accepted the claim for allergic bronchitis.

By decision dated July 25, 1997, OWCP reduced appellant’s compensation, effective 

August 17, 1997, based on its determination that she was capable of earning wages in the

constructed position of receptionist. By decision dated November 7, 1997, it denied her request 

for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). On January 26, 

1998 OWCP issued a decision denying appellant’s request for an oral hearing as she had 

previously requested reconsideration by OWCP. By decision dated October 28, 1998, it denied

her request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). The 

Board, by decision dated December 1, 2000, affirmed the October 28, 1998 decision.

2 The 

record reflects that appellant received wage-loss benefits from OWCP based on her loss of wageearning capacity (LWEC) since June 16, 2002.

In a letter dated April 8, 2021, Dr. David L. Eisenberg, an attending Board-certified 

internist, advised that appellant had long-standing asthma that was currently stable. He noted 

that she had not had any asthma attacks or emergency room visits.

On January 14, 2022 OWCP referred appellant along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF), the case record, and a series of questions, to Dr. Denise Chevalier, Board-certified in 

allergy, asthma, and immunology, for a second opinion evaluation to determine the nature and 

extent of appellant’s employment-related conditions and her work capacity.

In a January 31, 2022 report, Dr. Chevalier noted her review of the SOAF and the 

medical record. On physical and mental examination, she reported essentially normal findings 

except for significant difficulty hearing; pink and mildly enlarged turbinates, but nonobstructing; cloudy mucoid drainage; and somewhat dry skin. Dr. Chevalier provided 

assessments of chronic cough, chronic rhinitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), 

glaucoma, recent stroke with hearing loss, and hypertension. She opined that the accepted 

condition of allergic bronchitis had resolved. Dr. Chevalier explained that appellant’s allergic 

condition seemed to be aggravated or precipitated by her workplace exposure, likely to dusts or 

particulates. She further explained that since appellant had not returned to work at the 

employing establishment, it was unknown if she would again react to the work exposure. 

Dr. Chevalier advised that appellant could not perform her previous work duties due to her 

accepted condition, but she could work as a receptionist if she could tolerate the environment. 

She indicated, however, that appellant’s recent stroke may hinder other work. Dr. Chevalier

recommended diagnostic testing to rule out chronic sinusitis, noting that rhinitis, GERD, and 

chronic cough could be interrelated, and it could be difficult to discern the cause of appellant’s 

cough. She further noted that appellant had a persistent cough 33 years away from the 

workplace.

On February 3, 2022 Dr. Chevalier completed a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP5c) indicating that appellant could not perform her usual job, but she could work four hours per 

day with restrictions following clearance from her neurologist related to her recent stroke.

2 Docket No. 99-850 (issued December 1, 2000).
3

By notice dated February 8, 2022, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate 

her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits based on Dr. Chevalier’s medical opinion that 

the accepted condition had ceased without disability or residuals. It afforded her 30 days to 

submit additional evidence or argument challenging the proposed action.

In an undated statement, appellant related that although she had continuing problems due 

to her work-related condition, she was willing to return to work. She requested, however, that 

OWCP not terminate her compensation benefits based on medical records from Dr. Eisenberg.

Appellant submitted medical evidence. In a March 1, 2022 chest x-ray, Dr. Rubina Shah, 

a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, provided an impression of no cardiopulmonary process. 

In a progress note dated March 7, 2022, Dr. Michael S. Burnim, a Board-certified 

internist, noted appellant’s chief complaint of chronic cough, and that she presented for a work 

evaluation and chronic cough. He further noted her history which included asthma; chronic 

rhinosinusitis; dysphagia and esophageal dysfunction, status post dilation; Chiari malformation, 

status post decompression, GERD, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, depression/anxiety, and 

post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Burnim indicated that appellant had been on disability for the 

accepted condition of allergic bronchitis since 1989 and that OWCP had determined that she was 

no longer disabled from work. He noted that she reported various conditions including, a 

chronic daily cough that produced some clear sputum two to three days per week and often 

worsened in the evening. Dust/mold/hand sanitizer/shoe polish/perfume/bleach triggered her 

cough and eye watering, but not shortness of breath or wheeze. Appellant experienced wheezing 

once a month in the Spring. She had occasional chest tightness with exertion but, not with 

shortness of breath or cough. Appellant’s chronic sinusitis had improved since she had 

undergone sinus surgery, but she still experienced a draining sensation in the back of her throat. 

