United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
J.P., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Lorain, OH, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 10-2043
Issued: June 6, 2011

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On August 4, 2010 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 25, 2010 merit decision of
the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’
Compensation Act1 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 established a recurrence of disability commencing
February 25, 2010.
FACTUAL HISTORY
The case was before the Board on a prior appeal. In a decision dated July 21, 2006, the
Board affirmed a December 1, 2005 Office decision finding that appellant had not established

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

entitlement to a schedule award.2 The Board noted there had been three claims for injury: a
traumatic injury claim on March 11, 1991 for a low back injury, a July 24, 1991 motor vehicle
accident accepted for cervical strain and C5-6 herniated disc, and an occupational claim from
July 2000 accepted for aggravation of lumbosacral spondylosis. The additional history provided
by the Board in the prior decision is incorporated herein by reference.
The record indicates that appellant returned to work in a modified letter carrier position
with a driving, rather than walking, route. Appellant continued to receive treatment from
attending physician Dr. Bharat Shah, a pain management specialist, for low back pain. In a
report dated October 10, 2009, Dr. Gale Hazen, an orthopedic surgeon, stated that appellant had
inflammatory pain from his degenerative disc disease, with no significant neural compression or
evidence of instability. He indicated that appellant was not a candidate for any surgical
procedure and he needed to make lifestyle changes. In a report dated December 2, 2009,
Dr. Shah reported that appellant’s back pain had increased. He indicated that appellant assessed
his pain at an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, and diagnosed lumbosacral spondylosis without myelopathy
and lumbago. In a report dated January 28, 2010, Dr. Shah reported that appellant’s pain was
significantly worse, or 8 on the 1 to 10 scale.
By report dated February 25, 2010, Dr. Shah again stated that appellant’s pain was
“significantly worse,” or an 8 on the pain scale. He provided results on examination, stating that
appellant reported “that he has been more active at work, lifting more than 50 pounds and states
that this aggravates his pain. [Appellant] states that his lower back pain has been a lot more
intense. He says that sitting for more than 1 hour intensifies his lower back pain as well as the
jolting his back receives when driving the postal truck which causes axial pressure pain.” In a
duty status report (Form CA-17) dated February 25, 2010, Dr. Shah described his findings as
instability of the lumbar spine, and indicated that appellant was taken off work.
On March 16, 2010 appellant filed a Form CA-7 (claim for compensation) commencing
February 25, 2010. By letter dated March 17, 2010, the Office advised appellant to submit a
Form CA-2a and indicated that, if he was claiming a worsening of his employment-related
condition, he must submit a narrative medical report in support of his claim. On March 26, 2010
appellant submitted a Form CA-2a (notice of recurrence of disability) commencing
February 25, 2010. In a statement received on April 21, 2010, he stated that his condition had
worsened over the years and he could barely drive or walk due to his back injury. Appellant
submitted a report dated March 25, 2010 from Dr. Shah, noting decreased lumbar pain. Dr. Shah
indicated that facet injections would be scheduled.
By decision dated May 25, 2010, the Office denied a claim for a recurrence of disability
commencing February 25, 2010. It found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to
establish the claim.

2

Docket No. 06-509 (issued July 21, 2006).

2

LEGAL PRECEDENT
The Office’s regulations define the term recurrence of disability as follows:
“Recurrence of disability means an inability to work after an employee has
returned to work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition, which
had resulted from a previous injury or illness without an intervening injury or new
exposure to the work environment that caused the illness. This term also means
an inability to work that takes place when a light-duty assignment made
specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to his or her
work-related injury or illness is withdrawn or when the physical requirements of
such an assignment are altered so that they exceed his or her established physical
limitations.”3
When an employee, who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account
of employment-related residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the medical evidence of
record establishes that he or she can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden
to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence a recurrence of total
disability and show that he or she cannot perform such light duty. As part of this burden, the
employee must show either a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a
change in the nature and extent of the light-duty requirements.4 To establish a change in the
nature and extent of the injury-related condition, there must be probative medical evidence of
record. The evidence must include a medical opinion, based on a complete and accurate factual
and medical history, and supported by sound medical reasoning, that the disabling condition is
causally related to employment factors.5
ANALYSIS
The record indicated that appellant had been working in a modified position and he
stopped work on February 25, 2010. As noted above, appellant may establish a recurrence of
disability if he can show a change in the nature and extent of the light-duty job, such as a
withdrawal of the position or a change in duties that are beyond established work restrictions.
He did not allege a change in the nature and extent of the light-duty job or submit supporting
evidence.
Appellant may also establish a recurrence of disability by submitting reliable, probative
and substantial evidence of a recurrence of total disability. A recurrence of disability is, as noted
above, a spontaneous change in the employment-related condition. In this case, appellant was
seen by Dr. Shah on February 25, 2010 and he placed appellant “off work” in the duty status
report of that date. His reports do not establish a recurrence of disability. While Dr. Shah stated
3

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x).

4

Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); Mary A. Howard, 45 ECAB 646 (1994); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB
222 (1986).
5

Maurissa Mack, 50 ECAB 498 (1999).

3

in the February 25, 2010 report that appellant’s pain was worse, this appeared to be a repetition
of prior statements as the pain level reported was the same as it had been since
December 2, 2009. He did not discuss causal relationship with the employment injury, and the
history provided was a general statement that the history did not deviate from previous
assessments. Moreover, Dr. Shah did not discuss disability for work in his narrative report. His
reports do not constitute reliable, probative and substantial evidence of a recurrence of total
disability commencing February 25, 2010. Appellant also received treatment from Gale Hazen,
M.D. In his October 10, 2009 report, Dr. Hazen makes no mention to the etiology of appellant’s
physical complaints. He opined that, although he had degenerative disc disease, his back is
structurally intact and further, that he was not a candidate for any type of surgery. The Board
finds appellant did not meet his burden of proof in this case with respect to a recurrence of
disability.
The Board notes that the May 25, 2010 Office decision on appeal denied a claim for a
recurrence of disability. Appellant had originally filed a Form CA-7, claim for compensation.
Dr. Shah referred to appellant’s being “more active at work,” lifting 50 pounds, as well as sitting
and being subjected to “jolting” from driving the employing establishment vehicle. To the extent
that appellant is claiming that these work factors contributed to his disability commencing
February 25, 2010, this would be a claim for a new injury, not a recurrence of disability.6 On
return of the case record, the Office should properly consider the issue regarding a new injury.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant did not establish a recurrence of disability commencing
February 25, 2010.

6

A claim based on new employment incidents or exposures, even if the same part of the body previously injured
is involved, is a new injury. B.B., Docket No. 09-1858 (issued April 16, 2010); see also Federal (FECA) Procedure
Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.3(b)(2) (May 1997).

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated May 25, 2010 is affirmed.
Issued: June 6, 2011
Washington, DC

Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
R.L., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, Bedford Park, IL,
Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 08-509
Issued: September 5, 2008

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
DAVID S. GERSON, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On December 1, 2007 appellant timely filed an appeal from the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs’ November 21, 2007 merit decision terminating his compensation for
refusal of suitable work. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction
over the merits of this claim.
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Office properly terminated appellant’s compensation benefits
effective May 31, 2007 on the grounds that he refused an offer of suitable work.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On June 8, 2005 appellant, then a 54-year-old tools and parts clerk, filed a traumatic
injury claim alleging that he sustained a hernia in the lower part of his stomach after lifting and
rolling over tires to put in the stockroom on June 2, 2005. The Office accepted his claim for a
ventral hernia.

