United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, EROS DATA 

CENTER, Sioux Falls, SD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0935

Issued: January 4, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 June 26, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 25, 2023 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation (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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the May 25, 2023 decision, OWCP received 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 additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization for a 

prescription medication.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 29, 1991 appellant, then a 53-year-old financial manager, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a physical and mental 

breakdown on or about October 11, 1991 due to factors of his federal employment, including job 

stress, necessitating a psychiatric hospitalization. He noted that he first became aware of his 

condition on October 11, 1991 and realized its relation to factors of his employment on 

November 7, 1991. Appellant stopped work on October 14, 1991 and returned to work in a new 

position in 1993. OWCP accepted the claim for a temporary episode of depression. Appellant

retired from the employing establishment in January 1995. OWCP later expanded the acceptance 

of his claim to include major depression, recurrent episode, and a urological condition. Appellant

remained under medical treatment and participated in an OWCP-authorized wellness center 

physical exercise program. 

In reports dated October 31, 2016,Dr. Ryan T. Santin, a Board-certified psychiatrist, noted 

appellant had been followed since 1991 for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD), and panic disorder. He was prescribed Metoprolol Succinate (Metoprolol) “[f]or Blood 

Pressure, heart.”

In a September 26, 2017 letter, Dr. Seth Parsons, a psychiatrist, noted that Metoprolol 

“assists with anxiety, but also hypertension.”

In reports dated from April 4, 2018 through April 1, 2019, Dr. David A. Schlagel, a Boardcertified psychiatrist, recounted a history of the accepted occupational condition and treatment. 

He prescribed Metoprolol for anxiety. Commencing October 2, 2019, Dr. Schlagel reduced the 

Metoprolol dose to lessen appellant’s symptoms of dizziness and fatigue. 

In an August 5, 2020 report, Dr. Schlagel diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD 

by history, major depressive disorder, recurrent, in full remission, insomnia, and cardiovascular 

conditions. He opined that appellant had not fully recovered from the accepted emotional 

condition. Dr. Schlagel maintained appellant on Metoprolol for anxiety in reports dated through 

July 12, 2021.

In a letter dated May 20, 2022, Optum, OWCP’s pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), 

advised appellant that, although OWCP had previously authorized Metoprolol, the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that it was medically necessary to treat his 

employment-related conditions. In a development letter of even date, it requested that Dr. Schlagel 

provide a report explaining the medical necessity for Metoprolol and its relationship to the 

accepted conditions. OWCP afforded both parties were afforded 30 days to submit the requested 

evidence. 
3

In response, Dr. Schlagel submitted a May 31, 2022 report noting that appellant required

Metoprolol for hypertension and coronary artery disease, as he had a history of myocardial 

infarction.

In a letter dated August 19, 2022, OWCP advised Dr. Schlagel that additional 

documentation was needed to support continued authorization of Metoprolol. It requested a 

medical report with a reasoned opinion as to why the medication was required to address symptoms 

of the accepted occupational conditions. OWCP afforded Dr. Schlagel 30 days to respond. It 

provided a copy of the letter to appellant and advised him of his responsibility “to ensure that all 

requested information is provided as promptly as possible.”

In development letters dated October 3 and 4, 2022, the PBM advised Dr. Schlagel and 

appellant, respectively, that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that 

Metoprolol was medically necessary to treat the accepted conditions. It requested a medical report

explaining why the medication was necessary to treat the accepted conditions. 

On December 16, 2022 Dr. Schlagel noted that appellant remained under psychiatric 

treatment and was compliant with attendance at a cardiovascular exercise and mobility program. 

In a February 8, 2023 report, Dr. Schlagel diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD 

by history, major depressive disorder, recurrent, in full remission, insomnia disorder, coronary 

artery disease, ischemic cardiomyopathy, status-post implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) 

placement, mitral valve repair, and a urological condition. He prescribed Metoprolol “for anxiety.”

Appellant also submitted a June 15, 2022 report by Dr. Schlagel with the same diagnoses 

and prescription information as presented in the February 8, 2023 report. 

