United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
O.R., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Miami, FL, Employer
__________________________________________
Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Docket Nos. 19-1234;
19-1241; 20-0373; 20-0506;
20-0533
Issued: June 23, 2020

Case Submitted on the Record

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REVERSE IN DOCKET NO.
19-1234, ORDER REMANDING CASE IN DOCKET NOS. 19-1241,
20-0373, AND 20-0506, AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL IN DOCKET
NO. 20-0533
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On May 14 and 17 and December 6, 2019, and January 6 and 11, 2020 appellant
respectively filed timely appeals from November 20, 2018, April 25 and December 2 and 30, 2019,
and January 7, 2020 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The
Clerk of the Appellate Boards respectively docketed these appeals as Nos. 19-1234, 19-1241,
20-0373, 20-0506, and 20-0533.
On April 23, 2013 appellant, then a 29-year-old transportation security officer, filed a
traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging a back injury on April 22, 2013 when lifting bags
while in the performance of duty. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx033 and
accepted it for a lumbar sprain, herniated disc at L5-S1, and right-sided lumbosacral
neuritis/radiculitis as work related. It issued several decisions denying appellant’s claim for a
work-related recurrence of disability, including the most recent dated November 20, 2018 in which
it determined that appellant had not established disability on or after October 10, 2014 causally
related to the accepted April 22, 2013 employment injury.

On May 12, 2017 appellant filed a Form CA-1 alleging a May 14, 2013 back injury when
dragging luggage while in the performance of duty. OWCP assigned that claim File No.
xxxxxx403 and accepted it for aggravation of a herniated disc at L5-S1 as work related. Also on
May 12, 2017 appellant filed a Form CA-1 alleging an August 6, 2014 right knee injury when
engaging in lunging exercises as part of a physical therapy session for his back conditions. OWCP
assigned that claim File No. xxxxxx404 and issued July 7 and September 20, 2017 decisions
denying the claim. Appellant timely appealed the latter decision to the Board and, by order dated
April 9, 2018, the Board set aside and remanded the case for OWCP to incorporate evidence from
OWCP File No. xxxxxx033 into OWCP File No. xxxxxx404. On remand, by decision dated
July 9, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an August 6, 2014 right knee injury, finding
appellant had not established causal relationship between the accepted August 6, 2014 employment
incident and a diagnosed right knee condition. Appellant appealed to the Board and, by decision
dated August 2, 2019, the Board affirmed OWCP’s July 9, 2018 decision. After a request for
reconsideration with OWCP, by decision dated December 2, 2019, OWCP continued to deny
appellant’s claim for an August 6, 2014 employment injury due to his failure to establish causal
relationship. Appellant later requested that his claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx403 be
expanded to include the right knee injury as a consequence of his accepted April 22 and May 14,
2013 back injuries. By decision dated May 16, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s consequential
injury claim, finding that the weight of the medical opinion evidence rested with the April 12, 2018
opinion of Dr. Clinton G. Bush, III, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon who served as an OWCP
referral physician. Appellant appealed to the Board and, by order dated September 17, 2019, the
Board remanded the case to OWCP and directed it to administratively combine the files for OWCP
File Nos. xxxxxx033, xxxxxx403, and xxxxxx404. On remand, OWCP combined these case files
and issued a December 30, 2019 decision again denying appellant’s consequential injury claim. It
reviewed additional evidence from the newly combined files, but determined that the weight of the
medical opinion evidence continued to rest with Dr. Bush’s opinion.
On October 2, 2018 appellant filed a Form CA-1 alleging that he sustained a low back
injury on December 9, 2014 while in the performance of duty. He noted that his workload had
increased over the holidays and that his engaging in repetitive lifting, dragging, and pushing of
oversized and heavy bags “caused me to aggravate lumbar spine at work.” OWCP assigned that
claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx125. By decision dated December 12, 2018, OWCP denied the
claim as untimely filed. Appellant requested a hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch
of Hearings and Review. After a hearing was held on March 18, 2019, OWCP’s hearing
representative issued an April 25, 2019 decision affirming the December 12, 2018 decision.
With regard to Docket No. 19-1234 appellant filed a timely appeal on May 14, 2019 of
OWCP’s April 25, 2019 decision under OWCP File No. xxxxxx125. On December 3, 2019 the
Director of OWCP filed a motion, requesting that the Board reverse the April 25, 2019 decision
as appellant had established his claim for an additional back injury had been timely filed. The
Director maintained that appellant had presented statements and materials indicating that he was
suffering ongoing back pain related to heavy lifting at work and stress from conflicts with
management, and asserted that the information appellant provided was sufficient to put his
immediate supervisor reasonably on notice within 30 days that he sustained an injury while in the
performance of duty, satisfying the test for actual knowledge of injury with regard to timely filing
of the claim. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards served appellant with a copy of the Director’s
motion to reverse on December 4, 2019. In a response dated December 19, 2019, appellant agreed
2

with the arguments in the Director’s motion. For the reasons espoused by the Director, the motion
to reverse is granted.
With regard to the appeals docketed as Nos. 19-1241, 20-0373, and 20-0506 the Board
finds that the cases are not in posture for decision. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1), 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. Decisions on claims are based on the written record, which may include forms,
reports, letters, and other evidence of various types such as photographs, videotapes, or drawings.1
Evidence may not be incorporated by reference, nor may evidence from another claimant’s case
file be used.2 Evidence contained in another of the claimant’s case files may be used, but a copy
of that evidence should be placed into the case file being adjudicated.3 All evidence that forms the
basis of a decision must be in that claimant’s case record.4
The Board finds that, for a full and fair adjudication of appellant’s claims, the case records
under OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx033. xxxxxx403, and xxxxxx404 must be administratively
combined with OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx125. The Board notes that, in adjudicating appellant’s
multiple claims, OWCP failed to evaluate all relevant evidence necessary for making its
determinations. OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be combined when correct
adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-reference between files, such as when
multiple claims involve the same body part or parts.5 Combination of OWCP File Nos.
xxxxxx033, xxxxxx403, xxxxxx404, and xxxxxx125 is necessary given that appellant’s
interrelated multiple claims concern claimed injuries to his low back/right lower extremity.
Therefore, the cases shall be remanded to OWCP to administratively combine OWCP File Nos.
xxxxxx033, xxxxxx403, xxxxxx404, and xxxxxx125. After OWCP has developed the record
consistent with the above-noted directive, it shall issue a de novo decision, or de novo decisions,
regarding appellant’s claims.
With regard to Docket No. 20-0533 the Board finds that the appeal must be dismissed as
there is no other final adverse decision over which the Board can take jurisdiction. On January 11,
2020 appellant filed an appeal from a January 7, 2020 decision which had vacated OWCP’s
December 30, 2019 decision denying appellant’s consequential right knee injury claim. However,
on January 6, 2020 appellant had appealed to the Board from the December 30, 2019 decision.
The Board finds that as OWCP issued its January 7, 2020 decision during the pendency of the
appeal in Docket No. 20-0506 that decision is null and void as the Board and OWCP may not

1

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.5a
(June 2011).
2

Id.

3

Id.

4

Id. See also G.D., Docket No. 19-1969 (issued May 4, 2020); G.O., Docket No. 18-1483 (issued June 20, 2019).

5
See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8c
(February 2000).

3

simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same issue.6 The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to the
review of final adverse OWCP decisions issued under FECA.7 The Board’s review authority is
further limited to final adverse decisions issued within 180 days prior to the date of the appeal.8
Because OWCP issued its January 7, 2020 decision after appellant had filed his appeal to the Board
on the same issue in Docket No. 20-0506, there is no final adverse decision over which the Board
may take jurisdiction and appellant’s appeal in Docket No. 20-0533 must be dismissed.9
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Director’s December 3, 2019 motion to reverse
in Docket No. 19-1234 is granted and the April 25, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is thereby reversed. The November 20, 2018 and December 2 and 30,
2019 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs in Docket Nos. 19-1241,
20-0373, and 20-0506 are set aside and the cases are remanded to OWCP for proceedings
consistent with this order of the Board. The appeal in Docket No. 20-0533 is dismissed.
Issued: June 23, 2020
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6
See Terry L. Smith, 51 ECAB 182 (1999); Arlonia B. Taylor, 44 ECAB 591 (1993); Russell E. Lerman, 43 ECAB
770 (1992); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990).
7

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

8

Id.