On July 28, 2005 appellant filed a recurrence of disability claim stating that he sustained
a recurrence of disability on July 23, 2005. On January 17, 2006 the Office accepted appellant’s
recurrence claim that he was totally disabled from work as of July 23, 2005. Appellant was paid
wage-loss compensation from July 28, 2005 to May 31, 2007.
On January 26, 2006 the Office requested a medical report from appellant’s physician,
Dr. Nadar Beshay, Board-certified in internal medicine, addressing appellant’s current disability.
It asked that Dr. Beshay address which appellant was able to return to his regular work or lightduty work, with restrictions. Visit notes from Dr. Beshay were submitted. In a February 13,
2006 note, he stated that appellant continued to suffer from groin pain due to bilateral inguinal
and ventral hernia and recommended that he stay off work until his surgery was completed. In
an April 19, 2006 note, Dr. Beshay stated that appellant should stay off work for the next four
weeks due to pain from his left inguinal hernia and small paraumbilical hernia. In a May 19,
2006 note, he stated that appellant continued to suffer from pain in the left groin and his hernia
was unchanged. Dr. Beshay recommended that appellant stay off work for another month. In a
September 8, 2006 note, he opined that appellant’s hernias were unchanged, but that he may be
able to do clerical work if available. In an October 6, 2006 note, Dr. Beshay noted that
appellant’s condition was unchanged and that he could perform clerical work. In a November 3,
2006 note, Dr. Beshay stated that appellant’s condition had not changed and he should remain
off work due to inguinal and paraumbilical hernias. In a December 6, 2006 note, he stated that
appellant has been off work because no light duty was available, that his condition has not
changed and he should remain off work for another month.
On February 8, 2006 the Office informed appellant that a second opinion evaluation was
necessary. The second opinion examination was scheduled for March 29, 2006.
In a March 31, 2006 note, the Office informed appellant of a notice of proposed
suspension of compensation as he failed to attend the scheduled second opinion examination on
March 29, 2006. On August 9, 2006 it informed appellant that he was scheduled for a second
opinion examination on August 24, 2006.
In an August 24, 2006 report, Dr. Keith W. Millikan, the second opinion physician, a
Board-certified surgeon, opined that both ventral hernia and inguinal hernia “can be related to
lifting” during the June 2, 2005 incident. He opined that appellant had residuals from his injury
which rendered him disabled from his job as a tool and parts clerk as he could not lift more than
10 pounds and had difficulty standing and walking for extended periods of time. Dr. Millikan
stated that appellant had not recovered from his work-related condition and was not able to
return to his position because the hernias had not been repaired.
In an August 24, 2006 work capacity evaluation, Dr. Millikan restricted appellant’s
lifting, pulling or pushing up to 10 pounds and standing or continuous walking for up to one
hour. He allowed sitting, reaching, twisting, bending and stooping for eight hours.
On September 27, 2006 the Office informed appellant that he was being sent for a referee
examination on October 23, 2006 as the second opinion report conflicted with his physician’s
opinion regarding the extent of his work restrictions.

2

On November 13, 2006 appellant was informed of his impartial medical examination on
December 12, 2006.
In a December 12, 2006 work capacity evaluation, Dr. Scott A. Kale, Board-certified in
internal medicine, opined that appellant would have work restrictions until after he recovered
from surgery. He restricted appellant to a maximum of 10 pounds for pushing, pulling and
lifting, walking and standing for one to two hours, and sitting for up to eight hours.
In a December 14, 2006 report, Dr. Kale opined that there was no basis for a finding that
appellant should not return to light duty. He opined that appellant required surgery of the left
inguinal hernia but that he could return to work on light duty in the meantime.
In a January 4, 2007 letter, the Office requested that the employing establishment offer
appellant a permanent job complying with the restrictions provided by Dr. Kale.
In a February 6, 2007 letter, the employing establishment offered a permanent
rehabilitation reassignment effective February 6, 2007 with restrictions of one to two hours of
walking, bending and twisting, and a weight restriction of 10 pounds for pushing and pulling.
In a February 14, 2007 note, Dr. Beshay stated that appellant was unable to work due to
his pain from the hernias.
In a March 2, 2007 letter, the employing establishment offered a revised permanent
rehabilitation reassignment effective February 6, 2007 with restrictions of walking, standing,
bending, stooping, and twisting of no more than one to two hours and weight restriction of 10
pounds for lifting, pushing, pulling as well as a limit of 10 to 15 pounds for repetitive wrist
movement. The job offer also included two 15-minute breaks per hour.
In a March 6, 2007 letter, the Office informed appellant that it found the modified tool
and parts clerk position offered to him to be suitable and within his work restrictions. It also
informed appellant that he had 30 days from the date of the letter to either accept the position or
provide an explanation of the reasons for refusing it. No response was received.
In an April 24, 2007 letter, the Office stated that it received notice of appellant’s refusal
to accept or report to the job he was offered. It informed appellant that he had an additional 15
days to accept the position or his entitlement to wage-loss and schedule award benefits would be
terminated.
In a May 31, 2007 telephone memorandum, the employing establishment stated that
appellant had not returned to work or accepted the modified position but it was still available to
him.
In a May 31, 2007 decision, the Office terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss
and schedule award compensation benefits effective May 31, 2007 due to his refusal to accept
suitable work. It noted that appellant’s job offer was suitable to his medical limitations as
identified by the referee examiner, Dr. Kale.

3

On June 2, 2007 appellant requested a review of the written record. He submitted
additional information from Dr. Beshay. In a June 21, 2007 work capacity evaluation,
Dr. Beshay advised appellant to resume work on June 21, 2007 and provided restrictions of
standing and walking up to two hours a day, lifting up to four hours a day and sitting up to eight
hours a day. In a July 27, 2007 letter, he recommended that appellant return to work with
limitations on August 7, 2007. In an August 17, 2007 note, Dr. Beshay stated that appellant had
pain and spasms in his back and requested that he be provided a chair with back support while at
work.
In a November 21, 2007 decision, the Branch of Hearings and Review found that the
Office properly terminated appellant’s compensation based on his refusal to return to work after
suitable work was made available. It also found that the additional medical records from
Dr. Beshay failed to provide a medical rationale as to why appellant was incapable of performing
the modified position.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
It is well settled that once the Office accepts a claim, it has the burden of justifying
termination or modification of compensation benefits. As the Office in this case terminated
appellant’s compensation under 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c), the Office must establish that she refused an
offer of suitable work. Section 8106(c) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act provides
that a partially disabled employee who refuses or neglects to work after suitable work is offered
to, procured by or secured for the employee is not entitled to compensation. Section 10.517 of
the applicable regulations provides that an employee who refuses or neglects to work after
suitable work has been offered or secured for the employee, has the burden of showing that such
refusal or failure to work was reasonable or justified and shall be provided with the opportunity
to make such showing before a determination is made with respect to termination of entitlement
to compensation. To justify termination of compensation, the Office must show that the work
offered was suitable and must inform appellant of the consequences of refusal to accept such
employment.
The Office’s regulations also state:
“[The Office] shall advise the employee that it has found the offered work to be
suitable and afford the employee 30 days to accept the job or present any reasons
to counter [the Office s] finding of suitability. If the employee presents such
reasons and [the Office] determines that the reasons are unacceptable, it will
notify the employee of that determination and that he or she has 15 days in which
to accept the offered work without penalty. At that point in time, [the Office’s]
notification need not state the reasons for finding that the employee’s reasons are
not acceptable.”
Section 8123(a) of the Act provides in pertinent part: If there is disagreement between
the physician making the examination for the United States and the physician of the employee,
the Secretary shall appoint a third physician who shall make an examination.1 When there are
1

