A.J. and U.S. Postal Service, Syracuse Processing & Distribution Center (Board decision, May 19, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's termination of wage-loss compensation effective June 20, 2024. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A postal mail handler received compensation after a cage gate struck her forehead and OWCP accepted post-concussion and related conditions. OWCP later terminated wage-loss benefits. The Board found the medical evidence supported that she no longer had disability caused by the accepted injury and affirmed the June 2024 termination.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Wage-loss termination affirmed.
• Key point: The record supported that accepted injury no longer caused wage-loss disability.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
A.J., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0234
)
Issued: May 19, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SYRACUSE
)
PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, )
Syracuse, NY, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 14, 2025 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 13, 2024 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. 3

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.
3
The Board notes that following the November 13, 2024 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP and on appeal to the Board. 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.
ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage- loss compensation benefits, effective June 20, 2024, as she no longer had disability causally related to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury; and (2) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish continuing disability, on or after June 20, 2024, causally related to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 22, 2021 appellant, then a 30-year-old mail handler assistant, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on March 18, 2021 she sustained a concussion injury to the forehead above the right eye when the gate of a cage struck her in the forehead while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on March 18, 2021. A March 18, 2021 computerized tomography (CT) scan of the brain revealed no evidence of acute intracranial pathology. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for unspecified injury of the face, post-concussion syndrome, and other visual disturbances. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls, effective May 3, 2021, and on the periodic rolls, effective June 19, 2022.

In a February 2, 2023 report, Dr. Clyde Satterly, Board-certified in family medicine, reported that appellant presented for evaluation of a head injury due to a March 18, 2021 employment injury. He noted worsening headaches and continued vision issues with peripheral vision not improved and ongoing right eye ptosis. Dr. Satterly diagnosed ptosis of right eyelid, photophobia of right eye, vision loss of right eye, and post-concussion syndrome as a result of the employment injury. He held appellant off work.

On April 12, 2023 OWCP referred appellant, along with the medical record, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), and a series of questions to Dr. Sherry Leitch, a Board-certified neurologist, for a second opinion evaluation and determination regarding whether she had any disability or residuals causally related to the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury.

In a May 8, 2023 report, Dr. Leitch documented findings from appellant’s May 1, 2023 physical examination. She explained that appellant was involved in a work-related incident on March 18, 2021 as a result of a cage gate becoming unhinged, which struck appellant in the forehead above her right eye resulting in a concussion, without loss of consciousness. Dr. Leitch related appellant’s subjective complaints and the accepted conditions. She reviewed medical and diagnostic reports dated March 18, 2021 through April 4, 2022, noting that a March 18, 2021 CT scan of the head revealed no evidence of pathology. Dr. Leitch indicated no evidence of objective findings in relation to her closed head injury with concussion, noting that her head CT showed no abnormality and no abnormalities on neurologic examination with the exception of right eye ptosis, which she deferred to an appropriate specialist. She noted that while appellant continued to have complaints, there was no indication of an injury that would be severe enough to result in ongoing symptoms. Dr. Leitch opined that appellant’s work-related closed head injury with post- concussion syndrome had resolved, noting that her clinical examination revealed no objective findings that would support her continued subjective complaints. She opined that there were no clinical findings found on examination that would prevent her from her employment duties and appellant had no neurologic abnormalities that would result in the need for further restrictions/limitations. Dr. Leitch reported that in view of the length of time interval, the closed head injury with concussion was unrelated to her ongoing symptoms as she did not have an injury that would result in persistent symptoms at this point in time. She concluded that appellant could 2 return to her date-of-injury job, full duty, without restrictions as her work-related conditions had resolved and no further treatment was required.

Following Dr. Leitch’s second opinion evaluation, appellant submitted an April 11, 2023 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) from Dr. Satterly who diagnosed ptosis of right eyelid, blunt trauma of forehead, vision loss of the right eye, and post-concussion syndrome following a March 18, 2021 employment injury. Dr. Satterly indicated that appellant was totally disabled from March 26, 2021 to present due to her work-related injury.