9
The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. at
§ 501.6(d).

4


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
J.B., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Richmond, CA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Hank Royal, Esq., for the appellant
Office of the Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 13-625
Issued: June 11, 2013

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On January 20, 2013 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from an
August 27, 2012 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 over the merits of the case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss
and medical benefits effective October 23, 2011 on the grounds that she no longer had any
residuals or disability causally related to her accepted April 18, 1997 employment-related injury.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On April 18, 1997 appellant, then a 54-year-old fork lift operator, placed a six foot box of
parcels on a forklift and started to back out; but a dumping machine operator attempted to dump
1

5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.

the boxes of parcels and the forks were lifted. When she turned to grab the steering wheel and
hit the brakes she sustained a lumbar strain and right ankle strain. The right ankle strain
subsequently resolved.2 Following the work injury, appellant returned to modified-duty work
until May 21, 2002 when her condition worsened and she became totally disabled. Her
physician noted that her disability was related to a multitude of work-related injuries.3
By decision dated March 16, 2004, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss and medical
benefits finding that the weight of the medical evidence was presented by Dr. Clarence Boyd,4 a
Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and impartial medical specialist, who determined that
appellant had no objective residuals to support a claim for continuing disability for work,
permanent partial impairment, or need for continued medical care causally related to the work
injuries of December 26, 1989, April 18, 1997, January 19 and November 22, 1999. The
decision noted that monetary compensation would be paid through March 20, 2004. On
March 17, 2004 appellant requested a hearing and submitted additional evidence. By decision
dated August 23, 2004, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the termination decision.
On February 25, 2005 appellant requested reconsideration. By decision dated June 20,
2005, OWCP vacated the August 23, 2004 decision in part and accepted the case for disability
related to an accepted left shoulder strain (case number xxxxxx165), bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome (case number xxxxxx544) and lumbar strain (case number xxxxxx410). It affirmed
the August 23, 2004 decision, in part, with respect to the termination of medical benefits for an
accepted cervical strain (case number xxxxxx109).
By decision dated May 9, 2011, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award
due to her accepted back condition. It accorded determinative weight to an OWCP medical
adviser’s April 24, 2011 opinion that appellant had no permanent impairment of either

2

OWCP assigned the April 18, 1997 incident, claim number xxxxxxx410.

3

The record reflects that appellant has several other claims. Under claim number xxxxxx544, OWCP accepted a
November 29, 1999 occupational disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel condition; under claim number
xxxxxx165, it accepted left shoulder strain for the May 24, 1999 injury; under claim number xxxxxx416, it accepted
left hip/thigh strain for the March 8, 1996 injury; and under claim number xxxxxx109, it accepted left shoulder
strain and cervical sprain for the December 26, 1989 injury
4

OWCP asked Dr. Boyd to resolve a conflict of medical opinion between the second opinion physician,
Dr. Thomas Schmitz, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Fred Blackwell, a
Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, on whether appellant could return to an eight-hour workday with restrictions
and whether she continued to suffer from her cervical condition. In a January 2, 2004 report, Dr. Boyd opined that
the normal physical examination and appellant’s symptom description indicated that she had no findings consistent
with ongoing effects of the cervical, lumbar, left shoulder or right ankle injuries. Similarly, he noted no abnormal
neurological findings consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome at either wrist and indicated that appellant’s noted
symptoms were inconsistent with carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Boyd also noted inconsistent results in the
interpretation of prior electromyogram (EMG ) tests. He concluded that the examination findings and lack of noted
symptoms consistent with carpal tunnel syndrome indicated that the condition no longer existed. Dr. Boyd also
noted that the right ankle sprain/strain had fully resolved based on examination findings. Finally, he opined that
appellant was not in need of continued medical treatment as there were no consistent subjective or objective findings
to establish continuing residuals of any of her work duties and concluded that appellant could return to the position
of mail handler equipment operator without restrictions on a full-time basis.

2

lower extremity consequential to the April 18, 1997 work injury.
improvement was reached by January 2, 2004.5

Maximum medical

In order to determine appellant’s current condition and residuals from her accepted
April 18, 1997 injury, OWCP referred her for a second opinion examination by Dr. Aubrey A.
Swartz, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. In a March 14, 2011 report, Dr. Swartz noted the
history of appellant’s work injury, reviewed the medical record and presented findings on
examination which included range of motion testing, grip strength, flexion/extension, straight leg
raising. With regard to the work injury to her lumbar spine, he noted that on January 2, 2004
Dr. Boyd had found a normal range of motion with no tenderness or spasm. He also noted a
normal shoulder examination, no problems with the feet or lower extremities, a normal
examination with respect to the upper extremities and no neurologic findings or abnormal
objective findings.
Dr. Swartz opined that appellant had reached maximum medical
improvement at the date of Dr. Boyd’s examination on January 2, 2004 without the need for any
further healthcare services referable to her low back or the need for restricted duty or modified
duty referable to her lumbar spine injury of April 18, 1997. On examination, he found that
appellant had normal range of motion and no spasm in the neck and low back. Dr. Swartz noted
that there was tenderness without spasm in the low back. There was an absent left Achilles
reflex, the significance of which is unknown, and she claimed to have pain with straight leg raise
bilaterally at 20 degrees; however, she was lying face down on the examination table and also
claimed pain in the low back with flexion of each knee to 20 degrees and when she sat up she
could flex both knees to 80 degrees with no pain. Dr. Swartz found there were inconsistencies in
her examination. He found that there was no evidence of any residuals due to her work injury.
Dr. Swartz noted that there were no objective findings when Dr. Boyd examined her in 2004 and
there were no objective findings on his examination. There was no evidence of disability
referable to the April 18, 1997 work injury and any disability would have reasonably ended as of
January 2, 2004, the date of Dr. Boyd’s examination. Dr. Swartz found no lower extremity
permanent impairment due to the lumbar spine, noting that February 11, 2008 electrodiagnostic
studies were normal without any evidence of radiculopathy, mononeuropathy or polyneuropathy
affecting the lower extremities.
Appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Fred Blackwell, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
submitted several reports following Dr. Swartz’s examination. On March 18, 2011 he noted that
appellant had persistent issues with respect to her lower back, with some diminished range of
5

In his April 24, 2011 report, OWCP’s medical adviser reviewed the medical evidence of record to determine
whether appellant sustained an impairment to her lower extremities from the April 18, 1997 injury which was
accepted for lumbar strain and right ankle strain. He noted that the ankle strain had subsequently resolved. The
medical adviser noted that a July 8, 2003 second opinion medical report noted that plain x-rays of the lumbar and
cervical spine were essentially normal with a little bit of “osteophytosis” in the anterior superior body of L5 and L3.
The report did not indicate any positive objective findings relating to the lower back. The medical adviser noted that
the January 2, 2004 referee report also found no abnormal objective findings consistent with any ongoing effects of
either cervical or lumbar strain. He indicated that a January 29, 2007 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan noted
spondylolisthesis and stenosis and mild bulging at L5-S1 and L1-L2. February 11, 2208 electrodiagnostic studies
were normal. The medical adviser also indicated that the March 24, 2011 second opinion examination showed no
clinical objective findings of the accepted lumbar strain. He opined that appellant had zero percent impairment of
each lower extremity and had reached maximum medical improvement no later than January 2, 2004, the date of
Dr. Boyd’s examination.

