United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
L.B., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Detroit, MI,
Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 19-1322
Issued: January 27, 2020

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On May 28, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 13, 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.2
ISSUES
The issues are: (1) whether appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the
amount of $67,276.38 for the period January 10, 2010 through March 4, 2017 because she
1
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that following the December 13, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However,
the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record
that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the
Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this
additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.

concurrently received FECA benefits and age-related retirement benefits from the Social Security
Administration (SSA) without appropriate offset; (2) whether OWCP properly denied waiver of
recovery of the overpayment; and (3) whether OWCP properly required recovery of the
overpayment by deducting $278.55 from appellant’s continuing compensation payments every 28
days.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On November 22, 2010 appellant, then a 78-year-old tax examining technician, filed a
traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 10, 2010 she tripped and fell over
a cord injuring her ankle, foot, and wrist while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on
the date of injury. Appellant received continuation of pay from November 11 through
December 25, 2010. On January 14, 2011 OWCP accepted her claim for left muscle spasm. On
February 15, 2011 it expanded acceptance of appellant’s claim to include left ankle sprain and left
foot tenosynovitis. On May 3, 2011 appellant returned to work for two hours a day, two days a
week. On November 16, 2011 OWCP expanded acceptance of her claim to include edema,
effusion of the left lower leg, and left tarsal tunnel syndrome. It paid appellant wage-loss
compensation on the supplemental rolls as of December 26, 2010.
In a letter dated January 25, 2012, OWCP informed appellant that she was placed on the
periodic compensation rolls effective January 15, 2012 and notified her of her obligations
regarding completing an EN1032 form which required the reporting of retirement income,
disability income, and/or compensation benefits she received from any federal agency.
In a February 3, 2012 telephone memorandum (Form CA-110), OWCP’s claims examiner
noted that appellant reported that she had been receiving SSA benefits for years. She informed
appellant that she was not entitled to receive SSA age-related benefits and FECA wage-loss
compensation for the same period and that an offset of benefits would be required. On January 11,
2013 the employing establishment removed appellant from service. Appellant’s personnel records
indicate that her date-in-service was June 26, 1986 and that she was covered by the Federal
Employees Retirement System (FERS).
On February 20, 2013 appellant completed an EN1032 form which asked that she report
any benefits received from the SSA received as part of an annuity under FERS, but indicated that
she was not to report any benefits received from the SSA on account of employment in the private
sector. She responded “no” to the question of whether she received benefits from SSA as part of
an annuity for federal service.
On October 23, 2013 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) informed OWCP that
appellant had elected to receive FECA compensation benefits.
In an EN1032 form dated February 18, 2014, appellant denied receiving benefits from SSA
as part of an annuity for federal service. She completed an EN1032 form similarly on
February 20, 2015. In an EN1032 form dated March 7, 2016, appellant indicated that she was not
receiving benefits from SSA. She completed an EN1032 form similarly on February 28, 2017.

2

On March 3, 2017 OWCP requested that SSA provide a dual benefits calculation. In a
form dated March 7, 2017, SSA responded: effective January 2010 appellant’s SSA rate with
FERS was $1,310.40 and without FERS was $619.50; effective, January 2011 her SSA with FERS
was $1,371.80 and without FERS was $619.50; effective December 2011 appellant’s SSA rate
with FERS was $1,421.20 and without FERS was $641.80; effective December 2012 her SSA rate
with FERS was $1,445.30 and without FERS was $652.60; effective December 2013 her SSA rate
with FERS was $1,466.90 and without FERS was $662.40; effective December 2014 her SSA rate
with FERS was $1,491.80 and without FERS was $673.60; effective December 2015 appellant’s
SSA rate with FERS was $1,491.80 and without FERS was $673.60; and effective December 2016
her SSA rate with FERS was $1,496.20 and without FERS was $675.50.
In a March 31, 2017 letter, OWCP informed appellant that she had been receiving SSA
age-related retirement benefits since at least January 1, 2010 and that a portion of her SSA benefits
were attributed to her federal service. It found that if her federal service was not included in her
SSA computation she would be entitled to $675.50 rather than $1,496.20, and that her monthly
FERS offset was $820.70 and the 28-day offset was $757.57. OWCP reduced appellant’s 28-day
compensation payments by $757.57.
In a preliminary determination dated September 14, 2017, OWCP notified appellant that
she had received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $67,276.38 because her
compensation benefits had not been reduced for the period January 10, 2010 through March 4,
2017 by the portion of her SSA benefits that were attributable to her federal service.
OWCP calculated the overpayment amount by determining the difference between her SSA
amount with and without FERS for each period. It provided a chart listing the SSA rate paid, the
amount due with FERS offset, and the daily rate with FERS offset. OWCP found that for the
period January 10 through December 31, 2010 or 356 days, appellant received an overpayment of
compensation in the amount of $8,108.58. It combined this sum with that of $59,167.80 for the
additional periods from January 1, 2011 through March 4, 2017 totally to reach a total
overpayment of $67,276.38. OWCP further made a preliminary determination that appellant was
at fault in the creation of the overpayment because she knew or should have known that she had
accepted compensation to which she was not entitled. It requested that she complete the enclosed
overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) and submit supporting financial
documentation. Additionally, OWCP notified appellant 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.
On October 9, 2017 appellant requested a telephone conference with OWCP on the issues
of fault and waiver of the overpayment. She provided a completed Form OWCP-20 and supporting
financial documents. Appellant listed her total monthly income $2,566.17 including SSA benefits
and OWCP benefits in the amounts of $1,496.00 and $1,070.17, respectively. She listed her
monthly expenses as $1,766.61. Appellant noted that her date-of-injury was November 10, 2010,
but that OWCP had calculated her overpayment as beginning January 10, 2010 and that this
resulted in an overpayment for 2010 of $8,108.58 when she only received FECA compensation
beginning November 10, 2010.

3

In an EN1032 form dated March 7, 2018, appellant indicated that she was receiving SSA
benefits in the amount of $1,526.00 per month.
On December 13, 2018 OWCP’s claims examiner spoke to appellant regarding the
overpayment. He explained how it was created and noted that normally OWCP deducted 25
percent of the monthly amount to repay the overpayment.
By decision dated December 13, 2018, OWCP finalized its preliminary overpayment
determination and found an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $67,276.38 for the
period January 10, 2010 through March 4, 2017 because it had failed to offset appellant’s
compensation payments for the portion of her SSA age-related retirement benefits that were
attributable to her federal service. It found she was not at fault in the creation of the overpayment.
OWCP noted that appellant had an excess of $799.00 every month and denied waiver of recovery
as the evidence did not substantiate that recovery would defeat the purpose of FECA or be against
equity and good conscience. It determined that it would require recovery of the overpayment by
deducting $278.55 from appellant’s continuing compensation payments every 28 days.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
Section 8102(a) of FECA provides that the United States shall pay compensation for the
disability or death of an employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the
performance of duty.3 However, section 8116 also limits the right of an employee to receive
compensation. While an employee is receiving compensation, he or she may not receive salary,
pay, or remuneration of any type from the United States.4
Section 10.421(d) of OWCP’s regulations requires that it reduce the amount of
compensation by the amount of any SSA benefits that are attributable to the federal service of the
employee.5 FECA Bulletin No. 97-09 states that FECA benefits have to be adjusted for the FERS
portion of SSA benefits because the portion of the SSA benefit earned as a federal employee is
part of the FERS retirement package, and the receipt of FECA benefits and federal retirement
concurrently is a prohibited dual benefit.6
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
Beginning November 10, 2010, appellant received FECA wage-loss compensation while
she continued to receive age-related retirement benefits from SSA. As noted, a claimant cannot
receive concurrent compensation for wage loss and SSA age-related retirement benefits

3

5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

4

Id. at § 8116.