By decision dated May 25, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s request for authorization of 

Metoprolol, finding that the evidence of record did not support that it was medically necessary to 

treat the effects of his accepted employment-related conditions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8103 of FECA3 provides that the United States shall furnish to an employee who 

is injured while in the performance of duty, the services, appliances, and supplies prescribed or 

recommended by a qualified physician, which OWCP considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce 

the degree, or the period of disability, or aid in lessening the amount of monthly compensation. 4 

In interpreting section 8103 of FECA, the Board has recognized that OWCP has broad discretion 

in approving services provided, with the only limitation on OWCP’s authority being that of 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8103.

4

Id., see also N.G., Docket No. 18-1340 (issued March 6, 2019).
4

reasonableness.5 OWCP has administrative discretion in choosing the means to achieve this goal 

and the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of reasonableness.6

Abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly 

unreasonable exercise of judgment, or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable 

deductions from established facts. It is not enough to merely show that the evidence could be 

construed so as to produce a contrary factual conclusion. 7

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization for a 

prescription medication.

Dr. Santin noted in reports dated October 31, 2016 that Metoprolol had been prescribed for 

hypertension and cardiac conditions, while Dr. Parsons noted in a September 16, 2017 letter that 

Metoprolol addressed both hypertension and anxiety. Dr. Schlagel, in reports dated from April 4, 

2018 through July 12, 2021, and February 8, 2023, explained that Metoprolol had been prescribed 

for anxiety. 

In a letter dated May 20, 2022, the PBM indicated that additional information was 

necessary before the request for Metoprolol could be approved. It requested a complete response 

to its development letter and afforded 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. In response,

Dr. Schlagel submitted a May 31, 2022 report noting that he prescribed Metoprolol to address 

hypertension and coronary artery disease with a history of myocardial infarction. 

Thereafter, the PBM issued October 3 and 4, 2022 development letters to Dr. Schlagel and 

appellant, requesting additional medical reports addressing whether Metoprolol had been 

prescribed to treat the accepted employment-related conditions. It subsequently received

Dr. Schlagel’s June 15, 2022 and February 8, 2023 reports, indicating that he prescribed 

Metoprolol for anxiety. 

As noted, the only restriction on OWCP’s authority to authorize medical treatment is one 

of reasonableness.8 OWCP requested a rationalized explanation on the medical necessity of the 

prescription medication. While Dr. Schlagel noted in his reports dated April 4, 2018 through 

February 8, 2023 that appellant should continue taking the medication, he attributed the necessity 

of the medication to anxiety, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. He failed to explain why 

it was medically necessary to treat the accepted employment-related conditions. The Board,

5 D.W., Docket No. 19-0402 (issued November 13, 2019); see also Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990) 

(abuse of discretion by OWCP is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of 

judgment, or administrative actions which are contrary to both logic, and probable deductions from established facts).

6

S.K., Docket No. 22-0950 (issued June23, 2023); J.E.,Docket No. 18-0228 (issued August 8, 2019); Daniel J. 

Perea, id.

7 E.L., Docket No. 17-1445 (issued December 18, 2018);L.W., 59 ECAB 471 (2008); P.P., 58 ECAB 673 (2007).

8 B.I., Docket No. 18-0988 (issued March 13, 2020); see also Daniel J. Perea, supra note 5.
5

therefore, finds that OWCP has not abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for 

authorization for prescription medication.9

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for authorization for a 

prescription medication.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 25, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation is affirmed.

Issued: January 4, 2024

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

9

See G.B., Docket No. 18-1478 (issued February4, 2019); R.C., Docket No. 18-0612 (issued October 19, 2018); 

G.A., Docket No. 09-2153; Lewis J. Wheeler, Jr., Docket No. 00-0026 (issued June6, 2001)(OWCP did not abuse its 

discretion in denying authorization for non-opioid prescription medication where the treating physicians did not 

provide medical rationale explaining why the requested medication was medically necessary to address the accepted 

occupational conditions).