In an August 24, 2023 report, Dr. Satterly reported that appellant was scheduled for an upcoming blepharoptosis surgery of the right eye and complained of significant headaches, visual complaints, and loss of depth perception making it difficult to work with heavy machinery at work. He noted that she was wearing a right eye patch and examination of the right eye revealed significant right ptosis and a worsening of her condition since her last examination. Dr. Satterly diagnosed ptosis of right eyelid, vision loss of right eye, photophobia of right eye, and pos t- concussion syndrome. He opined that appellant’s conditions and disability were caused by her work-related injury and continued to hold her off work.

On September 28, 2023 OWCP referred appellant, along with the case record, a SOAF, and a series of questions, to Dr. Adam Miller, a Board-certified ophthalmologist, for a second opinion evaluation and determination regarding whether she had any disability or residuals causally related to the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury.

In a report dated December 13, 2023, Dr. Miller documented his findings from appellant’s December 11, 2023 physical examination. He explained that the unspecified injury of the face involved ptosis of the right upper eyelid, which was repaired on November 28, 2023. Following the right eyelid ptosis repair, appellant’s eyelid position and peripheral vision improved and there was no suggestion of optic neuropathy as there was no afferent pupillary defect, color plates were intact, and the optic disc appeared sharp, pink, and without pallor, hemorrhage, or edema. Dr. Miller further noted no sign of cranial neuropathy but noted other visual disturbances, which included blurred vision, photophobia, and diplopia. While binocular and monocular diplopia were both present, he explained that binocular diplopia was not supported by objective findings as there was no strabismus. He explained that monocular diplopia could be related to refractive error and dry eyes, but it was unrelated to the injury as blurred vision was not consiste nt with refractive findings.

Dr. Miller opined that the ptosis, or drooping of the eyelid, could be consistent with the employment injury and her November 28, 2023 surgery demonstrated improved peripheral vision to confrontation, intact levator muscle function of the eyelid, and improved degree of ptosis. He reported that the diplopia experienced by appellant was most attributable to a combination of dryness and refractive error and there were no examination findings suggestive of cranial nerve palsy. Dr. Miller also explained that the degree of blurred vision experienced in the right eye subjectively was out of proportion to the examination findings, noting that the refraction at a visual acuity of 20/60 was inconsistent in appellant’s ability to correctly identify the letters.

Dr. Miller diagnosed unspecified injury of the face, ptosis of right upper eyelid, post- concussion syndrome, other visual disturbances, and concussion without loss of consciousness as a result of the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury. He declined to comment on whether the accepted conditions of post-concussion syndrome and concussion without loss of consciousness had resolved as he was not the appropriate specialist. Dr. Miller opined that

3 appellant’s unspecified injury of the face had resolved as there was no tenderness, no orbital step off, and no point tenderness to palpation. He reported that the eyelid ptosis was surgically corrected on November 28, 2023, appeared to be healing appropriately with improvement in the peripheral vision, and appellant should continue to use the antibiotic ointment prescribed to maintain appropriate healing. Dr. Miller opined that the other visual disturbances include diplopia and refractive error were unrelated to the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury. He explained that there were inconsistencies in appellant’s response to refraction using letters of the same size, but located in different locations on the eye chart, which would suggest that appellant’s subjective blurred vision may not be objectively supported. For the other visual disturbances including blurred vision and monocular diplopia, Dr. Miller recommended artificial tears to treat dry eye and an eye examination with refraction to improve her visual acuity to reduce blurring of vision. He opined that the prognosis appeared to be favorable as the eye examination demonstrated a healthy eye without sign of traumatic cataract, traumatic optic neuropathy, retinopathy, or cranial neuropathy.

Dr. Miller reported that as appellant had healed, and her eye examination demonstrated improvement in ptosis following surgery, intact extraocular movements, no sign of traumatic optic neuropathy, cataract, retinopathy, or cranial neuropathy, she was capable of returning to her date- of-injury job from an ophthalmology standpoint. He concluded that she had no clinical findings that would prevent her from returning to work without restrictions. In a work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) dated December 13, 2023, Dr. Miller determined that appellant was capable of performing her job without restrictions.