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.421(d); S.M., Docket No. 17-1802 (issued August 20, 2018).

6

FECA Bulletin No. 97-09 (issued February 3, 1997); N.B., Docket No. 18-0795 (issued January 4, 2019).

4

attributable to federal service for the same period.7
established.

The fact of overpayment is therefore

The Board finds, however, that OWCP improperly calculated appellant’s overpayment for
the period January 10, 2010 through March 4, 2017. Appellant’s accepted employment injury
occurred on November 10, 2010. She, therefore, did not receive wage-loss compensation under
FECA until after her November 10, 2010 employment injury. Consequently, the SSA benefits
appellant received prior to November 10, 2010 were not dual benefits and should not have been
included in the overpayment calculation. OWCP improperly calculated her overpayment based
on her dual SSA and FECA benefits beginning January 10, 2010 rather than the appropriate date
of November 10, 2010.
A claimant is entitled to an overpayment decision that clearly explains how the amount
was calculated.8 The Board finds that the overpayment decision in this case does not provide such
an explanation. Therefore, the amount of the overpayment has not been established.
On remand OWCP shall determine the exact amount of the overpayment of compensation,
and the correct dates during which the overpayment occurred. It should then issue a new
preliminary overpayment determination, with an overpayment action request form, an
overpayment recovery questionnaire, and instructions for appellant to provide supporting financial
information. After this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall
issue a de novo decision.9
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

7

5 U.S.C. § 8116(d)(2); J.T., Docket No. 18-1791 (issued May 17, 2019).

8

A.J., Docket No. 18-1152 (issued April 1, 2019); J.W., Docket No. 15-1163 (issued January 13, 2016); see also
O.R., 59 ECAB 432 (2008) with respect to overpayment decisions, OWCP must provide clear reasoning showing how
the overpayment was calculated); see Jenny M. Drost, 56 ECAB 587 (2005) (to comply with OWCP’s overpayment
procedures, an overpayment decision must contain a clearly written explanation indicating how the overpayment was
calculated).
9
As the case is not in posture for decision regarding the amount of overpayment, the issue of waiver of recovery of
the overpayment is moot.

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 13, 2018 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed in part and set aside in part, and this case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.
Issued: January 27, 2020
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
G.R., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Birmingham, AL, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 21-1195
Issued: March 17, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On August 2, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 22, 2021
merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board
has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical
condition causally related to the accepted April 19, 2020 employment incident.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal
or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).
No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or
representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or
imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a
representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On April 21, 2020 appellant, then a 39-year-old assistant rural carrier, filed a traumatic
injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 19, 2020 she sprained her back while in the
performance of duty. 3 She indicated that the cause of the injury was “unknown.” Appellant
stopped work on that date. On the reverse side of the claim form, G.T., a customer supervisor,
indicated that appellant was instructed to perform duties within her work limitations, but she did
not follow instructions.
In a May 4, 2020 letter, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim on the
basis of performance of duty and fact of injury. It noted that the alleged injury occurred on
April 19, 2020, but appellant did not report the injury until April 21, 2020 and did not seek medical
attention until April 22, 2020. The employing establishment also asserted that appellant was filing
a new traumatic injury claim because she had wage-loss compensation claims (Form CA-7s) that
were denied under a previous claim.
In a May 6, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence
submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical
evidence necessary to establish her claim and also provided a questionnaire for completion.
OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to provide the necessary factual information and medical
evidence.
Appellant submitted a statement dated April 21, 2020. She explained that on April 19,
2020 she repeatedly bent down to pick up packages and climbed up and down stairs while
delivering mail. Appellant recounted that she reached for two boxes and turned right to step out
of the long-life vehicle (LLV) when she felt a sharp pain in her back. She noted that she called
G.T., her supervisor, and informed him that her back had gone out. Appellant also provided a
statement by A.S. and P.S., appellant’s brother-in-law and sister, who indicated that on April 19,
2020 they picked appellant up from the job site after her alleged injury.
In April 20, 2020 reports, Dr. Shabnam Guard, a Board-certified family medicine
physician, recounted appellant’s complaints of thoracic and lumbar spine pain and noted that
appellant was injured last year at work. On physical examination, he reported reduced range of
motion and tenderness on palpation of the thoracic spine. Examination of the lumbar spine
revealed tenderness on palpation and limited range of motion due to pain. Dr. Guard diagnosed
degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc and noted that it was a “work[-]related injury.” He
completed a work status note releasing appellant to limited duty on April 23, 2020.

3

OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx088. Appellant has a previously accepted traumatic
injury claim related to a June 23, 2019 employment incident. OWCP assigned that claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx684
and accepted it for lumbar back strain. Appellant stopped work on June 23, 2019 and accepted a full-time, limitedduty position on January 31, 2020. She also subsequently filed another traumatic injury claim under OWCP File No.
xxxxxx425 for a back injury related to a September 18, 2020 employment incident. By decisions dated January 5 and
June 22, 2021, OWCP denied the claim. It has administratively combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx088, xxxxxx425,
and xxxxxx826, with the latter designated as the master file.

2

OWCP received an April 29, 2020 return to work note containing an illegible signature.
The note indicated a diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy and low back pain and date of injury of
April 19, 2020.
In a May 21, 2020 letter, appellant informed E.S. that she had the same back condition as
under OWCP File No. xxxxxx684. She indicated that all her medical records said the same thing
and that she was waiting for a diagnostic test to determine how serious the back condition was.
In a May 21, 2020 letter, Dr. George Thomas, a family medicine specialist, indicated that
appellant was seen in the office for complaints of continued back pain. He noted that appellant
had an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon scheduled for June 1, 2020.
OWCP received an authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16) dated
April 21, 2020 signed by G.T., appellant’s supervisor, who authorized treatment at an urgent care
facility. Appellant’s alleged injury was described as middle back sprain.
In a letter dated May 15, 2020, A.N., an employing establishment human resource
management specialist, asserted that appellant had not met her burden of proof to establish “fact
of injury” or “performance of duty.” She also alleged that appellant switched doctors in order to
obtain stricter work limitations.
On May 22, 2020 appellant accepted a full-time, limited-duty position as an assistant rural
carrier.
A May 23, 2020 lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan interpreted by
Dr. Matthew Dobbs, a Board-certified radiologist, revealed mild facet ligamentous hypertrophy at
L4-5 and mild degenerative endplate changes and mild broad-based disc bulge and degenerative
changes at L5-S1.
In a June 1, 2020 examination report, Heather Wilson, a certified nurse practitioner, noted
that appellant was seen for complaints of chronic low back pain with recent exacerbation. She
reported no acute findings on physical examination and diagnostic films. Ms. Wilson diagnosed
low back pain and lumbar spondylosis.
A June 1, 2020 diagnostic report demonstrated mild degenerative disc changes at L5 -S1
and no acute abnormality.
Appellant submitted workers’ compensation injury form reports dated April 22 through
June 3, 2020 by a provider with an illegible signature. The report noted an April 19, 2020 date of
injury and diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy or lumbar pain.
On June 23, 2020 OWCP received statements from appellant. Appellant indicated that on
April 19, 2020 she reached for a package and turned to get out of her LLV when she felt her back
give out. She noted that she notified her supervisor and called 911 for help. Appellant explained
that she initially sought treatment from an urgent care facility, but was informed that they did not
have a workers’ compensation doctor available on Sundays. She asserted that she did not suffer
another low back sprain, but had trauma to her disc due to repetitively ascending flights of stairs.