3

motion and irritability when arising from a seated position. Dr. Blackwell found no evidence of
radiculopathy, but pain in the lower back upon maximum straight leg raise. The femoral stretch
test was noted as positive for lower back pain. Strengthening and stretching exercises were
recommended. On April 22, 2011 Dr. Blackwell noted that appellant was having some
increasing symptoms related to her lower back probably related to barometric pressure changes.
Appellant clinically showed diminished range of motion, impaired mobility and was tender in the
region of the illiolumbar ligaments. In a May 20, 2011 report, Dr. Blackwell noted that she had
ongoing symptoms with prolonged standing, walking and sitting; but stated there was no
evidence of neurological impairment. He noted that appellant’s weight gain and the fact that she
did not exercise were factors of her low back pain. Appellant was advised to engage in more
active exercise.
On April 24, 2011 OWCP’s medical adviser reviewed the record based on appellant’s
request for a schedule award due to the accepted lumbar strain. He noted that a July 8, 2003
second opinion report found that plain x-rays of the lumbar and cervical spine were essentially
normal, with no positive objective findings relating to the lower back. A January 2, 2004
impartial referee report found no abnormal objective evidence consistent with any ongoing
effects of either a cervical or lumbar strain. He noted a January 29, 2007 MRI scan found
spondylosisthesis and stenosis and that February 11, 2008 electrodiagnostic studies were normal.
The medical adviser also noted that the March 14, 2011 second opinion examination did not
make any clinical objective findings in relation to work-related lumbar strain. He opined that
maximum medical improvement was reached no later than January 2, 2004 and the medical
evidence did not support any impairment of either lower extremity.
On September 13, 2011 OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of compensation.
It found the weight of the medical evidence was represented by the opinion of Dr. Swartz, the
second opinion physician. It allowed appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence or legal
argument in response to the proposed termination. Appellant did not submit any additional
medical evidence or argument.
By decision dated October 18, 2011, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and wageloss benefits effective October 23, 2011, finding that Dr. Swartz’s referral opinion represented
the weight of the medical evidence.6
On December 1, 2011 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration.
She stated that Dr. Blackwell’s medical report contradicted the opinion provided by Dr. Swartz.
In an October 6, 2011 report, Dr. Blackwell critiqued Dr. Swartz’s opinion noting that it
was based in part on a 2004 report by Dr. Boyd. He noted that Dr. Swartz’s findings on
examination were not consistent with his findings. He commented that Dr. Boyd’s report of
2004 was a prejudicial report. Dr. Blackwell noted that appellant had MRI scan evidence of
degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease and a spondylolisthesis at L4-5 and
anterolisthesis at L3-4, which Dr. Swartz did not take into account. He also stated that appellant
had radiculitis and an absence of the left Achilles tendon reflex (per Dr. Swartz) with MRI scan
6

This decision made no findings related to appellant’s disability or need for medical care related to her accepted
left shoulder strain (case number xxxxxx165) or bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (case number xxxxxx544).

4

data that was consistent with a chronic low back problem alighted by her injury that continues to
remain symptomatic. Dr. Blackwell stated that orthopedic literature provided that patients with
underlying spondylosis or degenerative disc disease could have a previously asymptomatic
condition that progressed to permanent impairment. He listed an impression of chronic
musculoligamentous strain/sprain lumbosacral spine, degenerative joint disease and spondylosis
with spondylolisthesis and left lower extremity radiculitis. Dr. Blackwell stated that appellant
had objective findings, but no findings on a neurological basis that cause concern for any need
for surgical intervention despite the abnormal reflex noted above. A progress note dated
February 10, 2012 was also submitted.
By decision dated August 27, 2012, OWCP denied modification of its prior decisions.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Once OWCP has accepted a claim and pays compensation, it bears the burden to justify
modification or termination of benefits.7 Having determined that an employee has a disability
causally related to his or her federal employment, OWCP may not terminate compensation
without establishing either that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related to the
employment.8 OWCP’s burden of proof in terminating compensation includes the necessity of
furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical
background.9
The right to medical benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of
entitlement for disability compensation.10 To terminate authorization for medical treatment,
OWCP must establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition
which requires further medical treatment.11
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s April 18, 1997 claim was accepted for lumbar and right ankle strains. Her
right ankle strain subsequently resolved. She continued to be treated for her lumbar strain by
Dr. Blackwell. OWCP referred her to Dr. Swartz for a second opinion evaluation, to determine
whether appellant still had residuals of the April 18, 1997 lumbar strain work injury.
In a March 14, 2011 report, Dr. Swartz described the history of injury and appellant’s
complaints, reported physical findings and noted that she exhibited no objective evidence of a
continuing lumbar strain. On physical examination, the back demonstrated lumbosacral
tenderness and no palpable spasm. Dr. Swartz noted that, while there was an absent left Achilles
reflex, the significance was unknown and there were inconsistencies in her examination. Based
7

Bernadine P. Taylor, 54 ECAB 342 (2003).

8

Id.

9

Gewin C. Hawkins, 52 ECAB 242 (2001).

10

Roger G. Payne, 55 ECAB 535 (2004).

11

Pamela K. Guesford, 53 ECAB 726 (2002).

5

on the examination findings, he advised that appellant had no evidence of any residuals or
disability due to her work injury. Dr. Swartz found no objective basis on which to attribute any
continuing residuals or disability due to the accepted April 18, 1997 work injury. He noted that
the findings on examination were consistent with those of Dr. Boyd, who found on January 2,
2004 that appellant had normal range of motion with no tenderness or spasm with respect to the
lumbar spine, a normal shoulder examination, no problems with the feet or lower extremities, a
normal upper extremity examination and no neurologic findings or abnormal objective findings.
He also opined that there was zero percent lower extremity impairment referable to the lumbar
spine.
The Board finds Dr. Swartz had a full and accurate knowledge of the relevant facts and
evaluated the course of appellant’s condition. He provided a review of the records, diagnostic
tests and performed a thorough physical examination. Dr. Swartz addressed the medical records
as well as his own examination findings to reach a reasoned conclusion regarding appellant’s
condition.12 He found no basis to support that appellant had injury residuals or work-related
disability from the accepted lumbar strain. Dr. Swartz’s opinion as set forth in his report of
March 14, 2011 is found to be probative and reliable. At the time benefits were terminated,
Dr. Swartz found no residuals or ongoing disability attributable to appellant’s accepted lumbar
strain. His opinion as set forth in his March 14, 2011 report is found to be probative and reliable.
Dr. Swartz’s conclusion was supported by the earlier report of Dr. Boyd, who found that
appellant had no objective evidence of a continuing lumbar sprain. The Board finds that
Dr. Swartz’s opinion constitutes the weight of the medical evidence and is sufficient to justify
OWCP’s termination of benefits for the accepted lumbar strain.
Dr. Blackwell submitted several progress notes on appellant’s increasing symptoms
related to her lower back. On April 22, 2011 he noted clinical signs of diminished range of
motion, impaired mobility and tenderness in the iliolumbar ligaments. However, Dr. Blackwell’s
reports fail to provide a well-rationalized opinion that appellant continues to suffer from
residuals of her accepted lumbar strain. He did not offer any explanation as to why appellant
would continue to exhibit such symptoms, due to the accepted lumbar strain, some 14 years after
the injury. The Board also notes that he attributed appellant’s pain complaints to her inactivity,
and sedentary life style, rather than to her 1997 employment injury. Thus, Dr. Blackwell’s
reports are of diminished probative value and insufficient to overcome the weight of
Dr. Swartz’s report or to create a medical conflict.
In an October 6, 2011 report, Dr. Blackwell noted chronic musculoligamentous
strain/sprain lumbosacral spine; degenerative joint disease and spondylosis with
spondylolisthesis and left lower extremity radiculitis as current diagnosis. While he disagreed
with Dr. Swartz’s opinion, he did not provide an adequate explanation on why appellant’s
current diagnosed conditions are causally related to the accepted lumbar strain of April 18, 1997.
Dr. Swartz stated generally, that an underlying spondylosis or degenerative disc disease can be
asymptomatic but alighted in such a manner as to become permanent. His report does not
12

See Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006) (the opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy
and completeness of the physician’s knowledge of the facts and medical history, the care of analysis manifested and
the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion are facts, which determine the weight to be
given to each individual report).

