United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.S., Appellant

and

FEDERAL JUDICIARY, ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS,

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0354

Issued: June 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephen Scavuzzo, 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 January 4, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 9, 2020

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

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a medical condition 

causally related to the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident.

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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 20, 2018 appellant, then a 48-year-old information technology specialist, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on October 22, 2018, she sustained 

multiple injuries to her neck, lower back, right arm, and right shoulder when a woman fainted and 

collapsed into appellant’s right arm while in the performance of duty. She explained that she ran 

from the back of the auditorium and onto the stage to catch the woman as she collapsed. Appellant 

did not stop work. 

In an October 29, 2018 report, Emily Litten, a physician assistant, diagnosed asthma, 

allergic rhinitis, chronic back pain, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and hand 

pain. 

In a November 7, 2018 procedure report, Dr. Ashish G. Shanbhag, Board-certified in pain 

medicine, diagnosed spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy in the cervical region. On 

November 8, 2018 Dr. Shanbhag noted that appellant presented for follow up to her chronic spinal 

pain issues. He related that “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, lying flat, [and] driving” were 

aggravating factors for her pain. Dr. Shanbhag conducted a physical examination and diagnosed 

cervical facet syndrome, cervical enthesopathy, drug dependence, chronic pain, opioid 

dependence, lumbar facet syndrome, choric pain syndrome, and cervicalgia.

In reports dated November 12, 14, and 16, 2018, Dr. Shanbhag noted that appellant 

underwent diagnostic cervical medial branch block procedure. He diagnosed spondylosis without 

myelopathy or radiculopathy in the cervical region.

A November 30, 2018 x-ray of the right hand demonstrated normal results. A right 

shoulder x-ray of even date revealed degenerative changes involving the right acromioclavicular 

joint. In a medical report of even date, Dr. Priya Ghadge, Board-certified in family practice, 

conducted a physical examination and diagnosed hand joint pain and shoulder joint pain. 

In a December 7, 2018 medical report, Dr. Shanbhag reiterated his earlier findings and 

diagnoses. In a procedure report of even date, he noted that appellant underwent a prolotherapy 

injection and diagnosed cervical spondylosis.

On December 14, 2018 appellant was treated by Dr. Shanbhag for follow up to her chronic 

pain issues. In a report dated December 14, 2018, he noted that “sitting, standing, walking, lifting, 

lying flat, driving, cold/damp weather, and coughing/sneezing” were aggravating factors for her 

pain. Dr. Shanbhag conducted a physical examination and diagnosed chronic pain, cervical 

enthesopathy, cervical facet syndrome, other cervical disc displacement at C6-C7 level, 

lumbosacral radiculopathy, lumbar facet syndrome, opioid dependence, lumbosacral 

enthesopathy, chronic pain syndrome, cervical radiculopathy, and low back pain (lumbago). In a 

procedure report of even date, he noted that appellant underwent a prolotherapy injection and 

diagnosed cervicothoracic spondylosis.

In a December 18, 2018 procedure report, Dr. Shanbhag noted that appellant underwent a 

prolotherapy injection and diagnosed lumbosacral spondylosis. 

In a January 4, 2019 medical report, Dr. Shanbhag noted that appellant experienced right 

shoulder pain after catching a woman from falling at work. He conducted a physical examination 
3

and diagnosed chronic pain, anxiety, PTSD, lumbar facet syndrome, cervicalgia, low back pain 

(lumbago), suprascapular neuropathy, and right shoulder pain. 

A January 8, 2019 right shoulder arthrogram demonstrated a focal superior labrum anterior 

posterior (SLAP) tear with extension of the superior and posterior labrum, minimal rotator cuff 

tendinosis, and impingement in the acromioclavicular joint. In a medical report of even date,

Dr. Shanbhag conducted a physical examination and diagnosed suprascapular neuropathy, right 

shoulder pain, chronic pain, cervical facet syndrome, PTSD, lumbar facet syndrome, and low back 

pain (lumbago). 