5 U.S.C. § 8123(a).

4

opposing reports of virtually equal weight and rationale, the case must be referred to an impartial
medical specialist, pursuant to section 8123(a) of the Act, to resolve the conflict in the medical
evidence.2 In situations where there exist opposing medical reports of virtually equal weight and
rationale and the case is referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of resolving
the conflict, the opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based upon a
proper factual background, must be given special weight.3
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that the Office properly terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss
compensation on the grounds that appellant refused an offer of suitable work.
In a December 14, 2006 report, Dr. Kale, the impartial medical specialist, advised that
appellant was capable of performing light-duty work. He restricted appellant to one to two hours
of walking, standing, twisting and bending and up to eight hours of sitting with a weight
restriction of 10 pounds for pushing, pulling and lifting. The employing establishment’s
February 22, 2006 limited-duty job offer restricted appellant to walking, standing, bending,
stooping, and twisting for one to two hours, as well as a weight restriction of 10 pounds for
lifting, pushing, and pulling and 10 to 15 pounds for repetitive wrist movement. The job
included two 15-minute breaks per hour. After receipt of Dr. Kale’s December 14, 2006 report,
the Office informed appellant on March 6, 2007, that it had found the employing establishment’s
offered position to be suitable. The Office properly determined that the limited-duty job offer
was within the restrictions provided by Dr. Kale, the impartial medical specialist.
The Board further notes that appellant’s physician, Dr. Beshay, submitted reports wherein
he concluded that appellant was capable of performing light-duty work. There is no medical
evidence of record indicating that appellant could not perform the duties of the offered position
as of the date of termination, May 31, 2007. In his reports pertaining to examinations after
May 31, 2007, Dr. Beshay again opined that appellant perform light-duty work within the
restrictions of the job offer.
To properly terminate compensation under section 8106(c)(2), the Office must provide
appellant notice of its finding that an offered position is suitable and give him an opportunity to
accept or provide reasons for declining the position.4 It properly followed its procedural
requirements in this case. By letter dated March 6, 2007, the Office advised appellant that it
found that the modified position offered by the employing establishment was suitable and within
his physical restrictions as provided by Dr. Kale. It informed appellant that a partially disabled
employee who refused suitable work was not entitled to compensation, and allotted him 30 days
to either accept or provide reasons for refusing the position.5 Appellant did not respond.
Thereafter, on April 24, 2007 the Office informed appellant that it had received notice of
2

William C. Bush, 40 ECAB 1064, 1975 (1989).

3

Jack R. Smith, 41 ECAB 691, 701 (1990); James P. Roberts, 31 ECAB 1010, 1021 (1980).

4

See Maggie L. Moore, 42 ECAB 484 (1991), reaff’d on recon., 43 ECAB 818 (1992).

5

See Bruce Sanborn, 49 ECAB 176 (1997).

5

appellant’s refusal to report to the job he was offered. It provided appellant 15 days to accept the
position without penalty before all entitlement to wage-loss compensation and schedule award
benefits would be terminated. Appellant did not respond. On May 31, 2007 the Office
confirmed with the employing establishment that appellant had not reported to work. On
May 31, 2007 it terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss and schedule award benefits
effective May 31, 2007. On November 21, 2007 the Office affirmed that the previous decision
properly terminated appellant’s compensation.
The Board finds that the Office met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s
entitlement to wage-loss compensation effective May 31, 2007. Therefore the burden has shifted
to appellant to show that his refusal of the offered position was justified.6 However, as noted,
appellant submitted no medical evidence supporting that he was incapable of performing the
duties of the offered position.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the Office properly terminated appellant’s entitlement to
compensation on the grounds that appellant refused an offer of suitable work.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT November 21, 2007 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: September 5, 2008
Washington, DC

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

David S. Gerson, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
6

See Ronald M. Jones, 52 ECAB 190 (2000).

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
B.W., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Houston, TX, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Arthur Wiley, for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 09-1658
Issued: April 13, 2010

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
DAVID S. GERSON, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On June 22, 2009 appellant filed a timely appeal from an Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs’ decisions dated November 17, 2008 and May 1, 2009. Under 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 sustained a lower back condition in the performance of
duty.
FACTUAL HISTORY
Appellant, a 59-year-old customer service representative, filed a Form CA-2 claim for
benefits on May 5, 2008, alleging that she developed an occupational condition causally related

to employment factors.1 She indicated that she first realized her condition was causally related to
employment factors on October 29, 2007. In a supplemental statement, appellant explained that
she believed her injury occurred when she moved supplies in a cluttered supply room.
On May 29, 2008 the Office advised appellant that it required factual and medical
evidence to determine whether she was eligible for compensation benefits. It asked her to submit
a comprehensive report from her treating physician describing her symptoms and the medical
reasons for her condition, an opinion as to whether her claimed condition was causally related to
her federal employment. The Office requested that appellant submit this evidence within
30 days.
In an October 29, 2007 report, Dr. Plinio A. Caldera, a specialist in orthopedic surgery
and appellant’s treating physician, advised that appellant had complaints of left buttocks pain,
which radiated to her left leg and left knee. He related that she began to experience this pain
gradually in July 2007 and had no history of trauma, falls or injuries. Dr. Caldera stated that
appellant’s pain worsened with sitting or lying down; he related that walking ameliorated the
pain. He diagnosed anemia, low back pain syndrome and left-sided sciatica. Dr. Caldera
recommended treatment with medication, activity modification and physical therapy.
In a November 26, 2007 report, Dr. Caldera stated that appellant’s pain had diminished
somewhat due to her course of physical therapy. He advised that she had occasional pulling at
her left thigh posteriorly but denied having any numbness or tingling. Dr. Caldera reiterated his
diagnoses of low back pain syndrome and left-sided sciatica and advised her to continue with
medication and physical therapy.
In an April 4, 2008 report, Dr. Caldera noted that appellant was experiencing persistent
pain in her left buttocks, left hip, left thigh and left knee despite treatment with medication and
physical treatment. He noted on examination that she had no tenderness in her sacrum and
lumbar spine or sacroiliac joints, with mild tenderness over the left sciatic notch; no deformities
or muscle spasms; and full range of motion in the waist, left hip and left knee with some left leg
pain at the extreme of flexion. Dr. Caldera reiterated his previously stated diagnoses of low back
pain syndrome and left-sided sciatica and recommended that appellant undergo a magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) scan to determine whether she had a herniated nucleus pulposus in her
lumbar spine.
In an April 22, 2008 report, Dr. Samuel Alianell, Board-certified in physical and
rehabilitative medicine, stated that appellant had complaints of low back and left leg pain. He
noted that she had experienced low back pain for the last six to eight months with no specific
injury; she related constant, mild pain in the low back radiating into the left buttock and down
the lateral left thigh and posterior left calf along with a cold sensation behind the knee and calf.
Dr. Alianell stated that a lumbar MRI scan indicated a right-sided mild foraminal herniated
1

Appellant did not indicate the type of condition for which she was seeking compensation on her CA-2 form;
however, the Office adjudicated this claim as one based on a lower back condition given the fact that the medical
evidence she submitted pertained predominantly to her lower back. The record also contains references to her being
treated for pain in her left leg; however, the medical evidence contains no diagnosis or condition pertaining to the
left leg.

2

nucleus pulposus at L3-4, a large left extruded disc at L5-S1 and displaced S1, S2 nerve roots.
He stated that appellant had lumbar radiculopathy in addition to the herniated lumbar disc and
discussed with her the option of surgical intervention.
Appellant underwent electromyelogram and nerve conduction tests on May 8, 2008, the
results of which were normal. The study presented no electrodiagnostic evidence to suggest
lumbar radiculopathy, lumbosacral plexopathy or peripheral neuropathy, despite the MRI scan
results showing herniated nucleus pulposus at L3-4 and LS-51 with disc extrusion.
By decision dated November 17, 2008, the Office denied appellant’s claim, finding that
she failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish that she sustained the claimed
condition in the performance of duty. It found that she failed to submit evidence that any of her
specific work duties caused the claimed medical condition. The Office further found that
appellant failed to submit medical evidence sufficient to establish that her claimed condition was
related to factors of employment.
By letter dated November 27, 2008, appellant requested an oral hearing, which was held
on March 26, 2009.2 She did not submit any additional medical evidence.
By decision dated May 1, 2009, an Office hearing representative affirmed the
November 17, 2008 decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3 has the
burden of establishing that the essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that the
individual is an “employee of the United States” within the meaning of the Act, that the claim
was timely filed within the applicable time limitation period of the Act, that an injury was
sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that any disability and/or specific condition
for which compensation is claimed are causally related to the employment injury.4 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.5
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational
disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the
presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual
statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence
or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the
2

Appellant’s husband testified at the hearing that she initially began to experience pain in her left leg, which
subsequently began to radiate down into her lower back. As noted above, however, the medical evidence appellant
submitted in this case pertains predominantly to her lower back.
3

5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.