3

OWCP received epidural injection procedure notes dated June 25 and July 9, 2020 by
Dr. Jacob Vella, Board-certified pain management and anesthesiology, who noted a diagnosis of
lumbar radiculitis.
In a July 2, 2020 letter, Dr. Thomas noted that appellant injured her lower back and both
wrists on June 23, 2019 while lifting and delivering packages. He indicated that appellant
sustained another injury on April 19, 2020 after bending to organize packages and climbing up
stairs. Dr. Thomas explained that a lumbar spine MRI scan demonstrated increased loss in disc
height, a mild broad-based disc bulge, and mild left foraminal narrowing at L5-S1. He discussed
the medical treatment that appellant received and recommended that appellant’s activities be
limited to sitting and lifting up to 10 pounds.
By decision dated July 20, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It accepted that the
April 19, 2020 incident occurred as alleged and that a lumbar condition had been diagnosed;
however, it denied her claim finding that she had failed to establish causal relationship between
the accepted employment incident and the diagnosed condition.
On July 24, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a
representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.
Appellant submitted additional medical evidence. In an April 29, 2020 examination note,
Dr. John Tinglin, a general surgeon, indicated that appellant was seen for follow-up of low back
pain and noted physical examination findings of marked tenderness of the lum bar spine. He
diagnosed low back pain.
In examination notes dated May 19 and 22, 2020, Dr. Bernard Hale, a family medicine
specialist, indicated that appellant was examined for follow-up of back pain. He reported that
musculoskeletal examination revealed abnormal gait and stance and diminished strength. Dr. Hale
diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy.
In examination notes dated May 23 and 27, 2020, Dr. Mark Pita, a family medicine
specialist, reported that he treated appellant for several months of lower back pain and lumbar
radiculopathy. He indicated that physical examination findings were normal and diagnosed lumbar
radiculopathy and low back pain.
In a September 10, 2020 work status note, Jessica Rollins, a nurse practitioner, indicated
that appellant could return to work on September 24, 2020.
On September 17, 2020 appellant accepted a full-time, limited-duty job offer for an
assistant rural carrier position.
In a September 21, 2020 report and return to work note, Dr. Thomas indicated that
appellant was treated for complaints of back pain and diagnosed with low back pain. He authorized
appellant to return to work on September 28, 2020.
In a September 24, 2020 letter, the employing establishment indicated that it continued to
challenge appellant’s claim on the basis of fact of injury and performance of duty. It alleged that
appellant went to several medical facilities in order to receive pain medication. The employing
establishment also noted that appellant had two previous back injuries.
4

On October 5, 2020 a telephonic hearing was held. Appellant testified that she had a
history of back pain, but that the incident that occurred on April 19, 2020 was different than a
sprain. She explained that she felt a disc in her back move and felt sharp pain that went down to
her legs.
An October 19, 2020 lumbar spine MRI scan interpreted by Dr. Ronald Ng, a Boardcertified diagnostic radiologist, demonstrated mild diffuse disc bulge and facet disease without
significant central foraminal canal stenosis at L5-S1.
In an October 28, 2020 report, Heather Wilson, a certified nurse practitioner, noted that
appellant was seen for low back pain. She reviewed diagnostic testing and diagnosed low back
pain.
In a November 2, 2020 letter, Dr. Thomas reported that appellant was treated on April 29
and May 21, 2020 for back pain following an April 19, 2020 work incident. He explained that
appellant was again seen in the office on September 18, 2020 after she injured her back at work.
In a November 24, 2020 decision, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed, but modified,
the July 20, 2020 decision. He determined that the medical evidence of record did not include
medical evidence containing a diagnosis in connection with the accepted April 19, 2020
employment incident. Thus, OWCP’s hearing representative found that appellant had failed to
establish an injury or condition under FECA. 4
On May 7, 2021 appellant indicated that she wanted to appeal her claim under OWCP File
No. xxxxxx088.
In a September 18, 2020 emergency room report, Dr. Anitricia Lumpkin, an osteopathic
physician Board-certified in emergency and internal medicine, recounted that on September 18,
2020 appellant “tweaked” her back when she sat on a low chair at work. She noted that appellant
had a history of back injury and described the June 23, 2019 and April 19, 2020 work incidents.
Dr. Lumpkin reported physical examination findings of normal range of motion and no tenderness.
She indicated that a lumbar spine MRI scan demonstrated degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 and
no suspicious osseous lesion. Dr. Lumpkin diagnosed degenerative disc disease at L5-S1.
Emergency room discharge instructions noted diagnoses of back pain and lumbar degenerative
disc disease.
In a January 27, 2021 report, Dr. Timothy Holt, an orthopedic surgeon, indicated that
appellant was seen for evaluation of low back pain radiating down into her bilateral legs.
Regarding appellant’s mechanism of injury, he described that on June 23, 2019 appellant lifted
heavy boxes and tried to fix a seatbelt at work; on April 19, 2020 she bent down to organize
packages and had climbed three flights of stairs when she felt something twist in h er lower back;
and on September 18, 2020 she was changing chairs at work when it suddenly dropped down. On
physical examination, Dr. Holt reported positive straight leg raise and cram testing. He indicated
that a lumbar spine MRI scan demonstrated degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L5-S1. Dr. Holt

4

The hearing representative also instructed OWCP to combine the present claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx088, and
OWCP File No. xxxxxx684 serving as the master file.

5

diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, cervicalgia, intervertebral disc displacement of the lumbar
region, and spinal instabilities of the lumbar region.
Dr. Holt continued to treat appellant and provided reports dated February 4 and
April 13, 2021. He reported physical examination findings of limited range of motion and
shuffling gait. Dr. Holt reviewed the results of a lumbar discogram and diagnosed lumbar
radiculopathy and lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. He recommended surgical
intervention.
A March 15, 2021 lumbar spine MRI scan demonstrated chronically degenerated disc at
L4-5 with minimal bulge, chronically degenerated disc protruding at L5 -S1, and endplate
degeneration at the L5-S1.
In an April 21, 2021 report, Dr. Andrew W. Murkett, a Board-certified internal medicine
physician, noted physical examination findings of normal range of motion. He diagnosed low
back pain, status post lumbar L5-S1 fusion.
An April 23, 2021 discharge summary report noted that Dr. Holt performed an anterior
lumbar interbody fusion at the L5-S1 with a discharge diagnosis of lumbar degenerative disc
disease.
By decision dated June 22, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the November 24, 2020
decision.5
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA 6 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence 7 including that the individual is an employee of the United States within the meaning of
FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time limitation of FECA, 8 that an
injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any specific condition or
disability from work for which compensation is claimed is causally related to that employment
injury.9 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. 10

5

The Board notes that appellant has an appeal pending before the Board concerning a separate June 22, 2021
OWCP decision under File No. xxxxxx425. That appeal will proceed under Docket No. 21-1196.
6

Supra note 1.