In a January 21, 2019 medical report, Dr. Shanbhag conducted a physical examination and 

diagnosed suprascapular neuropathy, tendinosis, and superior glenoid labrum lesion of right 

shoulder. 

In a January 23, 2019 procedure report, Dr. Shanbhag noted that appellant underwent an 

intra-articular shoulder joint injection in the right shoulder and diagnosed right rotator cuff 

syndrome. In a medical report of even date, Dr. Hajeer Sabet, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted that appellant presented with neck and right shoulder pain. He also noted that 

appellant had a history of pain for the past two or three months after she caught a falling woman, 

injuring her arm. Dr. Sabet conducted a physical examination and diagnosed a right shoulder 

SLAP tear, rotator impingement, and tendinosis.

On January 31, 2019 Dr. Shanbhag conducted a physical examination and diagnosed right 

shoulder pain and superior glenoid labrum lesion of right shoulder. In a procedure report of even 

date, he noted that appellant underwent an intra-articular shoulder joint injection in the right 

shoulder and diagnosed right rotator cuff syndrome.

In a February 11, 2019 procedure report, Dr. Shanbhag noted that appellant underwent a 

therapeutic right shoulder joint injection and diagnosed right rotator cuff syndrome. 

Dr. Sabet, in a report dated February 19, 2019, diagnosed ongoing right shoulder pain and 

right shoulder impingement syndrome. 

In a February 25, 2019 medical report, Dr. Ghadge noted that appellant underwent neck 

surgery. In a procedure report of even date, Dr. Shanbhag indicated that appellant underwent 

diagnostic thoracic medial branch block procedure and diagnosed spondylosis without myelopathy 

or radiculopathy in the thoracic region. In a medical report of even date, he noted that appellant 

presented with right shoulder pain as well as right mid-back pain. Dr. Shanbhag diagnosed right 

shoulder pain, chronic pain, thoracic spine pain, thoracic facet syndrome. 

In a February 26, 2019 procedure report, Dr. Shanbhag noted that appellant presented with 

right mid-back pain and underwent diagnostic thoracic medial branch block procedure. He 

diagnosed spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy in the thoracic region.

In a March 6, 2019 operative report, Dr. Sabet noted that appellant underwent right 

shoulder subacromial decompression, arthroscopic labral debridement, and rotator cuff 

debridement. He diagnosed right shoulder subacromial impingement syndrome, a right shoulder 

labral tear, and rotator cuff tendinosis. 
4

In a March 14, 2019 medical report, Dr. Sabet conducted a physical examination and 

diagnosed status post right shoulder rotator cuff debridement. 

Appellant underwent physical therapy treatments from March 25 through May 13, 2019. 

In a May 9, 2019 medical report, Dr. Sabet conducted a physical examination and 

diagnosed cervical stenosis and pain as well as facet pain. 

A May 29, 2019 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the spine revealed spondylosis 

causing neural foramina narrowing at C2-3 level on the left, C3-4 level on the left, C4-5 level on 

the left, with impingement upon the existing left C3, left C4, and the left C5 nerve roots. It also 

demonstrated central canal stenosis at C3-4 through C6-7 levels.

In a June 11, 2019 medical report, Dr. Sabet conducted a physical examination and 

diagnosed cervical stenosis, radiculopathy, and neck pain.

A June 14, 2019 x-ray of the cervical spine revealed no fracture or osseous destruction but 

demonstrated stable degenerative changes at the C5-6 level.

On June 18, 2019 Dr. Ghadge conducted a physical examination and diagnosed persistent 

insomnia, PTSD, displacement of cervical intervertebral disc without myelopathy.

A June 24, 2019 cervical spine x-ray demonstrated operative changes from multilevel 

anterior fusion. In an operative report of even date, Dr. Sabet diagnosed cervical spinal stenosis 

at C4-5 and C5-6 levels, cervical radiculopathy, and degenerative disc disease at the cervical spine.

