01.03.2013 Views

Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

. The authority for referee medical examinations is found at 5 U.S.C. 8123(a), which states<br />

in pertinent part that "if there is a disagreement between the physician making the examination<br />

for the United States and the physician <strong>of</strong> the employee, the Secretary shall appoint a third<br />

physician who shall make an examination." Because this method <strong>of</strong> resolving conflicts is provided<br />

in the Act, the probative value <strong>of</strong> the referee specialist's report is great and will normally constitute<br />

the weight <strong>of</strong> the medical evidence <strong>of</strong> record. In Albert J. Scione, 36 ECAB 717, the Board held<br />

that a conflict in medical opinion under 5 U.S.C. 8123(a) cannot occur between two attending<br />

physicians.<br />

c. The CE should consider the following points with respect to referee medical examinations:<br />

(1) A conflict <strong>of</strong> medical opinion must actually exist as determined by weighing the<br />

medical evidence. The CE must decide the relative value <strong>of</strong> opposing opinions in the<br />

medical record, giving consideration to all factors <strong>of</strong> physician specialty and qualifications,<br />

completeness and comprehensiveness <strong>of</strong> evaluations and rationale and consistency <strong>of</strong><br />

opinions.<br />

It may be, as in the case <strong>of</strong> Jordan M. Carter, 32 ECAB 856, that no conflict in medical<br />

opinion truly exists, and if so, merely declaring a conflict and referring the claimant and<br />

case record out for supposed impartial examination will not accord that physician's opinion<br />

any special weight. However, if a significantly greater weight cannot be assigned by the CE<br />

to one opinion, then it is proper to determine that a conflict in medical opinion exists and<br />

that a referee medical examination is appropriate.<br />

(2) The referee specialist's report, once received, must actually fulfill the purpose for<br />

which it was intended, i.e., it must resolve the conflict in medical opinion. The ECAB has<br />

stated that "an impartial specialist's report is entitled to greater weight than other evidence<br />

<strong>of</strong> record as long as his conclusion is not vague, speculative or equivocal and is supported<br />

by substantial medical reasoning" (James P. Roberts, 31 ECAB 1010).<br />

Therefore, the CE must ensure that the referee specialist's report is comprehensive, clear<br />

and definite, and that it is based on current information and supported by substantial<br />

medical reasoning, as well as a review <strong>of</strong> the entire case file (see Billie M. Gentry, 38 ECAB<br />

498). If the report is vague, speculative, incomplete or unrationalized, it is the responsibility<br />

<strong>of</strong> the CE to secure a supplemental report from the referee specialist to correct the defect.<br />

<strong>FECA</strong>-<strong>PT2</strong> Printed: 06/08/2010 340

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!