4

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

5

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

3

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for
which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the
diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.
The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship is usually rationalized medical
evidence. Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a
physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the
claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the
physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 the specific employment factors
identified by the claimant.6
Appellant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, reliable and
probative evidence, a causal relationship between his claimed right shoulder condition and his
federal employment. This burden includes providing medical evidence from a physician who
concludes that the disabling condition is causally related to employment factors and supports that
conclusion with sound medical reasoning.7
ANALYSIS
In the instant case, appellant has failed to submit any medical opinion containing a
rationalized, probative report which relates her claimed lower back condition to factors of her
employment. For this reason, she has not discharged her burden of proof to establish her claim
that this condition was sustained in the performance of duty.
Appellant submitted reports from Drs. Caldera and Alianell who related findings of lower
back pain on examination and diagnosed low back pain syndrome, left-sided sciatica, herniated
nucleus pulposus at L3-4 and L4-5 with disc protrusion at L5-S1 and lumbar radiculopathy.
Neither of these physicians, however, provided a probative, rationalized medical opinion that the
claimed conditions or disability were causally related to employment factors. Dr. Caldera stated
that in his October 29 and November 26, 2007 reports that appellant began to experience pain in
June 2007 in her left buttocks which radiated to her left leg and left knee. He noted that she had
no history of trauma, falls or injuries. Dr. Caldera’s opinion is of limited probative value as it
does not contain any medical rationale explaining how or why appellant’s claimed lower back
condition was related to factors of employment.8 The weight of medical opinion is determined
by the opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy and completeness of
physician’s knowledge of the facts of the case, the medical history provided, the care of analysis
manifested and the medical rationale expressed in support of stated conclusions.9 Dr. Caldera
did not sufficiently describe appellant’s job duties or explain the medical process through which
such duties would have been competent to cause the claimed condition.
6

Id.

7

See Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138, 1140 (1982).

8

William C. Thomas, 45 ECAB 591 (1994).

9

See Anna C. Leanza, 48 ECAB 115 (1996).

4

Dr. Alianell stated in his April 22, 2008 report that appellant had experienced constant,
mild low back pain radiating into the left bullock and down her left thigh and left calf along with
a cold sensation behind the knee and calf for six to eight months, with no specific injury. He
noted that the results of the lumbar MRI scan showed herniations, bulges, displaced nerve roots,
lumbar radiculopathy and mentioned surgery as a possible course of action. Dr. Alianell’s
opinion also is of limited probative value as it does not contain any medical rationale explaining
how appellant’s job duties physiologically caused the diagnosed conditions of left-sided sciatica,
right-sided mild foraminal herniated nucleus pulposus at L3-4, a large left extruded disc at
L5-S1, displaced S1, S2 nerve roots and lumbar radiculopathy. His report thus did not constitute
adequate medical evidence to establish that appellant’s claimed lower back condition was
causally related to her employment.
An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation.
Neither the fact that appellant’s condition became apparent during a period of employment nor
the belief that her condition was caused, precipitated or aggravated by her employment is
sufficient to establish causal relationship.10 Causal relationship must be established by
rationalized medical opinion evidence and appellant failed to submit such evidence.
The Office advised appellant of the evidence required to establish her claim; however,
she failed to submit such evidence. Consequently, appellant has not met her burden of proof in
establishing that her claimed lower back condition was causally related to her employment.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof in establish that her
claimed lower back condition was sustained in the performance of duty.

10

Id.

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 1, 2009 and November 17, 2008 decisions
of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.
Issued: April 13, 2010
Washington, DC

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

David S. Gerson, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
T.T., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Monticello, KS, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 09-19
Issued: March 13, 2009

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 October 1, 2008 appellant filed a timely appeal from the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs’ merit decisions dated February 20 and June 27, 2008 denying her
claim. The February 20, 2008 decision also denied her request for a subpoena. Pursuant to 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 appellant has met her burden of proof in establishing that she
sustained a back condition causally related to factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether
the Office properly denied her request for a subpoena.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On May 15, 2007 appellant, then a 42-year-old hearing impaired rural carrier, filed a
traumatic injury claim for back pain that she stated began on May 3, 2007. She stopped work on
May 5, 2007. The employing establishment controverted the claim, stating that when appellant
went home sick on May 5, 2007 she told her supervisor she did not hurt her back at work.

In a written statement, appellant noted that on May 3, 2007 she worked her normal duties,
which included having to case and lift one to two bunches of flats. When she finished her work
at 11:30 a.m., she went to a farewell party. When appellant arose from sitting, she felt a “knot”
in her back with back pain that became worse on May 4 and 5, 2007 and she was unable to do
any lifting. She saw her doctor on May 7, 2007 and was told she was having muscle spasms
from lifting. Appellant stayed home until she returned to the doctor on May 14, 2007. She
indicated that her doctor told her she had a herniated disc or diverticulitis. In a May 14, 2007
disability slip, Dr. David B. Karty, a Board-certified family practitioner, advised that he was
holding appellant off work for a week for low back pain and a possible herniated disc or
diverticulitis.
On May 30, 2007 the Office requested additional factual and medical information,
including a medical report which contained history of injury, firm diagnosis, objective findings,
test results, treatment provided, prognosis, and period and extent of disability.
In a May 7, 2007 progress note, Dr. Karty advised that appellant had back pain for about
five days, which began after lifting at work. He previously treated her in January and February
for back pain, but her present pain was different and that lifting, in particular, was painful. On
May 14, 2007 Dr. Karty assessed low back pain with radicular-type symptoms and diarrhea. He
noted that appellant’s pain was unchanged without the use of medications. The pain was in the
lower right side and kept her awake at night. Dr. Karty also noted that appellant developed
severe diarrhea over the previous week, but advised that it was not clear whether he could
connect the two sets of symptoms. He ordered diagnostic testing of the abdomen and pelvis. On
May 17, 2007 Dr. Karty advised that appellant’s symptoms were severe back pain and diarrhea.
He advised that the condition commenced May 2, 2007 and was ongoing. Appellant was unable
to work and needed pain management, possible physical therapy and ongoing medical treatment.
A disability slip indicated that appellant could return to light duty on June 2, 2007. In a June 6,
2007 note, Dr. Ira M. Fishman, a Board-certified physiatrist, advised that appellant was seen for
right sacroiliac joint dysfunction. He provided appellant’s work restrictions.
By decision dated July 10, 2007, the Office denied appellant’s claim for compensation,
finding that fact of injury was not established. It noted that appellant failed to respond to its
request for additional factual information, including whether her back pain occurred over one
work shift or over more than one work shift. The Office also found that the medical evidence
did not provide a definite diagnosis for the back pain.
On August 6, 2007 appellant’s attorney requested an oral hearing, which was scheduled
for December 11, 2007.
On September 18, 2007 appellant’s attorney requested subpoenas for several personnel at
the employing establishment, Office and medical providers to appear at the hearing. By letter
dated October 23, 2007, the Office hearing representative denied appellant’s subpoena request,
finding that written statements from any or all of the witnesses appellant requested would be
equally compelling. Counsel was advised that additional evidence could be submitted posthearing. In a November 10, 2007 letter, counsel disagreed with the Office’s hearing
representative’s decision not to issue subpoenas.