On June 25, 2019 Dr. Sabet conducted a physical examination and diagnosed neck swelling 

with possible hematoma of the cervical spine with dysphonia and dysphagia. In an operative report 

of even date, he diagnosed left neck hematoma and noted that he performed incision and drainage 

of a neck hematoma and intraoperative microbiology cultures. 

In a July 2, 2019 medical report, Dr. Sabet indicated that appellant underwent anterior 

cervical discectomy and fusion. 

A July 5, 2019 cervical spine x-ray demonstrated new postsurgical changes status post 

C4-5 and C5-6 anterior fusion.

In a July 10, 2019 medical report, Dr. Ghadge diagnosed right shoulder joint pain.

In an October 31, 2019 form report, Dr. Sabet noted that appellant should be excused from 

work for the period June 24 through July 24, 2019. He indicated that she underwent three surgeries 

within four months and experienced significant pain. 

In a December 5, 2019 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her 

claim and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In a December 12, 2019 memorandum, appellant’s supervisor, S.M., indicated that 

appellant notified him of the October 22, 2018 employment incident within 24 hours of the 

incident. 
5

A December 16, 2019 cervical spine x-ray revealed postsurgical and degenerative changes 

but demonstrated no evidence of acute fracture or hardware complication.

In a January 3, 2020 statement, appellant contended that she timely notified her direct 

supervisor of the August 22, 2018 employment incident. She further contended that she sustained 

more than a minor injury from the employment incident and asserted that she never had any 

shoulder issue prior to the August 22, 2018 employment incident. Appellant acknowledged that 

she previously experienced some pain in her neck prior to the employment incident, but never 

severe enough to require surgery. 

In a January 7, 2020 report, Dr. Danielle S. Cherrick, a Board-certified physiatrist, noted 

that appellant was under her care. She recommended that appellant work remotely for three full 

days per week, starting on January 13, 2020.

By decision dated January 14, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish that appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions were 

causally related to her accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident.

In a February 5, 2020 note, Rebekka Miller, a nurse practitioner, modified appellant’s 

return to work schedule to extend it through March 10, 2020.

In a March 6, 2020 report, Dr. Cherrick noted that appellant was under her care since 

October 2018 for lower lumbar pain, facet joint syndrome, and multiple herniated discs. She 

reported that she was injured at work around October 2018 and indicated that she underwent three 

surgeries on her shoulder and neck. Dr. Cherrick related that appellant made extensive progress 

over her recovery period. She described multiple obstacles that appellant still experienced that 

prevented her from fully returning to work. Dr. Cherrick recommended that appellant work 

remotely until she was completely recovered. 

A March 16, 2020 cervical spine MRI scan revealed anterior cervical fusion with 

straightening of the cervical lordosis, stable narrowing of the C3-4 neuroforamina, and stable 

degenerative changes at C4-5 and C5-6 levels.

In an April 6, 2020 narrative report, Dr. Cherrick noted that appellant was initially seen on 

October 17, 2017, prior to the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident, with a complaint 

of extreme lower lumbar pain and mild cervical pain, with a history of sleep disturbance, 

headaches, PTSD, and lower lumbar disc disease and facet joint syndrome. She noted that 

appellant’s 2017 MRI scan revealed preexisting degenerative disc disease involving the 

lumbosacral spine, left paracentral-lateral disc protrusion at L3-4 level without definite evidence 

of nerve root impingement, small left paracentral disc protrusion at L4-5 level impinging upon the 

left L5 nerve root, and small central disc osteophyte complex at the L5-S1 level impinging upon 

the right S1 nerve root. Dr. Cherrick related that appellant was treated for her cervical spine and 

neck issues, was diagnosed with lumbosacral spondylosis, and returned to work after experiencing 

significant progress with her treatments. She reported that after the accepted October 22, 2018 

employment incident, however, appellant’s pain and issues significantly worsened. Dr. Cherrick 

then reviewed appellant’s diagnostic studies and summarized her treatment history, including her 

March 6, 2019 right shoulder debridement and June 24, 2019 neck fusion.