6

adequately address how appellant’s underlying back condition or disability were contributed to
by the accepted employment injury. Dr. Blackwell’s reports are of diminished probative value
and insufficient to overcome the weight of Dr. Swartz’s report or to create a medical conflict.
On appeal, appellant notes that she disagreed with OWCP’s decision. As noted,
Dr. Swartz’s report represents the weight of the medical evidence and establishes that her
accepted conditions have resolved.
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.
The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s benefits
effective October 23, 2011 on the grounds that her accepted lumbar strain had ceased without
residuals.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 27, 2012 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: June 11, 2013
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

7


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
D.G., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Chicago, IL, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 12-770
Issued: April 20, 2012

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On February 23, 2012 appellant filed a timely appeal from the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) January 9, 2012 nonmerit decision.1 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 nonmerit decision. The last merit decision of OWCP was issued on
February 9, 2011. The Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of this claim.3

1

The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence after OWCP rendered its January 9, 2012 decision.
The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision.
Therefore, this additional evidence cannot be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal. 20 C.F.R. §
501.2(c); Dennis E. Maddy, 47 ECAB 259 (1995); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35, 36 n.2 (1952). Appellant may
submit this evidence to OWCP, together with a formal request for reconsideration, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §
10.606(b)(2).
2
3

5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq.

For final adverse decisions issued prior to November 19, 2008, a claimant had up to one year to appeal to the
Board. See 20 C.F.R. §501.3(d)(2). For final adverse Office decisions issued on and after November 19, 2008, a
claimant has 180 days to file an appeal with the Board. See 20 C.F.R. §501.3(e).

ISSUE
The issue is whether OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further
review of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
FACTUAL HISTORY
On December 19, 2006 appellant, a 47-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational
disease claim alleging that he sustained bilateral hip and lower extremity conditions as a result of
employment activities. OWCP accepted his claim for temporary aggravation of bilateral
arthropathy of the ankle, foot, pelvic and thigh regions and he was paid appropriate
compensation benefits.4
The record contains a November 26, 2007 second opinion report from Dr. Bernard
Stevens, a Board-certified internist, who found that appellant’s ankle was enlarged and deformed
due to his underlying traumatic osteoarthritis together with his obesity. In a second opinion
report dated January 13, 2010, Dr. Hythem Shadid, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
provided examination findings and opined that appellant no longer had any residuals related to
his accepted condition and that his current condition was due to his preexisting osteoarthritis.
On May 26, 2010 OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of compensation and
medical benefits, based on Dr. Shadid’s opinion that appellant’s accepted conditions had
resolved. By decision dated June 30, 2010, OWCP finalized its proposed termination of benefits.
In a decision dated February 9, 2011, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the June 30,
2010 decision on the grounds that the medical evidence of record established that appellant’s
accepted conditions had resolved.
In a letter dated October 24, 2011, appellant requested reconsideration through his wife,
who stated that appellant’s physical and emotional condition had deteriorated and that he had
been forced to accept welfare due to his financial circumstances. Appellant’s wife alleged that
OWCP’s physicians were biased in their opinions.
Appellant submitted an October 18, 2011 letter from the Social Security Administration
approving his claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits. He also submitted one page of
Dr. Stevens’ November 26, 2007 report pertaining to his underlying traumatic osteoarthritis.
By decision dated January 9, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration,
finding that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a merit review.

4

Prior claims include a January 27, 1994 traumatic injury claim that was accepted for right ankle sprain (File No.
xxxxxx941) and a September 27, 2000 claim that was accepted for temporary aggravation of preexisting arthropathy
of the bilateral ankle, foot, pelvic region and thigh (File No. xxxxxx422).

2

LEGAL PRECEDENT
To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review under section 8128(a) of FECA,5
OWCP regulations provide that the evidence or argument submitted by a claimant must:
(1) show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; (2) advance a
relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or (3) constitute relevant and
pertinent new evidence not previously considered by OWCP.6 To be entitled to a merit review
of an OWCP decision denying or terminating a benefit, a claimant also must file his or her
application for review within one year of the date of that decision.7 When a claimant fails to
meet one of the above standards, OWCP will deny the application for reconsideration without
reopening the case for review on the merits.8 The Board has held that the submission of
evidence which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for
reopening a case.9
ANALYSIS
By decision dated February 9, 2011, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the
June 30, 2010 decision, finding that the medical evidence established that appellant’s accepted
condition had resolved. The issue is whether the evidence and argument submitted in support of
appellant’s October 24, 2011 request for reconsideration is sufficient to warrant further merit
review pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2).
In his application for reconsideration, submitted on his behalf by his wife, appellant did
not identify a specific point of law or show that it was erroneously applied or interpreted. He did
not advance a new and relevant legal argument.10 A claimant may be entitled to a merit review
by submitting new and relevant evidence. Appellant did not, however, submit new and relevant
medical evidence in this case. The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant
was not entitled to further review of the merits.
Evidence received in support of the reconsideration request included a letter from SSA
and a copy of one page from Dr. Stevens’ November 26, 2007 report. SSA’s October 18, 2011
letter is not relevant to the issue in this case, which is medical in nature. As noted, the
submission of evidence which does not address the particular issue involved does not constitute a
basis for reopening a case.11 The excerpt from Dr. Steven’s report was previously received into
5

5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. Under section 8128 of FECA, the Secretary of Labor may review an award for or
against payment of compensation at any time on her own motion or on application. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
6

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2).

7

Id. at § 10.607(a).

8

Id. at § 10.608(b).

9

Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224, 225 (1979).

10

The Board notes that no specific allegations were made and no evidence was submitted to support claims of
bias on the part of OWCP’s referral physicians.
11

Edward Matthew Diekemper, supra note 9.

3

evidence and is, therefore cumulative and duplicative in nature.12 The Board finds that the
evidence submitted by appellant does not constitute relevant and pertinent new evidence not
previously considered by OWCP.13 Therefore, OWCP properly determined that this evidence
did not constitute a basis for reopening the case for a merit review.
The Board finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R.
§ 10.606(b)(2). He did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point
of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or submit
relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608,
OWCP properly denied merit review.
On appeal, appellant contends that his benefits were terminated before he was able to
obtain updated evidence. As noted, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the merits of this
case. For reasons stated, the Board finds that the evidence submitted in support of appellant’s
request for reconsideration is insufficient to warrant further merit review.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that OWCP properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further
review of the merits pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

12

Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the case record has no evidentiary value and does not
constitute a basis for reopening a claim for merit review. Denis M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000).
13

See Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006).