2

Appellant submitted a May 30, 2007 CT of the abdomen and pelvis, which revealed a left
kidney with several small parapelvic cysts without obstructive uropathy; mild sigmoid colon
diverticulosis and surgical absence of the gallbladder. A May 30, 2007 MRI scan revealed no
evidence of significant discogenic disease or neural compression. Appellant also submitted
notes performing to physical therapy.
At the December 11, 2007 hearing, appellant noted that she first had symptoms of the
claimed injury on May 3, 2007 and that it worsened on May 5, 2007. In a September 11, 2007
document, she advised her supervisors that she had injured herself at work on May 3, 2007.
Appellant told her temporary supervisor that she injured her low back at work that day while
lifting tubs and flats of mail. She stated that, on May 5, 2007, she told a coworker that she had
injured her back on May 3, 2007 while lifting tubs and flats of mail. Appellant also submitted a
May 7, 2007 progress report from Dr. Karty.
By decision dated February 20, 2008, an Office hearing representative modified the
July 10, 2007 decision to find that appellant’s claim should be adjudicated an occupational
disease claim as she developed her back pain over a three-day period. The hearing representative
affirmed the denial of the claim on the basis that causal relationship was not established. The
hearing representative also denied appellant’s attorney’s request for subpoenas for the reason the
requested information and individual’s statements could be obtained by other methods.
On May 19, 2008 appellant requested reconsideration of the February 20, 2008 decision.
She submitted medical records from 2003; a July 18, 2007 pain evaluation form; a July 18, 2007
work restriction form; and July 13 and 30, 2007 rehabilitation progress reports.
In a June 6, 2007 report, Dr. Fishman noted that appellant had lower back pain since
May 3, 2007 that occurred when she was repetitively lifting and twisting her torso while
handling tubs of mail. Appellant had been placed on light-duty restrictions by Dr. Karty and
remained off work as the employing establishment could not accommodate her restrictions.
Dr. Fisher found evidence of sacroiliac joint dysfunction with significant right-sided involvement
which was a result of her work injury in May 2007. He advised that the sacroiliac joint
dysfunction was the major contributing factor to her lower back pain and she may have
intermittent sciatic nerve irritation from this. Dr. Fishman recommended physical therapy and
provided work restrictions. In a July 18, 2007 report, he advised that examination revealed a
slight improvement in her right sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Dr. Fishman indicated that appellant
should continue physical therapy and light-duty work within the restrictions he outlined. On
August 8, 2007 he noted significant improvement in her residual right sacroiliac joint
dysfunction. Dr. Fishman recommended physical therapy and light-duty restrictions. A
sacroiliac belt was recommended when appellant resumed her regular work activities.
By decision dated June 27, 2008, the Office denied modification of the February 20, 2008
decision.

3

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
An employee seeking benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1 has the
burden of establishing the essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the
individual is an employee of the United States within the meaning of the Act; that the claim was
filed within the applicable time limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance
of duty as alleged; and that any disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is
claimed are causally related to the employment injury.2 These are the essential elements of each
and every compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury
or an occupational disease.3
To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in a claim for
occupational disease, an employee must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment
factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or
condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition
for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed
condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.4
Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s
rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s
diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the physician must:
be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant; be one of reasonable
medical certainty; and, be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the
relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by
the claimant. 5 The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its probative
value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested and the medical rationale expressed
in support of the physician’s opinion.6 Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in
the case record has no evidentiary value.7
An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation or upon
appellant’s own belief that there is a causal relationship between her claimed injury and her
employment.8 To establish a causal relationship, appellant must submit a physician’s report in
1

5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.

2

Anthony P. Silva, 55 ECAB 179 (2003).

3

See Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004).

4

See Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238, 241 (2005); Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994).

5

Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Bobby J. Parker, 49 ECAB 260 (1997).

6

Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are
entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001).
7

Paul Kovash, 49 ECAB 350 (1998).

8

Donald W. Long, 41 ECAB 142 (1989).

4

which the physician reviews the employment factors identified by appellant as causing her
condition and, taking these factors into consideration as well as findings upon examination of
appellant and her medical history, state whether the employment injury caused or aggravated
appellant’s diagnosed conditions and present medical rationale in support of his or her opinion.9
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
Appellant claimed that she sustained a back condition due to lifting flats between May 3
and 5, 2007. The record supports that she lifted flats and performed lifting and similar duties as
part of her job; however, she did not submit sufficient rationalized medical evidence explaining
how and why work factors would cause or contribute to her back condition.
On May 7, 2007 Dr. Karty related appellant’s account of back pain after lifting something
at work,10 but provided no rationalized opinion as to how her employment activities caused or
aggravated a diagnosed medical condition. 11 The subsequent reports from Dr. Karty do not
specifically address whether particular work activities caused a specific medical diagnosis.
Dr. Karty’s opinion is of limited probative value in establishing causal relationship.
Dr. Fishman also noted appellant’s history of back pain arising on May 3, 2007 after
repetitively lifting and twisting her torso while handling tubs of mail. He opined that appellant’s
sacroiliac joint dysfunction was the result of her work. However, Dr. Fishman did not provide
any medical rationale to explain the basis for his stated conclusion. He did not explain how her
particular work activities in lifting or twisting would cause or aggravate appellant’s joint
dysfunction.
Dr. Fishman’s opinion is insufficiently rationalized to establish causal
relationship.12
The record contains several diagnostic reports. However, these reports do not contain
any opinion on the causal relationship of the conditions found on diagnostic testing. Therefore,
these reports have no probative value in establishing causal relationship. 13 The Office also

9

Id.

10

Dr. Karty noted May 2, 2007 as the onset of appellant’s symptoms and indicated in his May 7, 2007 progress
note that appellant had back pain “for about five days” after lifting something at work. Since the Office hearing
representative found appellant’s injury occurred over more than one work shift and considered her claim to be an
occupational disease as opposed to a traumatic injury, Dr. Karty’s deviation from the May 3, 2007 accepted date of
injury is not based on an incorrect factual history.
11

See George Randolph Taylor, 6 ECAB 986, 988 (1954) (where the Board found that a medical opinion not
fortified by medical rationale is of little probative value).
12

Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are
entitled to little probative value).
13

A.D., 58 ECAB ___ (Docket No. 06-1183, issued November 14, 2006) (medical evidence which does not offer
any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal
relationship).

5

received physical therapy reports. However, physical therapists are not physicians under the Act.
Thus, their opinions do not constitute medical evidence and have no weight or probative value.14
Consequently, appellant has not met her burden of proof in establishing causal
relationship between employment factors and her claimed back condition.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2
Section 8126 of the Act provides that the Secretary of Labor, on any matter within her
jurisdiction under this subchapter, may issue subpoenas for and compel the attendance of
witnesses within a radius of 100 miles.15 The implementing regulations provide that a claimant
may request a subpoena, but the decision to grant or deny such a request is within the discretion
of the hearing representative, who may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of
witnesses and for the production of books, records, correspondence, papers or other relevant
documents. Subpoenas are issued for documents only if they are relevant and cannot be obtained
by other means and for witnesses only where oral testimony is the best way to ascertain the
facts.16
In requesting a subpoena, a claimant must explain why the testimony is relevant to the
issues in the case and why a subpoena is the best method or opportunity to obtain such evidence
because there is no other means by which the testimony could have been obtained.17 Section
10.619(a)(1) of the implementing regulations provide that a claimant may request a subpoena
only as a part of the hearings process and no subpoena will be issued under any other part of the
claims process. To request a subpoena, the requestor must submit the request in writing and send
it to the hearing representative as early as possible, but no later than 60 days (as evidenced by
postmark, electronic marker or other objective date mark) after the date of the original hearing
request.18
The Office hearing representative retains discretion on whether to issue a subpoena. The
function of the Board on appeal is to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion.19
Abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest error, a clearly unreasonable
exercise of judgment or actions taken which are clearly contrary to logic and probable deduction
from established facts.20
14

See Jane A. White, 34 ECAB 515, 518 (1983). See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). This subsection defines the term
physician. See also Charley V.B. Harley, 2 ECAB 208, 211 (1949) (where the Board held that medical opinion, in
general, can only be given by a qualified physician).
15

5 U.S.C. § 8126(1).

16

20 C.F.R. § 10.619; Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

17

Id.

18

20 C.F.R. § 10.619(a)(1).

19

See Gregorio E. Conde, supra note 16.

20

Claudio Vazquez, 52 ECAB 496 (2001).