Dr. Cherrick noted that the November 30, 2018 right shoulder x-ray revealed degenerative 

changes in the right acromioclavicular joint and the arthrogram of the right shoulder demonstrated 
6

focal tendinosis in the supraspinatus without a tear in the rotator cuff, as well as a focal SLAP tear 

in the superior and posterior labrum. She also noted that the March 16, 2020 cervical spine MRI 

scan was compared to appellant’s presurgical 2019 MRI scan and revealed that she had minimal 

disc bulge with bilateral facet joint uncovertebral joint hypertrophic changes resulting in modera teto-severe left neural foramina stenosis at C3-4 level and mild-to-moderate bilateral neuroforaminal 

stenosis at C5-6 level. Dr. Cherrick further indicated that appellant’s attempt to return to work 

exacerbated her work-related injury. She opined, based on the diagnostic studies, and due to 

appellant having no symptoms prior to the October 22, 2018 employment incident, that the 

accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident aggravated appellant’s preexisting conditions and 

most likely caused new issues that she never experienced. Dr. Cherrick explained that there were 

changes between appellant’s latest cervical spine MRI scan and the original MRI scan performed 

prior to the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident. She indicated that she performed a 

steroidal injection on appellant’s right shoulder on September 25, 2019 and then again on 

March 6, 2020. Dr. Cherrick noted that appellant underwent physical therapy treatment without 

relief. She concluded that while appellant had preexisting issues with her lower back that was 

actively treated, the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident aggravated her preexisting 

conditions and caused new injuries to her shoulder.

In an April 21, 2020 statement, appellant contended that a new report from Dr. Cherrick 

would establish causal relationship.

On May 28, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By decision dated July 9, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its January 14, 2020 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that the individual is an employee of the United 

States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the 

performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There 

are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component is whether the 

3

Id.

4 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
7

employee actually experienced the employment incident at the time and place, and in the manner 

alleged. The second component is whether the employment incident caused a personal injury. 7 

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship between a claimed specific 

condition and an employment incident is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 The opinion of 

the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must 

be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and specific employment incident 

identified by the employee.9

In a case in which a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present 

and the issue of causal relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration or precipitation, 

the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects 

of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident.

In her April 6, 2020 narrative report, Dr. Cherrick detailed a history of appellant’s 

treatment and diagnostic studies since October 17, 2017 when she was previously treated for 

preexisting cervical spine and neck issues. Appellant complained that her pain and issues 

significantly worsened after the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident. Dr. Cherrick

provided a detailed interpretation of the November 30, 2018 x-rays of the right shoulder and right 

hand and the March 16, 2020 cervical spine MRI scan, which was compared to the 2017 study. 

She opined, based on the changes in diagnostic studies, and due to appellant having no symptoms 

prior to the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident, that the accepted employment 

incident aggravated appellant’s preexisting conditions and most likely caused new issues that she 

never experienced. However, Dr. Cherrick provided no rationale explaining how, physiologically, 

the specific movements involved in the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident caused 

or aggravated the diagnosed conditions. The Board has held that a medical opinion must explain 

how the implicated employment factors physiologically caused, contributed to, or aggravated the 

specific diagnosed conditions.11 A well-rationalized opinion is particularly warranted when there 

7 T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J.

Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

8

S.S., Docket No. 19-0688 (issued January 24, 2020); A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April24, 2019); RobertG. 

Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

9 T.L., Docket No. 18-0778 (issued January 22, 2020); Y.S., Docket No. 18-0366 (issued January 22, 2020); 

Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3e (January 2013); see

E.W., Docket 20-0760 (issued January 11, 2021); K.G., Docket No. 18-1598 (issued January 7, 2020); M.S., Docket 

No. 19-0913 (issued November 25, 2019).