7

J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968).

8

F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D.
Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
9

G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

10

P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);
Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6

To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the
performance of duty, it first must be determined whether fact of injury has been established. 11
There are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. First, the employee must submit
sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident at the
time and place, and in the manner alleged. 12 Second, the employee must submit evidence,
generally only in the form of probative medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident
caused a personal injury. 13
To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability
claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical
opinion evidence. 14 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical
background of the employee, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported
by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and
the specific employment factor(s) identified by the employee. 15 The weight of the 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.16
In a case in which a preexisting condition involving the same part of the body is present
and the issue of causal relationship, therefore, involves aggravation, acceleration, or precipitation,
the physician must provide a rationalized medical opinion that differentiates between the effects
of the work-related injury or disease and the preexisting condition. 17
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical
condition causally related to the accepted April 19, 2020 employment incident.
In April 20, 2020 reports, Dr. Guard reported reduced range of motion and tenderness on
palpation of the thoracic spine. Examination of the lumbar spine revealed tenderness on palpation
and limited range of motion due to pain. Dr. Guard diagnosed degeneration of lumbar
intervertebral disc and noted that it was a “work[-]related injury.”
In examination notes dated May 19 and 22, 2020, Dr. Hale noted that appellant was
examined for follow-up of back pain. He reported that musculoskeletal examination revealed
abnormal gait and stance and diminished strength. Dr. Hale diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy.
11

S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).

12

Bonnie A. Contreras, 57 ECAB 364 (2006); Edward C. Lawrence, 19 ECAB 442 (1968).

13

David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

14

See S.A., Docket No. 18-0399 (issued October 16, 2018); see also Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996).

15

M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41
ECAB 345 (1989).
16

James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

17

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

7

In examination notes dated May 23 and 27, 2020, Dr. Pita indicated that physical
examination findings were normal and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and low back pain.
In a September 18, 2020 emergency room report, Dr. Lumpkin reported physical
examination findings of normal range of motion and no tenderness. She indicated that a lumbar
spine MRI scan demonstrated degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 and no suspicious osseous lesion.
Dr. Lumpkin diagnosed degenerative disc disease at L5-S1. Emergency room discharge
instructions noted diagnoses of back pain and lumbar degenerative disc disease.
In a January 27, 2021 report, Dr. Timothy Holt, an orthopedic surgeon, indicated that
appellant was seen for evaluation of low back pain radiating down into her bilateral legs. On
physical examination, he reported positive straight leg raise and cram testing. Dr. Holt indicated
that a lumbar spine MRI scan demonstrated degenerative disc disease at L4 -5 and L5-S1. He
diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, cervicalgia, intervertebral disc displacement of the lumbar
region, and spinal instabilities of the lumbar region. The Board thus finds that evidence of record
establishes diagnoses including degenerative disc disease at L5-S1, lumbar radiculopathy,
cervicalgia, intervertebral disc displacement of the lumbar region, and spinal instabilities of the
lumbar region.
The Board further finds, however, that the case is not in posture for decision with regard
to whether the diagnosed medical conditions are causally related to the accepted April 19, 2020
employment incident. As the medical evidence of record establishes diagnosed medical
conditions, the case must be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to
the issue of causal relationship. 18 Following this and other such further development as deemed
necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.19
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical
condition causally related to the accepted April 19, 2020 employment incident. The Board further

18

See F.D., 21-1045 (December 22, 2021).

19
A completed Form CA-16 authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses to a medical
facility or physician, when properly executed. The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not involve the
employee directly, to pay for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. See
20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).

8

finds that the case is not in posture for decision with regard to whether the diagnosed medical
condition is causally related to the accepted April 19, 2020 employment incident.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 22, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.
Issued: March 17, 2022
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

9


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
A.T., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, San Diego, CA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 19-1608
Issued: April 21, 2020

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On July 23, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 10, 2019 merit decision of the
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 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 merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that the acceptance
of his claim should be expanded to include the additional conditions of cervical radiculitis and
1
The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of
Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before
OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first
time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for
the first time on appeal. Id
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

aggravation of cervical spinal stenosis as causally related to the accepted June 12, 2009
employment injury.
FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has previously been before the Board. 3 The facts and circumstances as set forth
in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as
follows.
On June 15, 2009 appellant, then a 52-year-old special agent, filed a traumatic injury claim
(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 12, 2009 he sustained injuries when a ladder he was climbing
collapsed while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for closed left radius neck
fracture. It subsequently expanded acceptance of the claim to include left shoulder impingement
syndrome, left carpal tunnel syndrome, and resolved cervical sprain. Appellant underwent an
OWCP-authorized left carpal tunnel release on January 21, 2010 and OWCP-authorized left
shoulder arthroscopic surgery with excision of the distal clavicle on September 13, 2010.
In a letter dated June 7, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of all his accepted conditions and
informed him that the requested medical services of acupuncture and physical therapy could not
be authorized as they did not appear causally related to the accepted conditions.
Appellant submitted evidence in response to OWCP’s June 7, 2018 letter.
In a report dated May 29, 2018, Dr. Larry D. Dodge, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
noted appellant was seen that day for persistent neck pain complaints with intermittent paresthesias
into the upper extremities due to a June 12, 2009 injury. Appellant’s physical examination
revealed paracervical area tenderness and spasm, moderate cervical pain at extremes of motion,
pain greater in the right arm with neck extension, slight-to-moderately positive Spurling’s test, and
full upper extremity range of motion. Dr. Dodge opined that appellant continued to suffer from
cervical radiculopathy and cervical spondylosis.
In a June 4, 2018 report, Dr. Tiffany L. Shay Alexander, a Board-certified occupational
medicine physician, noted a June 12, 2009 date of injury and that appellant was currently retired.
She related that his physical examination findings included cervical paraspinal and cervical spine
muscles tender on palpation, limited neck range of motion slight right upper extremity weakness
with finger extension, and positive bilateral wrist Tinel’s sign. Dr. Shay Alexander diagnosed
cervical radiculitis, cervical spinal stenosis, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. She requested
authorization for acupuncture and physical therapy to treat appellant’s neck pain, upper extremity
paresthesias, and lack of range of motion.
Dr. Shay Alexander, in a July 6, 2018 supplemental report, noted that on June 4, 2018 she
had diagnosed cervical radiculitis, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and cervical spinal stenosis.
She again requested authorization for physical therapy and acupuncture to treat appellant’s lack of
3

Docket No 16-0738 (issued May 19, 2016); Docket No. 15-0033 (issued March 2, 2015); Order Remanding Case,
Docket No. 13-0781 (issued February 14, 2014). The Board’s prior decisions reviewed whether appellant was entitled
to an additional schedule award for permanent impairment of the left upper extremity.