In an April 8, 2024 letter, OWCP requested that Dr. Satterly review the May 17, 2023 report from Dr. Leitch and the December 13, 2023 report from Dr. Miller, OWCP’s second opinion referral physicians, and provide an opinion regarding appellant’s disability or residuals causally related to the March 18, 2021 employment injury. No response was received.

In an April 24, 2024 report, Dr. Ioana Medrea, a Board-certified psychiatrist and neurologist, provided an initial evaluation for an assessment of headaches. She noted recurrent roughly stereotyped headaches at the right frontal or occipital lobe. Dr. Medrea related the history of injury, discussed examination findings, updated medication management, and recommended a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the brain.

In an April 26, 2024 Form CA-20, Dr. Cory Christensen, an osteopath, diagnosed right upper eyelid ptosis, noting that the mechanism of injury was unclear and possibly from a shelf head accident on March 17, 2021. He opined that appellant was not disabled as a result of her injury.

On May 16, 2024 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits as the weight of the medical evidence established that she no longer had any disability causally related to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury. It afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence or argument if she disagreed with the proposed termination.

On June 10, 2024 appellant, through counsel, responded, expressing his disagreement with the proposed termination.

By decision dated June 20, 2024, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits, effective that date, finding that the weight of the medical evidence rested with the opinions of Drs. Leitch and Miller. It noted that the decision did not terminate her medical benefits, which remained open if treatment was still needed.
4
Following OWCP’s June 20, 2024 decision, appellant submitted a July 9, 2024 report from Dr. Robert H. Hill, a Board-certified ophthalmologist. Dr. Hill discussed the March 18, 2021 employment injury. He reported that appellant underwent right upper eyelid ptosis repair on November 28, 2023 with Dr. Christensen and had been doing well postoperatively until an OWCP examination on December 11, 2023 when she began to experience pain in her right eye after the physician held her eye open and rubbed her eye during the examination. Appellant reported that since that time, she had mild right upper eyelid pain and her right upper eyelid had dropped back into its preoperative position. On December 15, 2023 Dr. Hill provided examination findings, which revealed right upper lid ptosis again postoperatively, though in a better position since the surgery. On July 9, 2024 he recommended a revision right upper lid repair.

On August 15, 2024 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration.

In support of her request, appellant submitted progress notes dated June 14, 2021 through July 16, 2024 from Dr. Satterly documenting appellant’s ongoing treatment for her injury. In an April 16, 2024 report, Dr. Satterly diagnosed vision loss of the right eye, post-concussion syndrome and ptosis of the right eyelid. He reported that appellant could return to work if she was not working with machinery due to visual loss of the right eye. A July 16, 2024 report noted appellant’s plan to undergo surgical correction of the right eye.

Appellant also submitted an October 15, 2024 progress note from Mariana Ames, a nurse practitioner, who documented continued treatment and medication management for chronic migraines and headaches.

By decision dated November 13, 2024, OWCP denied modification of the June 20, 2024 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Once OWCP accepts a claim and pays compensation, it has the burden of proof to justify termination or modification of an employee’s benefits. 4 After it has been determined that an employee has a disability causally related to his or her employment, OWCP may not terminate compensation without establishing that the disability has ceased or that it is no longer related 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

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits, effective June 20, 2024, as she no longer had disability causally related to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury.

4
See P.B., Docket No. 21-0894 (issued February 8, 2023); D.G., Docket No. 19-1259 (issued January 29, 2020);
R.P., Docket No. 17-1133 (issued January 18, 2018); S.F., 59 ECAB 642 (2008); Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197 (2005); Paul L. Stewart, 54 ECAB 824 (2003). 5 See R.P., id.; Jason C. Armstrong, 40 ECAB 907 (1989); Charles E. Minnis, 40 ECAB 708 (1989); Vivien L. Minor, 37 ECAB 541 (1986). 6 See P.T., Docket No. 21-0328 (issued May 2, 2022); Del K. Rykert, 40 ECAB 284, 295-96 (1988).