11 S.C., Docket No. 20-0492 (issued May 6, 2021); R.S., Docket No. 19-1774 (issued April 3, 2020).
8

is a history of a preexisting condition.12 Therefore, Dr. Cherrick’s opinion is of limited probative 

value and insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

In January 23, 2019 and March 6, 2020 reports, Drs. Sabet and Cherrick related the history 

of injury and diagnosed a right shoulder SLAP tear, rotator impingement, tendinosis, lower lumbar 

pain, facet joint syndrome, and multiple herniated discs. However, they did not provide an opinion 

on causal relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship.13 This evidence is therefore of no probative value and is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s claim.

In reports dated November 7, 2018 through June 25, 2019, Drs. Shanbhag, Sabet, and 

Ghadge conducted a physical examination and provided multiple diagnoses. However, they failed 

to offer an opinion on causation. As noted above, the Board has held that medical evidence that 

does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value 

on the issue of causal relationship.14 Thus, these reports are insufficient to establish the claim.

In medical reports dated November 30, 2018 and July 10, 2019, Dr. Ghadge diagnosed 

hand joint pain and right shoulder joint pain. Similarly, in his June 25, 2019 medical report, 

Dr. Sabet diagnosed neck swelling but offered no opinion on causal relationship. As noted above, 

a medical report lacking an opinion on causal relationship is of no probative value.15 Thus, these 

reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

In medical reports dated February 25 through October 31, 2019, Drs. Ghadge and Sabet 

noted that appellant underwent multiple surgeries. In a January 7, 2020 report, Dr. Cherrick noted 

that appellant was under her care. However, none of these reports provided an opinion on causal 

relationship. The Board has held that a medical report is of no probative value if it does not provide 

an opinion as to whether the accepted employment incident caused or contributed to the claimed 

condition(s).

16 Thus, this evidence also is of no probative value and insufficient to establish the 

claim.

Appellant also submitted multiple documents from a physician assistant, a physical 

therapist, and a nurse practitioner. The Board has held that certain healthcare providers such as 

physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and social workers are not considered 

12 J.C., Docket No. 20-1509 (issued May 25, 2021); J.L., Docket No. 20-0717 (issued October 15, 2020); E.B., 

Docket No. 17-1497 (issued March 19, 2019).

13 See R.C., Docket No. 19-0376 (issued July 15, 2019); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.
9

physicians as defined under FECA.17 Consequently, their medical findings and/or opinions will 

not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits.

The record also contains diagnostic studies. The Board has held that diagnostic studies, 

standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship, as they do not provide an 

opinion as to whether the employment incident caused any of the diagnosed conditions. 18

Accordingly, these diagnostic studies are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

Finally, appellant also submitted a June 25, 2019 after visit summary from an unidentifiable 

healthcare provider. The Board has held that reports that are unsigned or bear an illegible signature 

lack proper identification and cannot be considered probative medical evidence as the author 

cannot be identified as a physician.19 Therefore, this report is also insufficient to establish the 

claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship between 

appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident, the 

Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof.

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 appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a medical 

condition causally related to the accepted October 22, 2018 employment incident. 

17 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that physician “includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law.” 

5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal 

Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); DavidP. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals 

such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under 

FECA); C.P., Docket No. 19-1716 (issued March 11, 2020) (physician assistants are not considered physicians as 

defined under FECA); R.L., Docket No. 19-0440 (issued July 8, 2019) (nurse practitioners and physical therapists are 

not considered physicians as defined under FECA).

18 See K.C., Docket No. 20-1325 (issued May 5, 2021); C.B., Docket No. 20-0464 (issued July 21, 2020).

19 T.D., Docket No. 20-0835 (issued February 2, 2021); R.C., Docket No. 20-1525 (issued June8, 2021); I.M., 

Docket No. 19-1038 (issued January 23, 2020); T.O., Docket No. 19-1291 (issued December 11, 2019); MertonJ. 

Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988). 
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 9, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 27, 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