SB v. USPS (ECAB 09-1012) If OWCP refers a case to a referee physician to resolve a conflict in the medical evidence, the OWCP CE may not pose leading questions to the physician, but must keep the questions neutral. When leading questions are posed, the resulting medical report must be excluded from the record, and another referee must be selected
RA v. Department of Agriculture (ECAB 09-552) Impartial medical specialist report may not be entitled to special weight where the physician who submitted it has been disciplined by a state medical board for failing to perform a proper examination and assessment of the claimant..
BC v. USPS (ECAB 09-653) Federal employee who is injured while on travel status, a temporary-duty assignment, or a special mission for the employing agency is entitled to coverage under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act unless she voluntarily deviates from activities essential or incidental to her special duties.
MT v. Department of Army (ECAB 09-208) Federal employee alleges that e-mails exchanged with a coworker and written partly in Spanish were argumentative and contributed to the elevation of her blood pressure and eventual stroke, the OWCP must obtain an accurate translation of the e-mails. It cannot rely on the employing agency's characterization of the e-mail exchange as "professional" in nature
P.G. vs. Department of Navy (ECAB 08-2183) While the Office’s delay in adjudicating the hearing loss claim is regrettable, there is no entitlement to a posthumous schedule award if the schedule award claim is not filed during the lifetime of the injured employee.
K.H. v. USPS (ECAB 08-2392) When an employee seeks to modify a loss of wage-earning capacity determination, he must establish that: 1) a material change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition has occurred; 2) he has been retrained or otherwise vocationally rehabilitated; or 3) the original LWEC determination was erroneous. The fact that the employing agency withdrew a light-duty assignment after a formal LWEC decision was issued does not mean the employee is entitled to compensation for a recurrence of disability. He must still demonstrate that one of these three criteria is present.
Nelson v. IRS (ECAB 04-2123) Under this section of the Act, an employee’s failure to willingly cooperate with vocational rehabilitation may form the basis for termination of the rehabilitation program and the reduction of monetary compensation.
Vivens V. USPS (42 ECAB 303) The Board finds that the Office properly determined that appellant may not concurrently receive compensation pursuant to a schedule award and compensation for partial disability for loss of wage-earning capacity.
Hawkins v. VA (ECAB 03-1232) The Board has held that a claimant cannot concurrently receive compensation under a schedule award and compensation for total disability for work. Therefore, the Board finds that appellant is not entitled to receive payments pursuant to his schedule award concurrently with his disability compensation.
Rose v. USPS (905 F.2d 1257, 9th Cir. 1989) Whether or not the USPS's failure to provide forms and in delay in filing Rose's OWCP Claims forms is a question of intent: Rose must show that the USPS's actions or inactions were willful or intentional.
D.L. v. USPS(01/29/09) The record raises an uncontroverted inference of causal relationship: there is no opinion to the contrary from an Office medical adviser or other physician. The Board finds that, while the treating physician report does not discharge appellant’s burden of proof to establish the essential element of causal relationship, it is sufficiently supportive of her claim that further development of the medical evidence is warranted.
D.M. v. Dept. of Army (01/16/09) The issue on appeal is whether the Office properly denied appellant’s request for an oral hearing as untimely.
R.C. v. USPS(01/12/09) The issue is whether the Office properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation and medical benefits effective April 9, 2008 on the grounds that he no longer had any residuals or disability due to his accepted employment injury..
Delatat v. Dept. of Air Force Although a reemployed annuitant’s at-will employment status may make the annuitant vulnerable to termination upon restoration, the statutory right to restoration nonetheless protects the reemployed annuitant from termination predicated on a compensable injury
Mitchell v. Dept. of Army The Board has consistently held that electing to receive retirement benefits is not an acceptable reason for refusing suitable work.
WS v. Dept. of State The issue is whether the Office met its burden of proof to modify appellant’s wage-earning capacity determination and reduce his compensation benefits to zero on the grounds that he has been vocationally rehabilitated.
I.H. v. USPS It is well established that when a referee examination is arranged to resolve a conflict in medical opinion, the medical adviser is not to attempt clarification of expansion of the impartial medical specialist’s opinion.
Kramm v. DOA, Saigon Republic of Vietnam The Board finds that the employee’s bladder cancer was causally related to his exposure to Agent Orange and pesticides in Vietnam.
Pygman v. DOI The Board finds that the nonexamining Office medical adviser’s decision is arbitrary and without any rationale for arriving at six percent impairment using the same identical table as the examining physician and thus reverses the Office’s decision awarding appellant’s a six percent impairment.
J.B. v. USPS A schedule award is payable consecutively but not concurrently with an award for wage loss for the same injury.A schedule award for one injury may be paid concurrently with compensation for wage loss paid for another injury, as long as the two injuries do not involve the same part of the body.
F.H. v. Dept. of Air Force Section 8106(b) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act provides that an employee who “fails to make an affidavit or report when required or knowingly omits or understates any part of his earnings, forfeits his right to compensation with respect to any period for which the affidavit or report was required.”
M.C. v. DOI 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 his or her condition was caused, precipitated or aggravated by his or her employment, is sufficient to establish causal relationship.
J.S. v. DOL The issue is whether the employee sustained colon cancer or a respiratory condition causally related to his federal employment.
E.K. v DOA The Board will not require the Office to pay compensation for disability in the absence of medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so would essentially allow an employee to self-certify his disability and entitlement to compensation.
Tiller v. Dept. of Air Force The issue is whether the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s compensation benefits on the grounds that she abandoned suitable work.
R.M. v. USPS The issue is whether the Office met its burden of proof to suspend appellant’s compensation benefits under section 8113(b) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act on the grounds that he refused to cooperate with his assigned field nurse.
Sligh v. USPS When the fall at work is unexplained, and therefore attributable neither to the employment nor to the claimant personally, the risk is neutral, and an injury arising in the course of employment from a neutral risk is compensable.
Collins v. USPS The Board holds that the opinion of an examining physician in the appropriate field of medicine takes precedence over the opinion of an Office medical adviser when considering subjective factors.
M.M. v VAMC As the Office failed to review all evidence submitted by appellant prior to issuance of its final decision, the Board finds that the Office improperly terminated appellant’s compensation benefits on the grounds that she refused an offer of suitable work.
K.H. v. USPS The Board finds that the Office improperly terminated appellant’s compensation and medical benefits as it did not meet its burden of proof to establish that appellant’s accepted condition had ceased.
E.M. v. DOD The issues are: (1) whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty; and (2) whether the Office properly refused to reopen appellant’s case for reconsideration of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128.
J.M. v. USPS The issues are: (1) whether appellant received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $43,846.23 for the period April 20, 2002 to October 4, 2003 because he received dual benefits from the Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs; and (2) whether he is entitled to wavier of the overpayment.
|