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the, January 9, 2012 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: April 20, 2012
Washington, DC

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
M.C., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION,
Lordsburg, NM, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 18-1391
Issued: February 1, 2019

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On July 9, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 14, 2018 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 over
the merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish entitlement to wageloss compensation for the period May 26 through July 22, 2017 causally related to his May 1, 2017
employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On May 16, 2017 appellant, then a 19-year-old border patrol agent trainee, filed a traumatic
injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on May 1, 2017, he injured his low back and right rib
during training when he fell while climbing a high rope in the performance of duty. He did not
stop work. OWCP accepted the claim for cervical sprain, lumbar sprain, headache, and dizziness.
In a June 9, 2017 report, Dr. Keith R. Johnson, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
obtained a history of appellant injuring his ribs, cervical spine, and lumbar spine on May 1, 2017
when he fell from a rope during training at the employing establishment. Appellant complained
of back pain with weakness, tingling, and reduced motion, right upper extremity weakness, and
cervical pain radiating into the bilateral shoulders and causing headaches. Dr. Johnson found that
appellant had sustained a concussion with loss of consciousness, an incomplete lesion at an
unspecified level of the cervical cord, and a sprain of the ligaments of the lumbar spine. He
diagnosed cervical and lumbar sprains, headaches, and dizziness. Dr. Johnson referred appellant
for a lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and opined that he should limit activities
that increased his discomfort.
By development letter dated June 15, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that his claim
originally appeared to be for an uncontroverted, minor injury that had resulted in minimal or no
lost time from work and thus it had paid a limited amount of medical expenses. It notified him
that it was now formally adjudicating his claim as he had requested authorization for a lumbar
spine MRI scan study. OWCP informed appellant of the type of factual and medical evidence
necessary to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.
OWCP thereafter received a May 1, 2017 memorandum to the employing establishment’s
physical training instructor from the staff of its health unit indicating that appellant could
“participate fully in all training programs.” In a May 1, 2017 clinic note, a nurse with the
employing establishment discussed his history of upper back pain after falling from a rope. The
nurse indicated that appellant was in moderate distress, diagnosed a left upper back injury, and
found that he had no restrictions.
In a clinic note dated May 5, 2017, a nurse noted that appellant had experienced pain in his
right rib after hanging from a rope. The nurse diagnosed rib pain on the right side and found that
he had no restrictions. The health unit staff advised the physical training instructor that appellant
could participate in all training programs.
The employing establishment, on May 17, 2017, informed appellant that it had withdrawn
him from training as a result of his excessive absences. It instructed him to report to an operations
officer on May 17, 2017.
Dr. Johnson, in a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated June 7, 2017, diagnosed a sprain
of the ligaments of the lumbar spine and checked a box marked “yes” that the history provided by
appellant corresponded to that on the form of him falling from a high rope on a training course.
He opined that appellant was totally disabled from work.

2

In a June 8, 2017 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Johnson diagnosed a
sprain of the ligaments of the lumbar spine and again checked a box marked “yes” that the
condition was caused or aggravated by the described employment activity of appellant falling from
a rope during training. He advised that he was totally disabled from June 7 to 28, 2017.
On July 5, 2017 Dr. Johnson noted that appellant’s insurance carrier had denied
authorization for a lumbar MRI scan study. He discussed his symptoms of low back pain radiating
into his right knee and improving rib pain. Dr. Johnson again requested authorization for the
lumbar MRI scan study, noting that information regarding whether the injury was related to work
“should be within their own system.”
The requested MRI scan study of the lumbar spine, obtained on July 27, 2017, revealed a
left paracentral/subarticular protrusion of 9 to 10 millimeters with a “markedly narrowed left
subarticular recess and encroaching on the traversing left L5 nerve root.” It further revealed a
protrusion at L5-S1 with no canal stenosis or neuroforaminal narrowing and a protrusion at L3-4
with mild narrowing of the subarticular recesses.
On July 28, 2018 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting wageloss compensation due to disability from May 26 to July 22, 2017.
OWCP, by letter dated August 8, 2017, requested that the employing establishment clarify
whether it had terminated appellant due to performance issues.
Dr. Johnson, on August 15, 2017, reviewed the results of the MRI scan study and diagnosed
low back pain with radiculopathy of the left lower extremity. In a work capacity evaluation
(OWCP-5c) of even date, he found that appellant was unable to work pending further evaluation.
By letter dated September 13, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant provide additional
factual information, including whether the employing establishment had terminated his
employment, or only withdrawn him from training. It also requested that he provide the reason
for any termination.
On September 14, 2017 Dr. Hector O. Pacheco, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
evaluated appellant for low back pain and noted that he had sustained an injury on May 1, 2017 at
work. He found that a lumbar MRI scan study showed degenerative disc disease with protrusions
worse at L3-4 than L2-3 and L4-5. Dr. Pacheco diagnosed lumbago with sciatica.
Appellant, in a September 21, 2017 statement, related that, on May 17, 2017, the
employing establishment had dropped his enrollment in its training academy as a result of absences
that he had sustained due to his employment injury. After his injury, the employing establishment
had transferred him from the academy to another position where he worked limited duty from
May 17 to 19, 2017. It subsequently had transferred appellant to another location from May 22 to
26, 2017. On May 26, 2017 appellant received a letter from the employing establishment
indicating that he had been terminated “due to absences while at the academy.” He asserted that
the absences occurred due to his injury work. Appellant described absences in April and
May 2017, noting that in each instance he received treatment in the medical unit.

3

In a report dated October 20, 2017, Dr. Pacheco discussed appellant’s symptoms of low
back pain that began on May 1, 2017 after an injury.2 He diagnosed lumbago with sciatica and
found that he could not work.
Dr. Tifani Gleeson, who specializes in occupational medicine, reviewed the medical
evidence on November 1, 2017 at the request of the employing establishment. She recommended
a second opinion examination before returning appellant to a training program or other placement
in order to determine his current condition and any periods of disability. Dr. Gleeson noted that
the medical reports did not include “a comprehensive examination of the lumbar spine” or
objective findings.
By decision dated January 8, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss
compensation for the period May 26 through July 22, 2017. It determined that the medical
evidence was insufficient to show that he was disabled from work due to his employment injury
during the claimed period.
On January 23, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. In a statement dated January 17,
2018, he advised that he had stopped contacting the employing establishment after it removed him
from employment. Appellant indicated that he had continued to receive medical treatment as a
result of his injury and remained totally disabled from work.
In a report dated January 29, 2018, Dr. Eduardo G. Vazquez, a Board-certified
anesthesiologist, discussed appellant’s history of a May 2017 injury when he fell from a rope and
landed on his back and head, passing out. He went to the medical unit and “was told he was fine.”
Dr. Vazquez found significant tenderness to palpation of the lumbar spine without spasm. He
diagnosed a lumbar sprain, lumbar radiculopathy, cervical sprain, myalgia, chronic pain syndrome,
and headache. Dr. Vazquez recommended steroid injections.3
On March 29, 2018 Dr. Helson Pacheco-Serrant, a neurosurgeon, evaluated appellant for
low back pain radiating into the left lower extremity. He noted that his symptoms began after he
fell 20 feet from a rope at work. Dr. Pacheco-Serrant reviewed the results of diagnostic testing
and diagnosed lumbosacral pain, a lumbar herniated disc, and chronic lumbar radiculopathy.
By decision dated June 14, 2018, OWCP denied modification of its January 8, 2018
decision. It found that appellant had not established he stopped work due to his accepted
employment injury rather than the termination of his employment.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence.4 For each period of disability
claimed, the employee has the burden of establishing that he or she was disabled from work as a
2

Dr. Pacheco provided a progress report on November 10, 2017.

3

Dr. Vazquez provided a February 27, 2018 progress report.

4

T.A., Docket No. 18-0431 (issued November 7, 2018).