2

range of motion, neck pain, and upper extremity paresthesias. Dr. Shay Alexander concluded that
his June 12, 2009 employment injury, and resulting neck sprain, caused his cervical radiculitis
symptoms and aggravated his cervical spinal stenosis.
In a development letter dated July 11, 2018, OWCP related appellant’s accepted conditions,
but informed him that the conditions of cervical radiculitis and aggravation of cervical spinal
stenosis had not been accepted. It advised him of the type of evidence required to expand the
acceptance of his claim and afforded him 30 days to provide the necessary evidence.
OWCP received a progress report dated July 6, 2009, from Dr. Shay Alexander who
diagnosed closed left radius fracture and left arm and neck pain. Appellant’s physical examination
findings were detailed. Under treatment plan, Dr. Shay Alexander referred him for a cervical
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan to rule out a herniated nucleus pulposus and a nerve
conduction velocity and electromyogram to rule out cervical radiculitis.
In progress reports dated July 31, 2009, Dr. Shay Alexander diagnosed limb pain, rule out
compressive neuropathy, neck strain with possible radicular symptoms, closed left radius fracture,
and left shoulder sprain, rule out rotator cuff tear. A physical examination revealed left cervical
paraspinal and upper trapezius tenderness, full neck flexion and extension, Spurling maneuver
caused pain radiating from neck to upper back and left shoulder.
In an August 20, 2009 report, Dr. Shay Alexander diagnosed closed left radius fracture,
left shoulder sprain, rule out rotator cuff tear, left arm pain, and neck sprain with possible radicular
symptoms. Appellant’s physical examination revealed cervical paraspinous muscle tenderness on
the left and full range of motion with discomfort at end of range of motion.
Dr. Shay Alexander, in a March 30, 2011 report, noted the history of appellant’s
employment injury, summarized his medical history, and provided examination findings. She
reported that he continued to have persistent hand, wrist, neck, and shoulder symptoms.
Dr. Shay Alexander noted that her request for an MRI scan of the cervical spine had been denied
because OWCP found that appellant’s cervical sprain had resolved based on a November 2, 2009
report from Dr. Thomas J. Sabourin, a second opinion Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. She
diagnosed cervical sprain, left wrist radial neck fracture, left carpal tunnel syndrome, and left
shoulder impingement syndrome, and attributed appellant’s complaints of neck, left shoulder,
elbow, and wrist pain to the June 12, 2009 employment injury.
In a July 7, 2015 report, Dr. Dodge, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted that
appellant was seen for neck pain and occasional pain, numbness, and tingling into his arms.
Appellant’s history of injury and medical history were detailed. Dr. Dodge diagnosed cervical
strain, C4-5 moderate cervical stenosis with persistence of neck pain and bilateral upper extremity
radiculopathy and left shoulder contusion and strain with presumptive impingement syndrome
status post left shoulder arthroscopy. He concluded that, within a reasonable degree of medical
probability, appellant’s current symptoms appeared to be causally related to his employment
injury.

3

By decision dated April 3, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request to expand acceptance
of his claim to include the conditions of cervical radiculitis and aggravation of cervical spinal
stenosis as causally related to the accepted June 12, 2009 employment injury.
On April 30, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of his request, he
resubmitted reports from Dr. Shay Alexander dated July 31 and August 20, 2009, and March 30,
2011 and a report from Dr. Dodge dated July 7, 2015. Appellant also submitted a statement dated
July 17, 2018 in response to OWCP asserting that Dr. Shay Alexander, in her reports, addressed
causation and that his claim should be expanded to include cervical radiculitis and aggravation of
cervical spinal stenosis.
By decision dated June 10, 2019, OWCP denied modification. It found the evidence
submitted by appellant, which was duplicative, was insufficient to warrant expansion of his claim
to include cervical stenosis and cervical radiculitis.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA 4 has the burden of proof to establish 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 FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable
time limitation period of FECA,5 that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged
and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related
to the employment injury. 6
When an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due to
an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is causally
related to the employment injury. 7
To establish causal relationship between the condition as well as any attendant disability
claimed and the employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence. 8
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

4

Supra note 2.

5

L.C., Docket No. 19-0724 (issued September 5, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P.,
59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
6

D.W., Docket No. 18-1139 (issued May 21, 2019); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59
ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).
7

S.H., Docket No. 19-1128 (issued December 2, 2019); M.M., Docket No. 19-0951 (issued October 24, 2019);
Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).
8
T.K., Docket No. 18-1239 (issued May 29, 2019); M.W., 57 ECAB 710 (2006); John D. Jackson, 55 ECAB
465 (2004).

4

explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific
employment factors identified by the claimant. 9
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that acceptance
of the claim should be expanded to include the additional conditions of cervical radiculitis and
aggravation of cervical spinal stenosis as causally related to the accepted June 12, 2009
employment injury.
In support of expansion of the accepted conditions, appellant submitted number of medical
reports from attending physicians, Drs. Shay Alexander and Dodge.
Reports from Dr. Shay Alexander dated June 4, 2018, July 6, July 31, and August 20, 2009
noted various diagnoses including neck sprain with possible radicular symptom, cervical
radiculitis, and cervical spinal stenosis, but offered no opinion as to the cause of these diagnosed
conditions. An opinion which does not address the cause of an employee’s condition is of no
probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 10 As Dr. Shay Alexander does not offer an
opinion on causal relationship, these reports are of no probative value and, thus, insufficient to
establish the expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s claim.
In a March 30, 2011 report, Dr. Shay Alexander diagnosed cervical strain, left wrist radial
neck fracture, left carpal tunnel syndrome, and left shoulder impingement syndrome and she
attributed the pain appellant experienced in his neck, left shoulder, elbow, and wrist to the June 12,
2009 employment injury. This report did not address his alleged cervical radiculitis and cervical
spinal stenosis conditions. The Board notes that pain is a symptom and not a compensable medical
diagnosis.11
Dr. Shay Alexander, in a July 6, 2018 report, diagnosed a number of conditions including
cervical radiculitis, and cervical spinal stenosis. She opined that appellant’s June 12, 2009
employment injury, and resulting neck sprain, aggravated his cervical spinal stenosis and caused
his cervical radiculitis. Dr. Shay Alexander made conclusory statements that appellant’s cervical
spinal stenosis and cervical radiculitis and pain were due to the accepted June 12, 2009
employment injury. While she provided a conclusory opinion, she did not explain how the
accepted employment injury had caused or aggravated additional cervical conditions. The Board
has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not
contain medical rationale explaining how a given medical condition/disability was causally related
to employment factors. 12 Also, while Dr. Shay Alexander opined that appellant’s cervical stenosis
9
D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued February 18, 2020); T.K., id.; I.J. 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams,
41 ECAB 345 (1989).
10

S.H., supra note 7; L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued
July 6, 2018).
11

T.G., Docket No. 19-0904 (issued November 25, 2019).

