OWCP's attempts to change claimant's work capacity by influencing medical specialist to change his report; results in reversal of termination of compensation benefits.

This case is unusual in that the OWCP was actually caught red handed doing something it routinely does; e.g., changing a report or influencing a medical specialist to produce a medical report that favored the OWCP's position in a federal workers' compensation claim.

 The OWCP accepted that appellant sustained herniated L4-5 and L5-1 discs requiring lumbar fusion and cage fixation, subluxations at L2 and L4, lumbar muscle spasm and a thoracic strain. Dr. Bean, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, found appellant disabled for work due to residuals of the accepted lumbar injuries from 1998 through January 2008. He opined that appellant's cervical disc disease and neurogenic bladder were also caused by the accepted injuries. In April 2008, the OWCP obtained a second opinion from Dr. Wilson, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who found appellant able to perform full-time limited duty. He opined that the cervical disc disease was idiopathic. The OWCP found a conflict of medical opinion between Dr. Bean and Dr. Wilson regarding the presence of continuing residuals, the relationship of chronic conditions to the accepted injuries and whether appellant remained disabled for work. Dr. Hansen, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, was appointed to resolve this conflict.


Dr. Hansen provided brief comments about residuals of the accepted injuries, noting restricted lumbar motion and back pain. He did not render a detailed description of these impairments. Although instructed to do so, Dr. Hansen did not explain whether appellant's bladder dysfunction was related to the accepted injuries or lumbar fusion. He noted that appellant had to self-catheterize since the 2001 lumbar fusion but did not address if this was related to the surgery. Similarly, Dr. Hansen stated that appellant's cervical degenerative disc disease was unrelated to the accepted injuries but did not adequately explain the basis for his conclusion. The absence of medical rationale on these critical issues diminishes the probative value of his opinion.

Dr. Hansen's opinion regarding appellant's work capacity is also problematic. Based on his clinical examination, he found appellant able to work eight hours a day limited duty, with sitting limited to two to three hours intermittently and standing and walking limited to one hour. The OWCP then requested that Dr. Hansen change these restrictions to qualify her for full-time employment. Dr. Hansen complied, increasing appellant's sitting tolerance to six hours a day. He did not set forth any medical basis for this change. The OWCP relied on the revised restrictions in finding the selected customer service position medically suitable. The Board finds that Dr. Hansen's revised restrictions are of diminished probative value as they are unsupported by medical reasoning. The speculative nature of these restrictions casts substantial doubt as to whether the selected position is medically suitable.

The Board finds that Dr. Hansen did not provide thorough answers to the OWCP's questions. He did not adequately discuss the accepted conditions and their effect on appellant's ability to work, nor explain if the bladder and cervical spine conditions were causally related to the accepted injuries. Dr. Hansen also provided conflicting work restrictions. Thus, his opinion is of insufficient weight to resolve the conflict between Dr. Bean and Dr. Wilson. The OWCP's June 3, 2009 decision reducing appellant's compensation will be reversed.

On appeal, counsel contends that Dr. Hansen's opinion was insufficient to resolve the conflict of medical opinion. The Board concurs that Dr. Hansen's opinion is insufficiently rationalized to represent the weight of medical evidence. The OWCP's June 3, 2009 decision will be reversed. 

C.C. v. Dept. of Air Force ECAB 10-259