4

result of the accepted employment injury.5 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to
become disabled from work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be
proven by a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.6
Under FECA the term disability means incapacity, because of an employment injury, to
earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.7 Disability is, thus, not
synonymous with physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn wages.
An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to his or her federal employment,
but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages that he or she was receiving at the time of
injury, has no disability and is not entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning capacity.8
When, however, the medical evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an employment
injury are such that, from a medical standpoint, they prevent the employee from continuing in his
or her employment, he or she is entitled to compensation for any loss of wages.9
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish entitlement to
wage-loss compensation for the period May 26 through July 22, 2017 causally related to his
accepted May 1, 2017 employment injury.
On June 7, 2017 Dr. Johnson noted that appellant had injured his ribs, cervical spine, and
lumbar spine on May 1, 2017 when he fell from a rope on a training course. He diagnosed cervical
and lumbar sprains, headaches, and dizziness. Dr. Johnson advised that appellant should refrain
from activities that increased his discomfort. He did not, however, specifically find that he was
disabled as a result of his work injury. The Board finds that Dr. Johnson did not offer a specific
medical opinion addressing whether appellant’s disability from work during the claimed period
was causally related to the accepted work injuries.10 Thus, Dr. Johnson’s reports are insufficient
to establish the claim.
In a June 7, 2017 CA-17 form, Dr. Johnson diagnosed lumbar sprain and checked a box
marked “yes” that the history provided corresponded to that on the form of appellant falling from
a high rope on a training course. He found that he was totally disabled from employment. In a
CA-20 form, Dr. Johnson diagnosed a sprain of the ligaments of the lumbar spine and checked a
box marked “yes” that the condition was caused or aggravated by the described employment
activity of appellant falling from a rope during training. He determined that appellant was totally
disabled from June 7 to 28, 2017. The Board has held, however, that an opinion on causal
5

D.R., Docket No. 18-0232 (issued October 2, 2018).

6

Id.

7

See B.K., Docket No. 18-0386 (issued September 14, 2018); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f).

8

See B.A., Docket No. 17-1471 (issued July 27, 2018).

9

Supra note 7.

10
G.A., Docket No. 09-2153 (issued June 10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Alice J. Tysinger, 51
ECAB 638 (2000).

5

relationship which consists only of a physician checking a box marked “yes” in response to a
medical form report question regarding whether the claimant’s condition or disability was related
to the history given is of limited probative value.11 Without any explanation or rationale for the
conclusion reached, such report is insufficient to establish causal relationship.12 Dr. Johnson did
not provide any rationale for his opinion, and thus his report is of diminished probative value.13
On July 5, 2017 Dr. Johnson again requested authorization for a lumbar MRI scan study,
noting that information regarding whether the injury was related to work should be available within
the employing establishment’s system. As Dr. Johnson did not address the relevant issue of
whether appellant was disabled from employment during the claimed period due to his accepted
employment injury, his opinion is of no probative value.14
On an OWCP-5c form dated August 15, 2017, Dr. Johnson reported that appellant was
unable to work pending further evaluation. He did not, however, provide rationale for his opinion.
A medical report must include rationale explaining how the physician reached his conclusion
regarding disability.15 The Board has found that medical opinions unsupported by rationale
regarding the period of disability claimed are of limited probative value.16
Dr. Pacheco, on September 14, 2017, discussed appellant’s history of low back pain after
a May 1, 2017 employment injury. He related that a lumbar MRI scan study revealed degenerative
disc disease with protrusions worse at L3-4 than at L2-3 and L4-5. Dr. Pacheco diagnosed
lumbago with sciatica. His report is of no probative value as he failed to address whether appellant
was disabled from work during the claimed period due to his accepted employment injury.17
In a report dated October 20, 3017, Dr. Pacheco discussed appellant’s symptoms of low
back pain that had begun on May 1, 2017 after an injury. He diagnosed lumbago with sciatica and
found that he could not work. Dr. Pacheco, however, did not explain how or why appellant’s
accepted employment injury caused a period of disability, and thus his opinion is insufficient to
meet appellant’s burden of proof.18
On January 29, 2018 Dr. Vazquez obtained a history of appellant sustaining an injury at
work in May 2017 when he fell from a rope. On examination he found tenderness to palpation of
the lumbar spine without spasm. Dr. Vazquez diagnosed a lumbar sprain, lumbar radiculopathy,

11

M.R., Docket No. 17-1388 (issued November 2, 2017).

12

J.R., Docket No. 18-0801 (issued November 26, 2018).

13

M.C., Docket No. 18-0361 (issued August 15, 2018).

14

See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); C.H., Docket No. 17-1239 (issued November 20, 2017).

15

T.J., Docket No. 18-0619 (issued October 22, 2018).

16

C.R., Docket No. 17-0648 (issued August 15, 2018).

17

Supra note 16.

18

P.M., Docket No. 17-1131 (issued January 29, 2018).

6

cervical sprain, myalgia, chronic pain syndrome, and headache. As he did not address appellant’s
disability status during the claimed period, his report is of no probative value.19
Dr. Pacheco-Serrant, in a report dated March 29, 2018, evaluated appellant for low back
pain with left radiculopathy that began after he fell from a rope at work. He diagnosed lumbosacral
pain, a lumbar herniated disc, and chronic lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Pacheco-Serrant, however,
did not discuss appellant’s work status or whether he was disabled from his employment, and thus
his opinion is of no probative value and insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.20
The issue of whether a claimant’s disability from work is related to an accepted condition
must be established by a physician who, on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and
medical history, concludes that the disability is causally related to the employment injury and
supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.21 Appellant failed to submit such evidence
and thus has not met his burden of proof.22
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 and 20 C.F.R.
§§ 10.605 through 10.607.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish entitlement to
wage-loss compensation for the period May 26 through July 22, 2017 causally related to his
May 1, 2017 employment injury.

19

Supra note 16.

20

T.C., Docket No. 18-0435 (issued July 10, 2018).

21

Supra note 16.

22

See K.A., Docket No. 17-1718 (issued February 12, 2018).

7

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 14, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: February 1, 2019
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
___________________________________________
)
)
)
and
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
)
CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION,
)
Washington, DC, Employer
)
___________________________________________ )
C.K., Appellant

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 10-1665
Issued: May 25, 2011

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On June 4, 2010 appellant filed a timely appeal of a January 6, 2010 decision of the
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which denied appellant’s request for
reconsideration without conducting a merit review. Because more than 180 days has elapsed
between the most recent merit decision dated December 2, 2008, and the filing of this appeal, the
Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of appellant’s claim pursuant to the Federal
Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA)1 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3.
ISSUE
The issue is whether OWCP properly determined that appellant’s request for
reconsideration was untimely filed and failed to show clear evidence of error.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On October 1, 2007 appellant, then a 52-year-old industrial hygienist, filed an
occupational disease claim alleging that repetitive work duties caused her bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome. She indicated that she first became aware of the injury and its relation to her work on
January 28, 2005. The employing establishment controverted the claim.
In a letter dated October 12, 2007, Jennifer Kon, the branch chief, controverted the claim.
During the time she supervised appellant, since March 5, 2007, she denied that appellant
performed repetitive hand, wrist and upper arm motions during keyboarding assignments.
Ms. Kon explained that appellant produced no work products that involved keyboarding, weight
lifting or carrying. She also indicated that appellant was provided with an ergonomic
workstation, speech recognition software training and other assistive technology.
In a December 2, 2008 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that the
evidence was insufficient to establish that the events occurred as alleged. OWCP also noted that,
despite requesting further factual and medical evidence, no further evidence was received.
In a letter dated November 30, 2009, received on December 4, 2009,2 appellant advised
OWCP that she had made several attempts to speak with her claims examiner and left a series of
messages asking that her calls be returned. She asserted that she did not receive the December 2,
2008 decision until January 16, 2009, when the employer provided her a copy of the decision.3
Appellant indicated that, in lieu of her not having had the opportunity to speak with the claims
examiner personally, she was “sending this information prior to/in advance to my submission of
a request for reconsideration to primarily bring your attention to the time deadline in advance of
my request for reconsideration.” She noted that she was submitting a copy of the decision and
provided a copy of her claim number.
In a letter dated December 14, 2009, OWCP acknowledged appellant’s November 30,
2009 letter and advised her that it did not appear that she was requesting reconsideration at that
time. It advised her that, if she wished to request consideration, she should specifically request it
in writing. OWCP advised appellant that “at this time” her letter of November 30, 2009 was not
being treated as a request for reconsideration “unless clarification is received from you in
writing.”
In response, appellant submitted a December 11, 2009 reconsideration request that was
received by OWCP on December 17, 2009. She described her work-related duties as an
industrial hygienist from January 2004 until April 2006 and as a manpower specialist from
April 2007 through September 2008. Appellant noted that she was diagnosed with degenerative
joint disease/degenerative osteoarthritis in 2004 and chronic lower back pain in 2006. She
alleged that her bilateral, moderate to severe carpal tunnel syndrome was exacerbated by the lack
of ergonomic OWCP conditions. Appellant denied having any hobbies or being exposed to other

2

The envelope in which the letter was mailed was not retained by OWCP.