6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2
On August 6, 2007 appellant requested a hearing and by letter dated September 18, 2007,
requested subpoenas to compel the attendance and testimony of personnel at the employing
establishment, the Office and certain medical providers. On February 20, 2008 the Office
hearing representative denied appellant’s request to subpoena such witnesses, finding that written
statements from any or all of the persons identified by appellant would be equally compelling.
The hearing representative noted that appellant could obtain a copy of her medical records and
case file.
The Board finds that the hearing representative properly denied appellant’s subpoena
request because she did not establish why a subpoena was the best method to obtain the evidence
in question and why there was no other means by which the testimony could be obtained. An
abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable
exercise of judgment or actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deduction
from established facts. 21 The mere showing that the evidence would support a contrary
conclusion is insufficient to prove an abuse of discretion. The Board finds that the hearing
representative did not abuse her discretion in denying appellant’s request for subpoenas.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish that she
sustained a back condition in the performance of duty. The Board further finds that the Office
properly denied her request for a subpoena.

21

Id.

7

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 27 and February 20, 2008 decisions of the
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.
Issued: March 13, 2009
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

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
E.D., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MURRAY HILL
STATION, New York, NY, Employer
__________________________________________
Appearances:
James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Docket No. 18-1753
Issued: August 13, 2019

Case Submitted on the Record

ORDER REMANDING CASE
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On September 17, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from May 18 and
June 27, 2018 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk
of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 18-1753.
The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that this case is not in posture for
decision and must be remanded to OWCP.
By notice dated March 20, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of its preliminary determination
that she had received a $35,949.01 overpayment for the period October 18, 2014 through
February 3, 2018 because she received prohibited dual benefits in the form of wage-loss
compensation under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) and benefits from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for the same period. It also made a preliminary
determination that she was at fault in the creation of the overpayment as she was aware, or should
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.

have been aware, that her compensation payments had been paid incorrectly. OWCP requested
that appellant complete an overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and submit
supporting financial documents. Additionally, it notified her that within 30 days of the date of the
letter she could request a telephone conference, a final decision based on the written evidence, or
a prerecoupment hearing.
In a letter dated March 26, 2018, received by OWCP on that same date, counsel requested
a telephone conference if OWCP refused to withdraw the March 20, 2018 preliminary notice of
overpayment.
On May 18, 2018 OWCP finalized the overpayment determination without holding a
hearing. It found that appellant had not submitted evidence as to the fact and amount of the
overpayment or on the issue of fault and required repayment of the overpayment in full within 30
days.
In a letter dated May 29, 2018, counsel disagreed with the May 18, 2018 overpayment
decision and requested a telephonic hearing.
By decision dated June 27, 2018, OWCP denied counsel’s request for an oral hearing as it
was not mailed within 30 days of the March 20, 2018 preliminary notice of overpayment.
OWCP is required to follow certain procedures in overpayment cases. Section 10.431
provides that, before seeking recovery of an overpayment, it will advise a claimant in writing that
the overpayment exists, and the amount of the overpayment.2 The preliminary notice must inform
the individual of his or her right to challenge the fact or amount of the overpayment, the right to
contest the preliminary finding of fault in the creation of the overpayment, if applicable, and the
right to request a waiver of recovery of the overpayment.3 The recipient of the alleged
overpayment may present evidence in response to OWCP’s preliminary notice, either in writing
or at a prerecoupment hearing requested within 30 days.4
On March 20, 2018 OWCP informed appellant of its preliminary determination and
notified her of her procedural rights, including the right to request a telephone conference within
30 days. On March 26, 2018 appellant, through counsel, made a timely request for a telephone
conference. OWCP, however, did not conduct a telephone conference before issuing its final
overpayment decision. Counsel subsequently again requested a telephone conference. OWCP
then denied appellant’s request by decision dated June 27, 2018. Therefore, appellant was not
provided the opportunity to provide testimonial evidence regarding the alleged fact and amount of
overpayment, or any other issues.5

2

20 C.F.R. § 10.431(a).

3

Id. at § 10.431(d).

4

Id. at § 10.432.

5

See I.R., Docket No. 18-0088 (issued April 9, 2018); Scherrie L. Stanley, 53 ECAB 433 (2002).

2

The Board, therefore, finds that OWCP issued a final decision denying waiver of recovery
of the overpayment of compensation without providing appellant due process.6 Because appellant,
through counsel, timely requested a prerecoupment hearing, the case will be remanded to OWCP
to schedule the requested hearing to be followed by an appropriate decision. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 27 and May 18, 2018 decisions of the Office
of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside and the case is remanded for further action
consistent with this order of the Board.
Issued: August 13, 2019
Washington, DC

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

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6
See K.P., Docket No. 17-1396 (issued May 4, 2018); J.M., Docket No. 14-0280 (issued May 5, 2014); see
generally James B. Moses, 52 ECAB 465 (2001).

3


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
P.S., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Jamaica, NY, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Paul Kalker, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 18-1361
Issued: May 20, 2019

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On July 2, 2018 appellant, through counsel, 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 Act2 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board
has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

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.

ISSUE
The issue is whether OWCP properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and
medical benefits effective June 15, 2018, as she had no residuals or disability causally related to
her accepted March 20, 2017 employment injury.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On March 22, 2017 appellant, then a 49-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury
claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 20, 2017 she “fell into postcon and over parcel” while
in the performance of duty. She alleged that she injured her right knee, wrist, shoulder, left toe,
and right hip. Appellant stopped work on that same date. OWCP placed her on the periodic rolls
and she received wage-loss compensation for total disability for the period commencing
March 21, 2017.
On April 17, 2017 OWCP accepted the claim for right knee contusion and left shoulder
contusion. On April 20, 2017 it amended the acceptance of the left shoulder contusion as it was
actually a right shoulder diagnosed with a contusion. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for
contusion of the right knee, shoulder, wrist, and elbow. It referred her for treatment with a
rehabilitation nurse on April 21, 2017.
On June 15, 2017 it updated the accepted conditions in the claim to include the additional
conditions of right knee other tear of medial meniscus and right shoulder superior labrum anterior
and posterior (SLAP) tear.
Appellant received treatment from Dr. Dante Trovato, a Board-certified orthopedic
surgeon. Dr. Trovato continued to treat her for her accepted conditions and opined that she was
“100 percent disabled.” He also recommended arthroscopic knee surgery, which appellant
declined.
In an August 2, 2017 report, Dr. Trovato noted findings for the right shoulder, which
included tenderness to palpation over the supraspinatus tendon and proximal biceps tendon. He
found range of motion (ROM) of the shoulder to 130 degrees of forward elevation, abduction of
130 degrees, and internal rotation to lower lumbar level. Dr. Trovato found mild scapula thoracic
dysarthrmia, a positive Hawkins test, and a positive Neer’s impingement test. He also found mildly
weak supraspinatus strength, external rotator strength and lift strength, and a positive O’Brien test.
For the right knee Dr. Trovato found that appellant ambulated with a normal gait, without
any ambulatory aide. He noted that the knee had normal valgus alignment and that it was mildly
swollen, with no effusion. Dr. Trovato found no erythema, no ecchymosis or warmth. He found
tenderness to palpation over the medial and lateral patella facets. Dr. Trovato noted that appellant
flexed to 110 degrees and had quadriceps strength of 4/5 and hamstrings strength of 4/5. He found
tenderness to palpation at the medial joint line. Dr. Trovato diagnosed contusion of right shoulder,
subsequent encounter, and contusion of right knee, subsequent encounter. He completed a
progress note of even date and opined that appellant was 100 percent disabled and could not return
to work. Dr. Trovato repeated this finding in his September 6 and 18, 2017 reports.