5
In her May 8, 2023 report, Dr. Leitch, a neurologist and second opinion referral physician, opined that appellant’s closed head injury with post-concussion syndrome had resolved based on her clinical examination, which revealed no objective findings to confirm residuals of the March 18, 2021 employment injury. She noted that appellant’s head CT scan showed no abnormality and there were no abnormalities on neurologic examination except for the right eye ptosis, which she deferred to an appropriate specialist. Dr. Leitch reported that while appellant continued to have complaints, there was no indication of an injury that would be severe enough to result in ongoing symptoms. She concluded that appellant’s conditions had resolved, and that she was capable of returning to her date-of-injury job without restrictions based on review of medical and diagnostic reports dated March 18, 2021 through April 4, 2022.

OWCP also referred appellant to Dr. Miller, an ophthalmologist, for the purposes of a second opinion examination. In his December 13, 2023 report, Dr. Miller evaluated appellant and opined that appellant’s work-related unspecified injury of the face had resolved as there was no tenderness, no orbital step off, no point tenderness to palpation, and the eyelid ptosis was surgically corrected on November 28, 2023, which appeared to be healing appropriately with improvement in peripheral vision. Dr. Miller opined that appellant’s other visual disturbances, which include diplopia and refractive error, were unrelated to the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury, explaining that there were inconsistencies in appellant’s response to refraction using letters of the same size but located in different locations on the eye chart, suggesting that appellant’s subjective blurred vision may not be objectively supported. He opined that the prognosis appeared to be favorable as the eye examination demonstrated a healthy eye without sign s of traumatic cataract, traumatic optic neuropathy, retinopathy, or cranial neuropathy. Dr. Miller determined that as appellant had healed and her eye examination demonstrated improvement in ptosis following surgery, intact extraocular movements, no sign of traumatic optic neuropathy, cataract, retinopathy, or cranial neuropathy, she was capable of returning to her date-of-injury job from an ophthalmology standpoint. Therefore, he concluded that she had no clinical findings preventing her from returning to work without restrictions.

The Board finds that the weight of the medical evidence with respect to OWCP’s termination action is represented by the well-rationalized opinions of Drs. Leitch and Miller. 7 The May 8, 2023 report of Dr. Leitch establishes that appellant no longer had employment-related disability causally related to the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury as it related to her closed head injury with post-concussion syndrome. Dr. Miller’s December 13, 2023 report established that appellant no longer had employment-related disability due to unspecified injury of the face, ptosis of right upper eyelid, and other visual disturbances as a result of the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury. The Board has reviewed the opinions of Drs. Leitch and Miller and find that they have reliability, probative value, and convincing quality with respect to the conclusions regarding the relevant issue of work-related disability. Accordingly, OWCP properly relied on the opinion of the second opinion physicians in terminating appellant’s wage- loss compensation benefits. 8

The remaining evidence submitted prior to OWCP’s termination of appellant’s compensation is insufficient to overcome the weight accorded to Drs. Leitch and Miller as the second-opinion physicians.

7
See M.C., Docket No. 24-0901 (issued October 22, 2024).
8
S.V., Docket No. 23-0474 (issued August 1, 2023).

6
Appellant submitted an April 24, 2024 report from Dr. Medrea documenting findings related to her recurrent headaches. In her report, Dr. Medrea noted recurrent roughly stereotyped headaches at the right frontal or occipital lobe and recommended an MRI scan of the brain. Dr. Medrea’s report, however, is of limited probative value as she fails to provide medical rationale explaining how appellant had continuing disability causally related to the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury. 9 Accordingly, her report is insufficient to overcome the weight of the medical evidence accorded to Drs. Leitch and Miller, or to create a conflict in medical opinion as to appellant’s work-related disability as a result of the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury.10

Appellant also submitted Dr. Christensen’s April 26, 2024 Form CA-20 report wherein he diagnosed right upper eyelid ptosis, noting that the mechanism of injury was unclear and possibly from a shelf head accident on March 17, 2021. However, Dr. Christensen did not provide support for continued disability causally related to the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury as he opined that appellant was not disabled as a result of her injury. Therefore, his report is of no probative value and is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.11