12

A.L., Docket No. 18-1706 (issued May 20, 2019); Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

5

aggravation and cervical radiculitis had been caused or aggravated by the employment injury of
June 12, 2009, she did not provide a reasoned explanation of the biomechanical mechanism of
injury.13 Her reports, therefore, are insufficient to establish expansion of the acceptance of his
claim.
In a report dated July 7, 2015, Dr. Dodge diagnosed various conditions including C4-5
moderate cervical stenosis with persistence of neck pain and bilateral upper extremity
radiculopathy. In the May 29, 2018 report, he diagnosed cervical radiculopathy and cervical
spondylosis, and opined that appellant’s symptoms appeared to be causally related to the accepted
employment injury. However, Dr. Dodge offered no opinion as to whether appellant’s cervical
stenosis and radiculopathy were causally related to the accepted June 12, 2009 employment injury
in either report. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding
the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 14
As Dr. Dodge did not offer an opinion regarding the cause of appellant’s cervical radiculitis and
aggravation of cervical spinal stenosis, his reports are of no probative value and, thus, insufficient
to establish the expansion of the acceptance of appellant’s claim.
As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish causal relationship, the Board
finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.
Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration
to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R.
§§ 10.605 through 10.607.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant not met his burden of proof to establish that acceptance of
his claim should be expanded to include the additional conditions of cervical radiculitis and
aggravation of cervical spinal stenosis as causally related to the accepted June 12, 2009
employment injury.

13

P.J., Docket No. 18-1738 (issued May 17, 2019); S.F., Docket No. 18-0444 (issued October 4, 2018); E.D.
Docket No. 16-1854 (issued March 3, 2017); L.B., Docket No. 14-1687 (issued June 10, 2015).
14

Id.

6

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT June 10, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: April 21, 2020
Washington, DC

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

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

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

7


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
K.T., 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. 18-1561
Issued: April 22, 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 August 13, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 16, 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.2
ISSUES
The issues are: (1) whether OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s
wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective May 30, 2017, as she no longer had
residuals or disability causally related to her accepted employment injury; and (2) whether

1
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of
Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before
OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first
time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for
the first time on appeal. Id.

appellant has met her burden of proof to establish continuing disability or medical residuals due to
the accepted conditions after May 30, 2017.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On May 8, 2006 appellant, then a 42-year-old child development program assistant, filed
an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging stress due to continuous job abolishment and
continuous harassment by management. She noted that she first became aware of her emotional
condition and its connection to her federal employment in September 2001. Appellant stopped
work in January 2007 and has not returned. By decision dated August 6, 2007, OWCP accepted
her claim for temporary aggravation of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed
mood. Commencing June 10, 2006 it paid wage-loss compensation benefits on the supplemental
rolls and on October 28, 2007 appellant was placed on the periodic rolls.3
On August 22, 2016 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with
Dr. Alberto Lopez, a Board-certified psychiatrist, to determine the status of her accepted
conditions and continued disability.
In a November 3, 2016 report, Dr. Lopez reviewed the case record, including a statement
of accepted facts (SOAF), and provided examination findings. He noted that appellant’s only
employment had been with the employing establishment and that she wanted to return to work.
Dr. Lopez noted that since 2008 she had been periodically treated by Dr. Micah Altman, Psy.D., a
psychologist, every one to two weeks. He observed that appellant continued to have daily current
symptoms including “anxiety and depression, erratic appetite, agitation, obsessive preoccupation
with work factors, social withdrawal, lack of libido, and poor sleep.” Based on responses to The
Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), Dr. Lopez diagnosed a paranoid disorder such as
delusional disorder, which required medication, and noted that people with this type of disorder
“are not open to psychological treatment.” In response to questions posed by OWCP, he concluded
that appellant continued to suffer from residuals of her original adjustment disorder with symptoms
of depression and anxiety. Dr. Lopez opined that aggravation of her condition continued because
her claim was still open and in litigation. He recommended therapy focused on a return to work.
Dr. Lopez found no work limitations except that appellant not work with her former supervisor.
He reported that her psychological testing suggested significant paranoia without clinical grounds.
In a February 13, 2017 report, Dr. Altman reviewed the report from Dr. Lopez and
disagreed with his conclusions. He found the opinion of Dr. Lopez, that appellant remained
depressed and anxious, but could return to work with no restrictions, was unsupported by the
evidence.
OWCP requested clarification from Dr. Lopez. In a March 16, 2017 supplemental report,
Dr. Lopez reiterated his opinion that appellant had no work restrictions other than not working
with her former supervisor, who he added was no longer with the employing establishment. He
also agreed that, if there was no current litigation, grievances, or complaints then obviously it was
“not the case” that appellant’s condition was aggravated by such a factor. Dr. Lopez noted that
she remained brooding and preoccupied with her situation and her belief that she has been harmed

3

The employing establishment terminated appellant’s employment effective January 26, 2007.

2

and wronged. He opined that it might be helpful to clarify the situation with appellant as she hoped
to return to work with accommodation.
In an April 6, 2017 letter to OWCP, Dr. Altman asked that a new second opinion evaluation
be performed, positing that Dr. Lopez’s opinion was substandard and inadequate. He also alleged
that the claims examiner’s interactions with appellant were causing her stress.
In an April 28, 2017 letter, OWCP advised appellant that it proposed to terminate her wageloss compensation and medical benefits because she ceased to have residuals of her accepted
employment-related emotional conditions. It informed her that the proposed termination action
was based on the opinion of Dr. Lopez, OWCP’s referral physician. OWCP afforded appellant 30
days to submit evidence or argument challenging the proposed termination action.
In a letter dated April 27, 2017, appellant disagreed with the proposal to terminate her
compensation.
Dr. Altman requested in a report dated May 17, 2017 that Dr. Lopez’s opinion be
disregarded due to his inappropriate and invalid use of MMPI testing and his unprofessional
conduct.
By decision dated May 30, 2017, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation
and medical benefits, effective that date, based on the opinion of Dr. Lopez.
On June 9, 2017 OWCP received appellant’s request for an oral hearing before an OWCP
hearing representative. The hearing was held on November 29, 2017. Both Dr. Altman and
appellant testified during the hearing. Dr. Altman noted her disagreement with Dr. Lopez’s
conclusions. In a December 18, 2017 report, he reiterated his opinion that Dr. Lopez’s report was
inadequate, unrationalized, biased, and insufficient to support termination.
By decision dated February 16, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s
May 30, 2017 decision. The hearing representative found that Dr. Altman’s reports contained
insufficient medical rationale to create a conflict with Dr. Lopez’s well-rationalized opinion.
LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1
Once OWCP has accepted a claim and pays compensation, it bears the burden of proof to
justify modification or termination of benefits.4 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

4
H.P., Docket No. 18-0851 (issued December 11, 2018); S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB
197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003).

3

to the employment.5 Its burden of proof includes the necessity of furnishing rationalized medical
opinion evidence based on a proper factual and medical background.6
The right to medical benefits for an accepted condition is not limited to the period of
entitlement for disability.7 To terminate authorization for medical treatment, OWCP must
establish that appellant no longer has residuals of an employment-related condition, which would
require further medical treatment.8
ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1
The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits.
OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective
May 30, 2017, based on November 3, 2016 and March 16, 2017 reports of Dr. Lopez, OWCP’s
referral physician. In his November 3, 2016 report, Dr. Lopez diagnosed a paranoid disorder such
as delusional disorder and opined that she continued to have residuals of her original adjustment
disorder with symptoms of depression and anxiety. He explained that appellant’s aggravation
continued because of her belief that her claim remained open and in litigation. Dr. Lopez opined
that her condition is temporary and will likely become completely resolved and alleviated if she
were to return to work as she wished to do. In a March 16, 2016 supplemental report, he responded
to OWCP’s question regarding whether the accepted conditions of temporary aggravation or
adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression with depressed mood continued if there
was a lack of litigation “in 2007,” by indicating that it was obviously not the case if there was no
current litigation. Dr. Lopez, in his November 3, 2016 report, found appellant’s accepted
conditions had not resolved while in a March 16, 2017 supplemental report he provided a
speculative, conflicting opinion as to whether the accepted conditions had resolved. The Board
has held that a physician’s contradictory opinions are insufficient to justify a termination of
compensation.9
The Board also notes that Dr. Lopez provided no specific objective medical findings to
substantiate that appellant’s accepted conditions had resolved, such that she was no longer
disabled. Dr. Lopez related that she continued to have daily current symptoms including anxiety
and depression, poor sleep, agitation, and social withdrawal, but he opined that she was not totally
disabled. To establish that appellant is no longer disabled due to the accepted conditions, the
medical evidence must explain that she ceased to exhibit objective findings of the accepted