2

On August 11, 2017 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Leon Sultan, a Board-certified
orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination on the nature and extent of her employmentrelated residuals and disability. Dr. Sultan was provided a copy of the medical record, a statement
of accepted facts (SOAF), and a series of questions.
In a September 25, 2017 report, Dr. Sultan detailed appellant’s factual and medical
background, noted the medical records he reviewed, and provided physical examination findings.
Dr. Sultan examined the right shoulder and found no localized swelling, deformity, or
discoloration. He indicated that he did not find any complaints on palpation over the long head of
the biceps tendon or the acromioclavicular articulation. Dr. Sultan determined that there was no
deltoid muscle atrophy when compared to the opposite side. He conducted ROM testing with
goniometric measurement. Dr. Sultan’s findings included that abduction and forward flexion was
160 degrees (normal was 170 to 180 degrees), internal rotation and external rotation was 45
degrees (normal was 40 to 50 degrees), adduction was 45 degrees (nomal was 45 to 60 degrees)
and posterior extension was 40 degrees (normal was 40 to 45 degrees). He determined that
appellant had a negative impingement test, a negative drop arm, and a negative Hawkin’s test.
Dr. Sultan found no evidence of localized swelling, deformity, or discoloration of the right
elbow. He determined that there were no complaints on palpation over the elbow, soft tissue, or
bony structures. Dr. Sultan conducted ROM testing with goniometric measurement and
determined that elbow extension was complete at 0 degrees (normal was 0 degrees), and flexion
was to 150 degrees (normal was 145 to 155 degrees). He also advised that he detected no medial
or lateral elbow instability with stress testing, and the elbow carrying the angle was normal.
Dr. Sultan conducted sensory testing of the upper arm, elbow, and forearm and found that it was
intact. He also found grip strength was strong and pinch mechanism was well preserved.
On examination of the right wrist Dr. Sultan found no evidence of localized swelling,
deformity, or discoloration, and no complaints on palpation over the wrist soft tissue or bony
structures. He found normal ROM on both sides of the wrist. Dr. Sultan determined that there
was no intrinsic muscle atrophy involving the hand and no trophic changes involving the skin or
nails. He found grip strength was strong and pinch mechanism was intact. Additionally, sensation
of the hand was normal.
On examination of the right knee Dr. Sultan found no evidence of localized swelling,
deformity, or discoloration. He noted that the right knee patella was mobile and that there was no
knee joint effusion. Dr. Sultan advised that stress testing of the right knee revealed intact collateral
and cruciate ligaments, the patellofemoral compression test was negative, and that there was no
abnormal patellofemoral crepitus with ROM testing. He conducted full ROM testing of the right
knee with goniometric measurement and found normal extension at 0 degrees and flexion to 120
degrees (normal at 145 degrees) Dr. Sultan explained that the limitation of flexion was secondary
to her size. He determined that appellant had “equal motion ﬁndings on the left side.” Dr. Sultan
found no complaints on palpation over the medial or lateral joint line and determined that
provocative testing revealed a negative Spring test and a negative McMurray test. He also noted
that appellant ambulated without external support, and that she had a steady walking pattern
without any visible signs of antalgia.

3

Dr. Sultan explained that appellant was diagnosed with soft tissue trauma to the right
shoulder with residual low grade right shoulder adhesive capsulitis and soft tissue trauma to the
right elbow, right wrist, and right knee, clinically resolved. He confirmed that she had low grade
right shoulder motion restriction without impingement or instability. Dr. Sultan found that
examination of the right elbow, right wrist, and right knee was “unremarkable.” He also explained
that he did not find any clinical signs of right knee meniscal tear or right shoulder SLAP tear.
With regard to appellant’s ability to return to her full duties as a letter carrier, Dr. Sultan
explained that the current right shoulder condition would preclude her from performing full
unrestricted duty, as she could not carry more than 20 pounds at a time with her right arm and in
regard to reaching overhead. He explained that she was capable of performing light work with
restrictions on lifting or carrying up to 20 pounds at a time using both hands and restricting
overhead activity. Dr. Sultan indicated that the restrictions were temporary and that appellant
should undergo another two months of physical therapy before reaching maximum medical
improvement (MMI).
On October 23, 2017 Dr. Trovato diagnosed a contusion to the right shoulder. He
completed a progress report and a duty status report (Form CA-17) of even date. Dr. Trovato
advised that appellant could not return to work because of shoulder pain and opined that she was
100 percent disabled.
In a letter dated November 7, 2017 to Dr. Sultan, OWCP requested a supplemental report
addressing his opinion as to residuals of her accepted condition and whether additional conditions
were causally related to her accepted employment injury.
In a November 13, 2017 addendum, Dr. Sultan noted that his examination of the right
elbow, right wrist, and right knee, was normal. He explained that the right knee medial meniscus
tear was not evident on his examination. Regarding appellant’s right shoulder, Dr. Sultan
explained that he noted low grade right shoulder motion restriction secondary to an underlying
right shoulder partial adhesive capsulitis. However, he noted that the SLAP tear was not clinically
evident. Dr. Sultan concluded that adhesive capsulitis should be added to the accepted conditions
because it was a sequela of the accepted injury. He also noted that appellant needed additional
physical therapy and home exercises to facilitate recovery from the work-related injury of
March 20, 2017.
On November 24, 2017 OWCP updated appellant’s accepted conditions. It found that: her
contusion of the right knee, right shoulder, right wrist, and right elbow; right knee medial meniscus
tear; and, right shoulder SLAP tear had all resolved. OWCP updated acceptance of her claim for
the condition right shoulder adhesive capsulitis.
In a letter dated November 30, 2017, OWCP requested that Dr. Sultan provide updated
work restrictions, as the two-month period for physical therapy he had recommended had passed.
In November 20 and December 18, 2017 and January 22 and February 19, 2018 progress
reports, Dr. Trovato indicated that appellant could not work due to shoulder pain as she remained
100 percent disability. He noted included the diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis.

4

OWCP again referred appellant, along with a copy of her medical records, a SOAF, and a
series of questions to Dr. Sultan who performed an updated physical examination. In a report
dated March 5, 2018, Dr. Sultan noted physical examination findings for appellant’s right knee,
shoulder, elbow, and wrist which were noted to be consistent with left-sided findings. He noted
measurements of ROM and responded to questions from OWCP.
Following his physical examination, Dr. Sultan opined that there were no residual
functional orthopedic impairments related to the March 20, 2017 incident at work. He explained
that the objective orthopedic examination of the right knee, right shoulder, right elbow, and right
wrist, was devoid of any residual functional impairment. Dr. Sultan determined that appellant did
not have residual post-traumatic orthopedic impairment that would preclude her from performing
full, unrestricted work activity as a letter carrier. He advised that no further treatment was
necessary, completed a work capacity evaluation, and reported that appellant had reached MMI
and could return to work full duty.
In a letter dated March 19, 2018, OWCP provided Dr. Trovato with a copy of Dr. Sultan’s
March 5, 2018 report and requested that he provide an opinion with regard Dr. Sultan’s findings
that his own opinion as to whether appellant’s condition had resolved such that she was able to
return to unrestricted work. It afforded Dr. Trovato 30 days to provide a response.
In a March 21, 2018 report, Dr. Trovato noted his own examination findings and noted that
appellant’s adhesive capsulitis of the right shoulder was aggravated by overhead activities,
carrying heavy objects, and pulling and pushing. He completed a progress report and indicated
that it remained his opinion that she could not return to work.
In a May 7, 2018 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her wageloss compensation and medical benefits because she ceased to have residuals of her work injuries.
It informed her that the weight of the medical opinion evidence rested with the March 5, 2018
report of Dr. Sultan, OWCP’s referral physician, who had determined that her injury-related
disability and residuals had ceased. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit evidence and
argument challenging the proposed termination action.
In a letter dated June 2, 2018, counsel argued that Dr. Sultan’s March 5, 2018 report must
be disregarded as it was based upon an erroneous review of the medical evidence. He also provided
additional medical evidence from Dr. Trovato in support of appellant’s claim.
OWCP received April 5 and June 7, 2018 reports from Dr. Trovato in which he indicated
that appellant continued to have complaints of pain in her right shoulder and right knee and
diagnosed a medial meniscus tear of the right knee and a complete rotator cuff tear and a labrum
tear of the right shoulder, noting neither condition would heal due to poor blood supply.
Dr. Trovato explained that when it was cold, damp, or raining outside her shoulder and knee pain
worsened and she had to take medications on and off due to her pain. He explained that appellant
was unable to fully raise her right arm and that lifting, carrying, and attempted overhead activities
were associated with pain and clicking in her shoulder. Dr. Trovato advised that she continued to
complain of pain and swelling in her right knee and noted that she had clicking on movement of
her knee which caused her pain and caused her knee to “feel weak and buckle.” He explained that
appellant’s employment duties included carrying mail, lifting, and performing overhead activities.

