Failing to cooperate with field nurse doesn't reduce compCase name: R.M. and U.S. Postal Service, 108 LRP 39209 (ECAB 06/23/08).
Ruling: The ECAB reversed the OWCP's decision reducing the employee's compensation to zero on the grounds that he refused to cooperate with his assigned field nurse.
What it means: A claimant's refusal to cooperate with the nurse intervention program does not constitute a failure or refusal to cooperate with the early or necessary stages of vocational rehabilitation under Section 8113 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. As a result, the OWCP cannot reduce a claimant's compensation to zero based on his failure to cooperate with an assigned field nurse where the nurse is assigned for medical management purposes.
Ducking vocational rehabilitation efforts zeroes out comp
Case name: A.J. and U.S. Postal Service, 108 LRP 37362 (ECAB 06/12/08).
Ruling: The ECAB found that the OWCP properly reduced a clerk's compensation to zero after she failed to participate in vocational rehabilitation efforts.
What it means: If an employee fails to undergo vocational rehabilitation without good cause, the OWCP may reduce her compensation in accordance with what would probably have been her wage-earning capacity in the absence of her failure to cooperate. If the OWCP determines that vocational rehabilitation efforts would have resulted in a return to work with no loss of wage-earning capacity, it may reduce the employee's compensation to zero.
OWCP rescinds acceptance of claim due to inconsistencies
Case name: H.G. and U.S. Postal Service, 108 LRP 37471 (ECAB 06/11/08).
Ruling: The ECAB concluded that the OWCP met its burden to rescind acceptance of an employee's claim for a left foot injury.
What it means: An employee's statement of how an injury occurred must be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances. Where there are inconsistencies that cast serious doubt on the validity of the claim, including how and where the injury occurred, the OWCP may rescind its acceptance of the claim.
Omitting earnings from cattle sales triggers forfeiture
Case name: J.J. and Department of the Army, 108 LRP 37099 (ECAB 06/03/08).
Ruling: The ECAB upheld the OWCP's decision that an employee forfeited his workers' compensation benefits for two closed periods, but held that the evidence did not support a forfeiture of benefits for a third period.
What it means: Omitting mention of subsidies from the Department of Agriculture and the sale of cattle from EN1032 forms will result in the employee's forfeiture of workers' compensation benefits if the ECAB determines that the omissions were knowingly made.
Job offer that exceeds standing limitations is unsuitable
Case name: T.S. and Department of Agriculture, McCloud Ranger Station, 108 LRP 28330 (ECAB 04/24/08).
Ruling: The ECAB reversed the OWCP's decision to terminate the claimant's compensation on the grounds that she refused an offer of suitable work.
What it means: The OWCP does not meet its burden of proof to terminate an employee's compensation based on a refusal of a suitable position when the current medical evidence indicates that the employee can only stand for six hours a day, and the position offered would require her to stand up to eight hours a day.