The Board, therefore, finds that OWCP properly terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits for the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury, effective June 20, 2024.12

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Once OWCP properly terminated compensation benefits, the burden shifts to appellant to establish continuing disability on or after that date causally related to the accepted injury. 13 To establish causal relationship between the accepted conditions as well as any attendant disability claimed and the employment injury, an employee must submit rationalized medical evidence based on a complete medical and factual background supporting such causal relationship. 14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish continuing disability, on or after June 20, 2024, causally related to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury.

Following the termination of her wage-loss compensation benefits, appellant submitted Dr. Hill’s July 9, 2024 medical report wherein he explained that appellant underwent right upper eyelid ptosis repair on November 28, 2023 with Dr. Christensen. He recommended a revision right upper lid repair and reported that appellant had been doing well postoperatively until an

9
See E.H., Docket No. 23-0503 (issued July 20, 2023); L.S., Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019);
J.F., Docket No. 17-1716 (issued March 1, 2018).
10
D.L., Docket No. 22-0161 (issued March 10, 2023).
11
See A.D., Docket No. 25-0324(issued March 26, 2025); R.F., Docket No. 24-0816 (issued October 28, 2024);
C.K., Docket No. 24-0196 (issued April 16, 2024); B.P., Docket No. 21-0872 (issued December 8, 2021). 12 D.G., Docket No. 17-0608 (issued March 19, 2018).
13
See J.N., Docket No. 20-1030 (issued November 20, 2020); L.C., Docket No. 18-1759 (issued June 26, 2019).
14
Id.

7
OWCP examination on December 11, 2023 when she began to experience pain in her right eye after the physician held her eye open and rubbed her eye during the examination. Dr. Hill, however, did not explain with sufficient medical rationale how appellant had continuing disability causally related to the accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury.15 Accordingly, this report is of limited probative value. 16

The remaining medical reports are also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.
Dr. Satterly’s progress notes dated June 14, 2021 through July 16, 2024 documented appellant’s ongoing treatment for her injury. In an April 16, 2024 report, Dr. Satterly diagnosed vision loss of the right eye, post-concussion syndrome, and ptosis of the right eyelid, reporting that she could return to work if she was not working with machinery due to visual loss of the right eye. A July 16, 2024 report noted appellant’s plan to undergo surgical correction of the right eye. Dr. Satterly, however, did not address the relevant issue of whether appellant was disabled on or after June 20, 2024 due to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury, and thus his opinion is of no probative value. 17

The record also contains an October 15, 2024 progress note from a nurse practitioner.
However, this report is of no probative value, because nurse practitioners are not considered physicians as defined by FECA and are not competent to render a medical opinion.18

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish continuing disability , on or after June 20, 2024, causally related to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury, the Board finds that appellant has not met her 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 OWCP has met its burden of proof to terminate appellant’s wage-loss compensation benefits, effective June 20, 2024, as she no longer had disability causally related to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury. The Board further finds that appellant has not

15
See E.H., Docket No. 23-0503 (issued July 20, 2023); L.S., Docket No. 19-0959 (issued September 24, 2019);
J.F., Docket No. 17-1716 (issued March 1, 2018).
16
L.L., Docket No. 24-0887 (issued November 21, 2024).
17
P.L., Docket No. 22-0337 (issued September 9, 2022); K.F., Docket No.19-1846 (issued November 3, 2020);
L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018). 18 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) (May 2023); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); see also B.D., Docket No. 22-0503 (issued September 27, 2022 (nurse practitioners are not considered physicians as defined under FECA and their medical findings and/or opinions will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to FECA benefits); L.S., Docket No. 19-1231 (issued March 30, 2021) (a nurse practitioner is not considered a physician as defined under FECA).

8 met her burden of proof to establish continuing disability, on or after June 20, 2024, causally related to her accepted March 18, 2021 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 13, 2024 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 19, 2025
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

9