Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.



Department of Labor

The Department of Labor fosters and promotes the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measurements.

In carrying out this mission, the Department administers a variety of Federal labor laws including those that guarantee workers' rights to safe and healthful working conditions; a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay; freedom from employment discrimination; unemployment insurance; and other income support. (DOL's mission statement)

Perhaps you are working for the DOL or interested in working for the DOL. Here is a forum to share your experience with the DOL.

Go to last post Go to first unread
#1 Posted : Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:28:45 AM(UTC)

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/30/2011(UTC)
Posts: 6

We  have recently received a favorable decision from an ECAB ruling declaring the Referee Doctor was not properly selected. 
OWCP has come out full bore. Scheduling a another Referee exam in two weeks based on the original 2nd opinion from May 21 2010. That 2nd opinion evaluation was nearly 2 years ago. 22 months to be exact. We have no objections to their Medical inquiries. In this 22 month time frame I have been declared Disabled by the OPM for the same conditions that the OWCP  doctors had claimed I no longer experience. While we understand the need of the OWCP to seek 2nd opinions, it seems an abuse of the system to use a diagnosis that is nearly 2 years old.
In the original Termination of benefits both OWCP doctors agreed I had severe mental issues. They just found they weren't related to PTSD. 
Contrary to the Termination ECAB as ruled

the question is whether compensability should be extended to a
subsequent injury or aggravation related in some way to the primary
injury, the rules that come into play are essentially based upon the
concepts of direct and natural results and of claimant's own conduct
as an independent intervening cause. The basic rule is that a
subsequent injury, whether an aggravation or the original injury or a
new and distinct injury, is compensable if it is the direct and
natural result of a a compensable primary injury." Larson, supra
note 5 at 10.02; Kathy A. Kelley 55 ECAB (Docket No. 03-1660, issued February 24, 2003)."

Thanks for any help

Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

This page was generated in 0.307 seconds.