5

J.D., Docket No. 18-0958 (issued January 8, 2019); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Elsie L. Price, 54 ECAB
734 (2003).
6

See D.P., Docket No. 18-0038 (issued January 4, 2019); J.M., 58 ECAB 478 (2007); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB
284 (1988).
7

H.P., supra note 4; T.P., 58 ECAB 524 (2007); Kathryn E. Demarsh, 56 ECAB 677 (2005).

8

J.B., Docket No. 17-2021 (issued August 8, 2018); Kathryn E. Demarsh, id.; James F. Weikel, 54 ECAB
660 (2003).
9

See J.H., Docket No. 18-0103 (issued October 15, 2018); A.M., Docket No. 11-1205 (issued February 24, 2012).

4

conditions.10 Dr. Lopez provided a conclusory opinion, without rationalized objective support for
his opinion that appellant’s disability had ceased.11
The Board therefore finds that Dr. Lopez’s opinion is of limited probative value on the
underlying issue of this case because he failed to provide a rationalized medical opinion, based on
objective findings, that appellant ceased to have disability or residuals of her accepted
employment-related conditions.12
For these reasons, OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective May 30, 2017.13
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wageloss compensation and medical benefits, effective May 30, 2017.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 16, 2018 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed.
Issued: April 22, 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
10

See A.D., Docket No. 18-0497 (issued July 25, 2018).

11

See R.G., Docket No. 16-0271 (issued May 18, 2017).

12

See F.J., Docket No. 17-0147 (issued March 27, 2018); C.M., Docket No. 14-0088 (issued April 18, 2014).

13

In light of the Board’s disposition as to Issue 1, Issue 2 is moot.

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
R.M., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MONROE
AREA OFFICE FOR OPERATIONS, L.C.,
BOGGS LOCK & DAM, Vick, LA, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Richard D. Zipp, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 07-288
Issued: April 6, 2007

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 November 9, 2006 appellant filed a timely appeal of a decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs dated October 13, 2006 denying further review of the merits
of his claim. As the last merit decision in this case was issued on April 23, 2003, more than one
year before the filing of this appeal, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the merits of
the case pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(d)(2).
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Office properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for further
review of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has been before the Board on three previous occasions. The facts and the
circumstances of this case as set forth in the prior decisions and orders are hereby incorporated
by reference.1 A summary of the factual history to date is provided below.
On September 17, 1997 appellant, then a 41-year-old lock and dam equipment operator,
filed an occupational disease claim alleging that, as a result of conditions of his federal
employment, he suffered a heart attack. By decision dated December 24, 1997, the Office
denied his claim as it found that he had failed to establish fact of injury. On March 20, 2001 the
Office again denied appellant’s request for reconsideration without conducting a merit review.
By order dated September 24, 2002, the Board remanded the case with instructions that the
Office double this case with his claim for a traumatic injury filed on the same date, review the
evidence and issue a new decision on whether there was sufficient evidence in support of his
claim.2 By decision dated April 23, 2003, the Office reviewed the new information and denied
appellant’s claim as the medical evidence failed to establish that there was a relationship between
his employment and the claimed conditions. By letter dated May 30, 2005, appellant requested
reconsideration. On August 8, 2005 the Office denied his request for reconsideration as it was
untimely filed and failed to present clear evidence of error. By decision dated March 16, 2006,
the Board affirmed the August 8, 2005 decision.3 The Board denied appellant’s petition for
reconsideration on July 6, 2006.4
On August 9, 2006 appellant requested reconsideration before the Office. In support of
his request for reconsideration, he submitted numerous documents that had been submitted and
reviewed previously and were in the record. These included hospital records dated May 21,
1997; a November 4, 1997 report by Dr. S.W. Sentell, a psychologist; medical reports dated
June 22 and November 29, 1999 and December 22, 2000 by Dr. Robert Po, a Board-certified
orthopedic surgeon; and a medical report by Dr. A. Craig Pearce, a Board-certified internist with
subspecialty certificates in cardiovascular disease and interventional cardiology, dated
April 4, 2001.
In addition, appellant submitted documents that were not previously included in the
record. These included a medical report by Dr. Frank W. Smart, a Board-certified internist with
a subspecialty certificate in cardiovascular disease, dated July 26, 2002. In his report, Dr. Smart
indicated that appellant was his patient and that he had severe ischemic cardiomyopathy and an
ejection fraction of 35 percent and heart failure. He further noted that, due to appellant’s
medications, he was unable to carry out any degree of exertion at all and noted that stressful
situations would cause him significant difficulty. In addition, appellant submitted a hospital
1

Richard J. Murray, Docket No. 06-152 (issued March 16, 2006), petition for recon. denied (issued July 6,
2006); Richard J. Murray, Jr., Docket No. 00-257 (issued December 6, 2000), petition for recon. denied (issued
June 5, 2001); Richard Joseph Murray, Jr., Docket No. 01-1958 (issued September 24, 2002).
2

Docket No. 01-1958 (issued September 24, 2002).

3

Docket No. 06-152 (issued March 16, 2006).

4

Docket No. 06-152 (issued July 6, 2006).

2

discharge signed by Dr. Harry Hawthorne, a Board-certified internist with a subspecialty of
clinical cardio electrophysiology, dated July 28, 2003, listing appellant’s discharge diagnosis as
“inducible ventricular tachycardia with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.” Finally, appellant
submitted a medical report by Dr. Zohra Khambatti, a Board-certified family practitioner, dated
August 15, 2005, wherein he indicated that appellant had been under his care for seven years and
was currently being treated for hyperlipidemia, severe ischemic cardiomyopathy with
defibrillator insertion, depression, hypertension, chronic back pain and right rotator cuff repair.
Dr. Khambatti noted that appellant was in stable condition at this time.
By decision dated October 13, 2006, the Office denied appellant’s claim for
reconsideration of the merits.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act5 provides that the Office may review an
award for or against compensation under application by an employee who receives and adverse
decision. The employee may obtain this relief through a request to the district Office. The
request, along with the supporting statements and evidence, is called the application for
reconsideration.6
To require the Office to reopen a case for merit review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), the
Office regulations provide that the application for reconsideration must set forth arguments and
contain evidence that either: (1) shows that the Office erroneously applied or interpreted a
specific point of law; (2) advances a legal argument not previously considered by the Office; or
(3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by the Office.7
A timely request for reconsideration may be granted if the Office determines that the
employee has presented evidence that meets at least one of these standards. If reconsideration is
granted, the case is reopened and is reviewed on the merits.8
ANALYSIS
Appellant did not submit any new relevant legal argument, nor did he allege that the
Office erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Consequently, he is not entitled
to a review of the merits of his claim based on the first and second requirements of section
10.606(b)(2).