3

The record indicates that the December 2, 2008 decision was sent to appellant’s address of record.

2

conditions outside the employing establishment. She advised that she had submitted medical
documentation.
In a December 15, 2009 letter, appellant advised OWCP that she was submitting a report
from her physician. In a January 28, 2005 report, Dr. Daniel R. Glor, a Board-certified
neurologist, noted that on December 30, 2004 appellant fell and fractured her right humerus. He
advised that she subsequently developed constant tingling in the left arm with occasional
numbness in the left hand, plus pain in the left arm. Dr. Glor advised that appellant “worked on
a keyboard a lot at work.” He diagnosed moderately severe carpal tunnel syndrome.
In a January 6, 2010 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration
finding that it was not timely filed and failed to present clear evidence of error.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Section 8128(a) of FECA does not entitle a claimant to a review of an OWCP decision as
a matter of right.4 This section vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether it
will review an award for or against payment of compensation.5 OWCP, through regulations, has
imposed limitations on the exercise of its discretionary authority to determine whether it will
review an award for or against payment of compensation.6 One such limitation is that the
application for reconsideration must be sent within one year of the date of OWCP’s decision for
which review is sought.7 In those instances when a request for reconsideration is not timely
filed, OWCP will undertake a limited review to determine whether the application presents clear
evidence of error on the part of OWCP in its most recent merit decision.8
ANALYSIS
The one-year time limitation begins to run on the date following the date of the original
OWCP decision. Therefore, appellant had one year from December 2, 2008 to submit a timely
request for reconsideration. OWCP found that appellant’s December 11, 2009 request for
reconsideration was untimely as it was made more than one year after the December 2. 2008
merit decision.
However, the Board notes that OWCP also received a November 30, 2009 letter from
appellant, in which she identified the December 2, 2008 OWCP decision, provided her claim
number and noted that she had made several unsuccessful attempts to reach her claims examiner.
Appellant noted that she was “sending this information prior to/in advance to my submission of a
4

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see Leon D. Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 104 (1989).

5

Under section 8128 of FECA, the Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment of
compensation at any time on her own motion or on application. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
6

20 C.F.R. § 10.607.

7

Id. at § 10.607(a).

8

Id. at § 10.607(b). Regarding the clear evidence of error standard, see Thankamma Mathews, 44 ECAB 765,
770 (1993).

3

request for reconsideration to primarily bring your attention to the time deadline in advance of
my request for reconsideration.” In a December 14, 2009 letter, OWCP acknowledged her
November 30, 2009 letter and advised her that it did not consider her letter to be a
reconsideration request “at this time … unless clarification is received from you in writing.” In
her December 11, 2009 letter, received December 17, 2009, appellant provided the clarification
that OWCP invited her to provide as she clearly advised that she sought reconsideration, noted
arguments regarding her claim and submitted evidence.
The Board has held that a request for reconsideration need not be on any particular form
but must be in writing, identify the decision and the specific issue or issues for which
reconsideration is being requested and be accompanied by relevant and pertinent new evidence
or argument not previously considered.9
The Board finds that appellant’s November 30, 2009 letter constituted a request for
reconsideration in view of the Office’s December 14, 2009 letter requesting clarification which
appellant promptly provided. In Vicente P. Taimanglo,10 the claimant identified OWCP’s
decision in his letter, indicated that additional medical evidence had been submitted and stated
that he was waiting for a response. The Board found that the letter constituted a timely request
for reconsideration. In Gladys Mercado,11 the claimant asked OWCP to help her reopen her
case, provided her case number and submitted additional medical evidence. The Board found
that this letter was a timely request for reconsideration. Although, in the present case, appellant
did not submit additional evidence with her November 30, 2009 letter, OWCP’s December 14,
2009 letter invited her to provide additional information to clarify if her November 30, 2009
letter should be treated as a reconsideration request. As noted, she provided such clarification.
In these circumstances, the Board finds that appellant’s November 30, 2009 letter constitutes a
timely request for reconsideration.12 In these circumstances, the Board finds that her
November 30, 2009 letter, filed within one year of the December 2, 2008 merit decision,
constituted a timely request for reconsideration.
As appellant timely requested reconsideration, OWCP improperly denied her
reconsideration request by applying the legal standard reserved for cases where reconsideration
is requested after more than one year. The Board will remand the case to OWCP for review of
the new evidence and argument under the proper standard of review for a timely reconsideration

9

Vicente P. Taimanglo, 45 ECAB 504 (1984); Darrell Stovall, Docket No. 99-2562 (issued March 14, 2001).
See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1601.2(a) (May 1996).
10

Taimanglo, supra note 9.

11

52 ECAB 255 (2001).

12

Although the November 30, 2009 reconsideration request was received on December 4, 2009, OWCP did not
retain the envelope containing the request. OWCP regulations provide that the timeliness of a reconsideration
request shall be determined by the postmark. 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(a). OWCP procedures provide that, if there is no
envelope bearing a postmark or other evidence of mailing, the date of the letter itself should be used. Federal
(FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1601.3(b)(1) (January 2004). As there is
no other evidence of the date of mailing or other transmission to OWCP, the date of the letter, November 30, 2009,
makes the request timely within one year of the December 2, 2008 OWCP decision.

4

request,13 to undertake any appropriate additional development it deems necessary and to issue
an appropriate decision.
On appeal, appellant argued that she had provided sufficient factual and medical evidence
to rebut OWCP’s decision and insufficiency. However, in light of the Board’s decision, the case
is being remanded for review of the evidence under the appropriate standard.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant’s November 30, 2009 letter constituted a request for
reconsideration which was timely filed within one year of OWCP’s December 2, 2008 decision.
The Board will remand the case for review of this evidence under the proper standard of review
for a timely reconsideration request.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 6, 2010 decision of Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs be set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this decision of the Board.
Issued: May 25, 2011
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

13

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b).

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
E.S., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, TRAVIS
AIR FORCE BASE, CA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 17-1041
Issued: December 27, 2017

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On April 13, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 7, 2016 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 over the merits of this case.
ISSUES
The issues are: (1) whether OWCP properly found an overpayment of $3,168.84 was
created due to incorrect payment of travel reimbursements; and (2) whether it properly found
appellant was at fault in creating the overpayment and was therefore not entitled to waiver of the
overpayment.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has previously been before the Board.2 The facts of the case as presented in the
Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.
Appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on July 31, 1992
she sustained an emotional condition causally related to factors of her federal employment.
OWCP initially denied her claim on March 3, 1993 as she had not established a compensable
factor of employment. After several requests for reconsideration, following which OWCP
denied modification, appellant filed an appeal with the Board. By decision dated April 3, 1997,
the Board remanded the case to OWCP, finding that she had substantiated compensable work
factors with respect to unwarranted sexually explicit comments made by a coworker. The Board
found that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to require further development.
On May 30, 1997 OWCP accepted the claim for dysthymic disorder. The record does not
indicate whether appellant received wage-loss compensation. OWCP did pay for medical
treatment related to the accepted condition. The record contains a bill pay history that shows
payments to Dr. John Brandes, a psychologist.
In a memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110) dated February 25, 2016, OWCP
indicated that appellant had requested reimbursement for travel to/from medical providers from
2000 to 2014. It further indicated that she was advised that bills for travel must be submitted by
December 31 of the year after the travel was incurred. Appellant was advised to submit Form
957 with medical evidence confirming the dates of appointment.3 By letter dated March 21,
2016, she wrote that she had done everything OWCP had asked and wanted to get paid for
mileage.
OWCP made part of the record a “Bill Pay History Report” which documented individual
payments made to appellant for dates of service from January 1, 2000 through April 18, 2016.
Duplicative payments on the same date of service were not noted.
The record also contains “bill status response” lists which indicate that OWCP denied
“private transportation claims” for specific dates. By letter dated April 20, 2016, OWCP advised
appellant that she was being reimbursed for medical travel after January 6, 2014. As to dates
from March 2, 2001 to January 5, 2014, it found that further evidence was required.
On May 17, 2016 a fiscal document was made part of the record which substantiated the
amount of travel reimbursement paid on dates from January 6, 2014 to June 1, 2015 for duplicate
and triplicate units of travel. The total amount of the overpayment due to the duplicative
payments was totaled to be $3,168.84.
By letter dated May 17, 2016, OWCP advised appellant of a preliminary determination
that a $3,168.84 overpayment of compensation had been created. It included a list of duplicative
2