5

Dr. Trovato also noted that she needed to stand, walk for extended periods of time, carry heavy
objects, kneel, squat at times, and go up and down steps and therefore her employment duties could
further aggravate her diagnosed conditions. He indicated that appellant had not reached MMI and
that she required arthroscopic surgery for her right knee and arthroscopic surgery for her shoulder
to repair her rotator cuff and repair or debride the labrum. Dr. Trovato opined that she was unable
to perform her duties as a letter carrier.
By decision dated June 14, 2018, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation
and medical benefits effective June 15, 2018, because she ceased to have residuals causally related
to her accepted March 20, 2017 employment injury. It found that the weight of the medical opinion
evidence rested with the March 5, 2018 report of Dr. Sultan, OWCP’s referral physician. OWCP
also noted that the reports of Dr. Trovato were not well rationalized, as he failed to support his
opinion with documented objective findings as to how appellant remained disabled due to her work
injury of March 20, 2017. It also explained that pain is a subjective complaint and cannot
constitute continued disability on its own.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it bears the burden of proof to justify
modification or termination of benefits.3 It may not terminate compensation without establishing
either that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related to the employment.4 OWCP’s
burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical opinion evidence based
on a proper factual and medical background.5 The right to medical benefits for an accepted
condition is not limited to the period of entitlement to compensation for disability.6 To terminate
authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must establish that appellant no longer has residuals
of an employment-related condition which require further medical treatment.7
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and
medical benefits effective June 15, 2018, as she had no residuals or disability causally related to
her accepted March 20, 2017 employment injury.

3
See R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB
197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003).
4

See R.P., id.; Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); Vivien L.
Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986).
5

See R.P., supra note 3; Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988).

6

A.P., Docket No. 08-1822 (issued August 5, 2009); see R.P., supra note 3; T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Kathryn E.
Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005); Furman G. Peake, 41 ECAB 361, 364 (1990).
7
See R.P., supra note 3; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB 660 (2003); Pamela K. Guesford, 53 ECAB 727 (2002);
Furman G. Peake, id.

6

In a March 5, 2018 second opinion medical report, Dr. Sultan noted appellant’s history of
injury and treatment and provided examination findings.
Dr. Sultan conducted tests of appellant’s right knee and reported negative findings. He
conducted ROM testing of the right knee with goniometric measurement and determined that her
ROM was normal. Dr. Sultan explained that the only limitation was on appellant’s flexion, but
that it was “secondary to her size.” He found equal motion findings on the left side.
Dr. Sultan examined appellant’s right shoulder and determined that it was normal. He also
found that she had equal ROM findings on the left side. Dr. Sultan advised that appellant’s
shoulder tests were all negative.
Dr. Sultan also reported that appellant had normal ROM on her right elbow. He found no
medial or lateral elbow instability with stress testing. Dr. Sultan conducted sensory testing and
found the elbow intact. He also found a negative impingement test, negative drop arm test, and a
negative Hawkin’s test.
Dr. Sultan’s examination of appellant’s right wrist found no objective evidence of localized
swelling, deformity, or discoloration and no complaints on palpation over her wrist soft tissue or
bony structures. He found normal ROM on both sides of the wrist. Dr. Sultan determined that
there was no intrinsic muscle atrophy involving the hand no trophic changes involving the skin or
nails. He found grip strength was strong and pinch mechanism was intact.
Dr. Sultan opined that there was no residual functional orthopedic impairment related to
the March 20, 2017 employment injury. He explained that the objective orthopedic examinations
of the right knee, right shoulder, right elbow, and right wrist, were devoid of any residual functional
impairment. Dr. Sultan explained that appellant did not have any residual post-traumatic
orthopedic impairment that would preclude her from performing full, unrestricted work activity as
a letter carrier.
The Board has held that the factors that comprise the evaluation of medical opinion
evidence include the opportunity for and thoroughness of examination, the accuracy or
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.8 The Board
finds that the report of Dr. Sultan provided appropriate objective findings and explained his
opinion that appellant’s orthopedic conditions had resolved without residuals and required no
further medical testing or treatment. Dr. Sultan also explained with rationale how her
employment-related conditions had resolved. The Board finds that he examined appellant,
provided normal physical examination findings, and explained how he arrived at his conclusion
that she no longer suffered residuals from her accepted condition.
In support of her claim for continuing disability, appellant submitted reports from her
treating physician, Dr. Trovato, who advised that she was unable to work. In an April 5, 2018
report, Dr. Trovato indicated that she continued to have complaints of pain in her right shoulder
and right knee, required medication due to her pain, and was unable to fully raise her right arm.
8

See C.D., Docket No. 17-1623 (issued February 20, 2018); see also M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007).

7

However, pain and/or discomfort is only considered a symptom, not a medical diagnosis.9 The
Board has held that a report is of limited probative value if it does not contain medical rationale
explaining how a given medical condition or disability was related to an employment injury.10
Without further explanation or rationale as to why appellant had complaints of pain and was unable
to raise her right arm, this report is insufficient to establish that she had continued residuals from
her accepted condition.
In a report dated June 7, 2018, Dr. Trovato opined that appellant was not at MMI, that she
could not perform her duties as a letter carrier, and that she required arthroscopic surgery for her
right knee. He further opined that her work duties would exacerbate her condition. Dr. Trovato
noted that, for the right shoulder, appellant would have pain on an on and off basis and her work
would exacerbate her symptoms. The Board notes that to the extent that he is asserting that a
return to work might cause further injury, the Board has held that fear of future injury is not
compensable.11
The Board also notes that Dr. Trovato indicated that appellant was in need of arthroscopic
surgery for her shoulder to repair her rotator cuff and repair or debride the labrum. However,
Dr. Sultan indicated that the examination of the right shoulder was normal. Moreover, the
conditions of rotator cuff tear and labrum tear are not currently accepted claims related to her
accepted employment injury. Where an employee claims that a condition not accepted by OWCP
was due to an employment injury, appellant bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition
is causally related to the employment injury.12 Therefore, Dr. Trovato’s opinion is of diminished
probative value as to continuing disability.
Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s
rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s
diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the physician must
be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 the specific employment factors identified by
the claimant.13 The Board finds that Dr. Trovato’s opinions are insufficient to establish that
appellant continues to have residuals of her accepted work injury.

9
Findings of pain or discomfort alone do not satisfy the medical aspect of the fact of injury medical determination.
Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Fact of Injury, Chapter 2.803.4a(6) (August 2012).
10

See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) (finding that a report is of limited probative value
regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale describing the relation between work factors and
a diagnosed condition/disability).
11

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).

12

See L.S., Docket No. 18-1494 (issued April 12, 2019); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

13
J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); D.E., 58 ECAB 448 (2007); G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007); L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007);
A.D., 58 ECAB 149(2006).

8

Because appellant no longer has residuals or disability related to her accepted employment
conditions, OWCP properly terminated her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective
June 15, 2018.
On appeal, counsel argued that termination was improper. For the reasons set forth above,
the Board finds that OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss
compensation and medical benefits.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that OWCP met its burden of proof in terminating appellant’s wage-loss
compensation and medical benefits effective June 15, 2018, as she had no residuals or disability
causally related to her accepted March 20, 2017 employment injury.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 14, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: May 20, 2019
Washington, DC

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

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

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

9