5

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.605.

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.606.

8

5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193, 8128(a). The Board has found that the imposition of the one-year time limitations does
not constitute an abuse of discretionary authority granted the Office under section 8128(a) of the Act. See Adell
Allen (Melvin L. Allen), 55 ECAB 390 (2004).

3

With respect to the third requirement, submitting relevant and pertinent new evidence not
previously considered by the Office, the Board finds that the following evidence is repetitious of
evidence already in the record and reviewed: the May 21, 1997 hospital records, the
November 4, 1997 report by Dr. Sentell, medical reports dated June 22 and November 29, 1999
and December 22, 2000 by Dr. Po and the medical report by Dr. Pearce dated April 4, 2001.
Material which is cumulative or duplicative of that already in the record has no evidentiary value
in establishing a claim and does not constitute a basis for reopening a case for further merit
review.9
With regard to the remaining evidence, none of this evidence addresses the relevant issue.
In the last merit decision dated April 23, 2003, the Office found that appellant had failed to
submit medical evidence that established a relationship between appellant’s employment and the
claimed conditions. None of the new medical evidence addresses the issue of causal
relationship. Dr. Smart noted that he was treating appellant for a heart condition, but he never
linked this condition to conditions of appellant’s employment. Dr. Hawthorne lists a discharge
diagnosis dated July 28, 2003 but never discusses appellant’s employment.
Finally,
Dr. Khambatti noted that he had treated appellant for seven years for hyperlipidemia, severe
ischemic cardiomyopathy with defibrillator insertion, depression, hypertension, chronic back
pain and right rotator cuff repair. However, he also does not address appellant’s employment or
the issue of causal relationship. 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.10
Appellant has not established that the Office improperly denied his request for further
review of the merits under section 8128(a) of the Act, because the evidence and argument he
submitted did not show that the Office erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law,
advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by the Office, or constitute relevant
and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by the Office.11
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the Office properly denied appellant’s request for further review of
the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

9

Daniel M. Dupor, 51 ECAB 482 (2000).

10

Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984); Jerome Ginsberg, 32 ECAB 31, 33 (1980).

11

Appellant submitted new evidence on appeal. As the Office did not consider this evidence in reaching a final
decision, the Board may not review the evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c).

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated October 13, 2006 is affirmed.
Issued: April 6, 2007
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

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
M.S., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING &
DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Atlanta, GA,
Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Docket No. 15-0879
Issued: July 15, 2015

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On March 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from the October 30, 2014 merit
decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal
Employees’ Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has
jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant’s July 8, 2009 employment injury caused any permanent
impairment to her right lower extremity.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On July 8, 2009 appellant, a 38-year-old mail handler, sustained an injury in the
performance of duty when she stepped into a hole while carrying sacks of mail. She stated that
1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

her right knee was bruised and swollen at the top and that this was a knee she had previously
injured. Appellant also stated there was tingling in her right ankle.
OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for contusion of the right knee and right lower
extremity. Following an imaging study showing radial tears involving the free edge of the body
and posterior horn of the medial meniscus, it accepted appellant’s claim for the additional
condition of right medial meniscus tear.
Shortly thereafter appellant underwent arthroscopic surgery for a medial meniscectomy.
However, the articular surface in the medial and lateral compartments was normal. There was a
large, thick medial plica in the suprapatellar area, which the Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,
Dr. Howard B. Krone, excised. No meniscectomy was warranted.
Appellant filed a claim for a schedule award on September 3, 2014. Dr. Krone evaluated
appellant’s impairment. He described her complaint of some chronic pain, 3/5 on occasion, over
the medial femoral condyle of the right knee. There was no swelling, locking, or giving way.
There was some slight tenderness over the medial femoral condyle but no evidence of any
thickening or effusion. Appellant had full range of motion and no patellofemoral crepitus. Xrays were normal. It was Dr. Krone’s opinion that appellant had no permanent impairment to the
right knee based on the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
Impairment (A.M.A., Guides) (6th ed. 2009).
An OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Krone’s evaluation. He noted that appellant’s
arthroscopic surgery showed the menisci intact. The source of appellant’s problem was instead a
large, thick plica, and the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides did not provide an impairment
rating for plica. The medical adviser agreed with appellant’s orthopedic surgeon that appellant
had no permanent impairment of her right lower extremity.
In a decision dated October 30, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim. It
found that the medical evidence did not support that she had a permanent impairment to her right
lower extremity.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
The schedule award provision of FECA2 and the implementing regulations3 set forth the
number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent impairment from
loss or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. FECA, however, does not
specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. The method used in
making such a determination is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of OWCP.4
For consistent results and to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants, good
administrative practice necessitates the use of a single set of tables so that there may be uniform
2

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

4

Linda R. Sherman, 56 ECAB 127 (2004); Danniel C. Goings, 37 ECAB 781 (1986).

2

standards applicable to all claimants. OWCP has adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate
standard for evaluating schedule losses.5 As of May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A.,
Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.6
ANALYSIS
Appellant filed a claim for a schedule award, but submitted no evaluation showing
permanent impairment due to her July 8, 2009 work injury. Her surgeon, Dr. Krone, found no
impairment of her right lower extremity. An OWCP medical adviser reviewed the matter and
agreed. Thus, no physician has supported appellant’s schedule award claim.
OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a right knee contusion and a medial meniscus tear.
Table 16-3, page 509 of the A.M.A., Guides, provides a default lower extremity impairment
rating of two percent for a meniscal tear, partial medial or lateral meniscectomy, or meniscal
repair. When Dr. Krone performed the arthroscopy, he found no tear. As the medical adviser
noted, the menisci were intact. There was no physical basis, therefore, for the payment of a
schedule award.
The medical adviser noted that the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide
an impairment rating for plica. In fact, Table 16-3, page 509 of the A.M.A., Guides provide a
default impairment rating of one percent for soft-tissue injuries such as bursitis, plica, history of
contusion, or other soft-tissue lesion. Impairment ratings for schedule awards include those
conditions accepted by OWCP as job related.7 OWCP did not accept the condition of plica. To
receive any rating for plica or history of contusion, however, Table 16-3 requires significant
consistent palpatory findings or radiographic findings. When Dr. Krone performed his
impairment evaluation, he described the tenderness over appellant’s medial femoral condyle as
“some slight tenderness,” not significant. X-rays were normal, and appellant had full range of
motion. Thus, there was again no basis for the payment of a schedule award.
Because the medical opinion evidence does not support that appellant’s July 8, 2009
employment injury caused any permanent impairment to her right lower extremity, the Board
finds that appellant is not entitled to a schedule award. Accordingly, the Board will affirm
OWCP’s October 30, 2014 decision.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the medical opinion evidence fails to establish that appellant’s
July 8, 2009 employment injury caused any permanent impairment to her right lower extremity.

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.404; Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 130 (2001).

6

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims,
Chapter 2.808.5.a (February 2013).
7

Id. at Chapter 2.808.5.d.

3

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 30, 2014 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: July 15, 2015
Washington, DC

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

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

4