Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

games or operating a construction business.
c. Responsibility for modifying a SOAF rests solely with the CE. Neither the claimant nor the
employing agency has an unqualified right under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, its
implementing regulations or procedures to approve or amend the SOAF.
Should an employing agency or claimant object to the content of a SOAF, they may
submit additional evidence for the CE to review, but a CE is not required to modify a
SOAF based upon an agency’s or claimant’s request.
Accordingly, while the CE may seek input or comment on a SOAF, the CE shall not obtain the
approval of an outside party to the case in creating or modifying a SOAF. The CE alone is
responsible for reviewing the case record for relevant changes in factual or medical evidence which
warrant modification of the previous SOAF prior to obtaining additional medical opinion.
A claimant’s disagreement with the SOAF is not a valid reason for refusing to attend an
office-directed medical examination. See, V.H., Docket No. 07-1200 (issued September 10, 2008),
in which the appellant objected to the statement of accepted facts because it was over two years
old. ECAB held that this was not a valid excuse to refuse to attend an impartial medical
examination. If any adverse action were to arise from such an examination, the claimant may
raise his or her objections during the appeals process.
d. If a SOAF should have been modified prior to requesting additional medical opinion but was
either not modified or modified improperly and the SOAF contained a substantial error, the CE
should amend the SOAF and request clarification from the physician who provided a report based
on the inaccurate SOAF. The CE must specifically ask the physician for a reasoned medical opinion
as to whether the modified SOAF affects the doctor’s conclusions. Failure to return to the physician
for clarification in this circumstance would diminish the probative value of that physician’s opinion.
ECAB has ruled on the importance of ensuring that a SOAF accurately portrays the factual and
medical aspects of the claim, remanding cases to the District Offices where the SOAFs were not
current or accurate. In the case of Gwendolyn Merriweather, 50 ECAB 411 (Docket No. 97-2137,
issued June 3, 1999), ECAB found that the referee examiner was not entitled to special weight
because the doctor’s opinion was not based upon a proper factual background. ECAB noted that
OWCP made no findings as to whether the claimant had sustained a work-related aggravation of a
preexisting condition and found that the SOAF was unclear. See also Liliana M. Martinez, 42 ECAB
517 (Docket No. 90-1944, issued March 20, 1991). ECAB found that the deficient factual
background left the referee physician without a proper factual basis on which to form a medical
opinion and ruled that this deficiency rendered that medical opinion of diminished probative value.
Exhibit1 - TI Sample
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 315