She denied anterior rhinorrhea and frank throat pain or itching. Appellant indicated that her 

dyspnea and GERD symptoms had much improved since her recent esophageal dilation.

OWCP subsequently received additional medical evidence. A report dated March 3, 2022 

from Johns Hopkins Medicine provided pulmonary function study results. A March 10, 2022 

letter from Dr. Eisenberg noted a review of the March 3, 2022 pulmonary function study, and 

indicated that it did not show asthma or emphysema.

In a March 8, 2022 report, Dr. James Womer, a pulmonologist, and Dr. Robert A. Wise, a 

Board-certified internist and pulmonologist, reviewed a pulmonary function study and diagnosed 

mild restrictive ventilatory defect.

OWCP, by decision dated April 6, 2023, terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits, effective that date, finding that the medical evidence of record established 

that she no longer had disability or residuals causally related to her accepted May 15, 1995 

employment injury. The weight of the medical evidence was accorded to the opinion of the 

second opinion physician, Dr. Chevalier.
4

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.3 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 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.6 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must 

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

require further medical treatment.7

ANALYSIS

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

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective April 6, 2023.

OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits based on the 

medical opinion of Dr. Chevalier, the second opinion physician. In a January 31, 2022 report,

Dr. Chevalier opined that appellant had no disability or residuals causally related to her accepted 

allergic bronchitis. She reported essentially normal physical and mental examination findings

aside from significant difficulty hearing; pink and mildly enlarged turbinates, but non -

obstructing; cloudy mucoid drainage; and somewhat dry skin. Dr. Chevalier provided 

assessments of chronic cough, chronic rhinitis, GERD, glaucoma, recent stroke with hearing 

loss, and hypertension. She opined that the accepted condition of allergic bronchitis had 

resolved. Dr. Chevalier further opined that appellant could not perform her previous work 

duties, but she could work as a receptionist if she could tolerate the environment.

Although Dr. Chevalier opined that appellant had no residuals of the accepted allergic 

bronchitis condition and appellant could work as a receptionist, she also noted that appellant’s 

return to work as a receptionist depended on her ability to tolerate the work environment. She 

related that it was unknown as to whether appellant would have an allergic reaction to a 

workplace exposure such as her prior workplace exposure (that was likely comprised of dust and 

particulates) since she had not returned to work at the employing establishment. Dr. Chevalier’s

3

See 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.; JasonC. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); Vivien L. 

Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986).

5 K.W.,Docket No. 19-1224 (issued November 15, 2019); see M.C., Docket No. 18-1374 (issued April 23, 2019); 

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 L.S., Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019); R.P., Docket No. 18-0900 (issued February 5, 2019).
5

opinion regarding whether appellant had continuing employment-related disability or residuals 

was speculative in nature. The Board has held that speculative and equivocal medical opinions 

regarding causal relationship have no probative value.8 The Board also notes that Dr. Chevalier 

recommended diagnostic testing to rule out chronic sinusitis because it was difficult to discern 

the cause of appellant’s persistent cough which she suffered from for 33 years away from the 

employing establishment. The Board finds that Dr. Chevalier did not definitely conclude that 

appellant no longer had employment-related disability or residuals. Dr. Chevalier did not 

provide sufficient medical reasoning or explanation for how appellant no longer had disability or 

residuals due to her accepted allergic bronchitis.

The Board, therefore, finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective April 6, 2023, as the medical 

evidence of record is insufficient to establish that she no longer has disability or residuals

causally related to her accepted May 15, 1989 employment injury.9

CONCLUSION

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

wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective April 6, 2023. 

8 P.P., Docket No. 21-1163 (issued March 30, 2022); M.G., Docket No. 21-0747 (issued October 15, 2021).

9

See R.K., Docket No. 19-1980 (issued May 7, 2020); D.W., Docket No. 18-0123 (issued October 4, 2018);

Willa M. Frazier, 55 ECAB 379 (2004).
6

ORDER

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.

Issued: October 31, 2023

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