Docket No. 95-0332 (issued April 3, 1997).

3

The record does not contain forms requesting travel mileage reimbursement.

2

payments for travel made for 68 specific dates from January 6, 2014 to December 7, 2015.
OWCP indicated that the proper distance between appellant’s home and Dr. Brandes was 19
miles, or 38 miles round trip. The payments indicated that some of the duplicative payments had
been for 77 miles, as appellant had improperly exaggerated the claimed mileage. As to fault,
OWCP found that appellant was at fault in creating the overpayment. According to OWCP, the
travel refund request form (Form 957) included a certification clause that the information
provided was true to the best of the claimant’s knowledge. It found that appellant had accepted
payments she knew were incorrect.
Appellant submitted a letter dated May 25, 2016, asserting that she was mentally disabled
and she needed additional information from OWCP. She requested information regarding the
amount of money OWCP had paid for travel reimbursement, and the dates of the payments.
According to appellant, she did not receive an overpayment recovery questionnaire and she
needed a 90-day extension to submit further information.
In a letter dated May 31, 2016, OWCP indicated that it was resending the overpayment
recovery questionnaire (OWCP-20) form and appellant should respond within 14 days.
Appellant responded in a June 2, 2016 letter that she wanted information as to the money she
received from OWCP for travel in 2014 through 2016. A June 3, 2016 CA-110 OWCP
memorandum of telephone call indicated that appellant had asserted that she was confused, and it
was explained to her why she was overpaid. By letter dated June 6, 2016, appellant asked for
additional explanation regarding the standards for a finding of fault.
On June 23, 2016 appellant requested a prerecoupment hearing before an OWCP hearing
representative and submitted an OWCP-20 form. In a June 16, 2016 letter, she wrote that she
was told by OWCP that she had to submit a “box of papers” with the dates she saw her
psychologist. Appellant asserted that on the “second box” she made a mistake as to the distance
and she alerted OWCP on October 15, 2015.
In a letter dated June 30, 2016, appellant wrote that she disagreed that an overpayment
occurred and disagreed with the amount. She argued that she was owed money by OWCP as
they had not paid travel expenses for many years. Appellant also argued that she was not at
fault, as she had provided everything to OWCP. She wrote that she had explained why she had
not timely submitted travel refund requests from 2000 to 2014. Appellant also submitted a
December 3, 2015 report from Dr. Brandes. In the December 3, 2015 report, Dr. Brandes opined
that appellant was psychologically unable to make the effort to bill for transportation to his
office.
A hearing was held on October 12, 2016. At the hearing appellant stated that her
disability had caused her to be confused as to the mileage. After the hearing she submitted
additional financial information.
By decision dated December 7, 2016, the hearing representative finalized the
determination that an overpayment in the amount of $3,168.84 had been created. He also denied
waiver, finding that appellant was at fault in creating the overpayment. According to the hearing
representative, appellant should have known that she was being overpaid.

3

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
Section 8103 of FECA 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 of the period of disability, or aid in lessening the amount of monthly compensation.4
With respect to travel expenses for medical treatment, the regulations provide:
“(a) The employee is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable and necessary
expenses, including transportation needed to obtain authorized medical services,
appliances or supplies. To determine what a reasonable distance to travel is,
OWCP will consider the availability of services, the employee’s condition, and
the means of transportation. Generally, a round[-]trip distance of up to 100 miles
is considered a reasonable distance to travel. Travel taken by the shortest route,
and if practical, by public conveyance. If the medical evidence shows that the
employee is unable to use these means of transportation, OWCP may authorize
travel by taxi or special conveyance.”5
In interpreting this section, the Board has recognized that OWCP has broad discretion in
approving services provided under FECA. The only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of
reasonableness.6 An overpayment occurs if OWCP reimburses a claimant in excess of the actual
mileage necessary for medical treatment.7
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether appellant
received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $3,168.84 due to incorrect payment
of travel reimbursements.
OWCP paid appellant for travel to her psychologist based on the submission of OWCP
travel reimbursement forms (Form 957).
In determining that an overpayment occurred and the amount of overpayment, OWCP
indicated that 68 specific payments were made in error from January 6, 2014 to
December 7, 2015 for appellant’s travel to Dr. Brandes’ office. It related that the overpayment
occurred because appellant improperly submitted duplicative travel reimbursement requests and
requested reimbursement for an incorrect mileage of 77 miles.

4

5 U.S.C. § 8103.

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a).

6

A.O., Docket No. 08-0580 (issued January 28, 2009).

7

See R.G., Docket No. 15-0144 (issued July 27, 2016).

4

The evidence of record however does not include the 957 forms appellant submitted to
OWCP to request travel reimbursements. The Board, therefore, cannot verify that appellant
submitted duplicate requests for reimbursement and that appellant requested that she be paid for
incorrect mileage.
It is particularly important to be able to review these forms because OWCP subsequently
issued a decision finding that appellant received an overpayment of compensation for which she
was at fault in creating. OWCP found that her signature on each OWCP-957 form certified that
any information she provided was true and correct and that she could be subjected to civil
penalties and/or criminal prosecution for knowingly making any false statement or
misrepresentation to obtain reimbursement.8
The Board also notes that the bill pay history report which documents payments to
appellant from January 1, 2000 through April 19, 2016 does not appear to document duplicate
payments of the same date to appellant. As such, the Board finds that the documentation of
record is insufficient to determine fact or amount of the overpayment appellant allegedly
received during the period January 6, 2014 through December 7, 2015 for travel reimbursements.
It is not clear when appellant submitted specific travel refund forms, what the forms
provided, or other relevant information. If the erroneous payments were first issued on
December 24, 2015, the record must establish that at that time she accepted payments she knew
or should have known were incorrect.9 It is not clear from the record what specifically appellant
had submitted and what information had been provided to her regarding travel reimbursement.
The Board finds, therefore, that OWCP has not established that the mileage
reimbursement claimed by appellant was incorrect. The Board will set aside the December 17,
2016 OWCP decision and remand the case to OWCP for reconstruction of the record, including
obtaining the OWCP 957 forms completed and signed by appellant for the claimed
reimbursement periods. Following reconstruction of the record, OWCP shall issue a de novo
decision regarding the issues of fact and amount of overpayment.10
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

8

See C.S, Docket No. 14-1377 (issued June 23, 2015).

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.320(b).

10

In light of the Board’s disposition with regard to issue 1, issue 2 is premature.

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated December 7, 2016 is set aside and the case is remanded for
further action consistent with this decision of the Board.11
Issued: December 27, 2017
Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

11

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the original decision, but was no longer a member of the Board
effective December 11, 2017.

6