Government's Attempt to Avoid Payment of Benefits Backfires

In this federal workers compensation claim that we represented, the claimant was an aircraft engine mechanic who suffered injuries to his arms due to repetitive work activities. He underwent several surgeries to his arms. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) accepted his claim for federal workers compensation and paid him benefits for his injuries. The claimant then submitted a final request for award to OWCP. This was his scheduled award, a final settlement payment due for his permanent injuries. The claimant presented medical evidence that he had 21% impairment of the right arm and 4% impairment to the left arm. The claimant thus demanded a combined injury award of 25% impairment to his arms.
The OWCP refused this award request. Instead, the OWCP sent the claimant out to its own doctor for evaluation. The OWCP’s own doctor agreed that the claimant did indeed have an impairment of 21% to theright arm, but also found that he had 23% impairment to the left arm; or 44% total impairment. However the OWCP then “found” that the claimant had previously been awarded 20% total on his claim and
thus deducting that amount, his final total impairment rating should only be 24%.The OWCP quickly issued an award to the claimant for 25% impairment to his arms and issued payment.
On behalf of the claimant we appealed this award and argued that the OWCP’s own treating doctor’s report should take precedence. We argued that the OWCP’s own doctor found that the claimant’s total impairment as per the most recent evaluation was for 44%; almost double that which the claimant had previously requested. We also argued and noted that the OWCP’s “finding” that this claimant had a prior award of 20% was in error. In fact, upon review of the actual government record, we showed that no such prior award existed in this claim.
The Employee’s Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) agreed in total with our arguments. The ECAB found that the OWCP’s own doctor’s evaluation showed a 44% total impairment to the arms. The ECAB also found that the government records produced no evidence showing that there existed any prior award of 20% impairment in this claim. Thus, the ECAB ordered that the claimant was entitled to his original request of 25% impairment to his arms and that the claimant was further entitled to an additional award of 19% impairment to his arms payable immediately.
In final analysis, the claimant was able to almost double his original award request made of the government for his injuries. We were able to show that the OWCP was erroneously and wrongfully attempting to use its own paid medical doctors to obtain a lower award and when that failed them, we showed that the OWCP was trying to avoid a higher award from its own doctor by claiming the existence of non-existent evidence.

Federal Court Overrules SSA Denial of Benefits

In this interesting case I just represented, the younger aged claimant suffered several physical impairments that prevented him from returning to his old heavy equipment operator jobs. The claimant also alleged his limited education and lack of math skills prohibited his working any other jobs. The claimant filed for social security disability benefits. The SSA denied his claim finding that he could perform other jobs. Some of those other jobs were identified by the SSA as a toll collector, touch up inspector, and machine operator. On appeal to the federal court we argued that the job of machine operator and toll collector both required the ability to use numbers and perform math operations. As such, we argued the claimant could not be found capable of performing these other jobs as claimed by the SSA. The federal court agreed. The federal court found that the claimant’s limited ability to use numbers prohibited him from performing those jobs listed by the SSA and threw them out. As far as the other jobs were concerned, we argued that the other remaining jobs named by the SSA in the hearing did not really exist as identified and described by the SSA. The federal court, upon review of the government’s own catalog listing of jobs, agreed. The jobs named by the SSA in the hearing did not match the listing of those same type or similar jobs in the government’s own catalog of jobs. Thus those jobs were also thrown out by the federal court.As there were no jobs left for this claimant to perform, the federal court thus ruled that the SSA was wrong in denying his claim for disability benefits. The federal court ordered this claim to be sent back to the SSA for another hearing and determination or possible benefits.