C.F.R.
»
Title 20
» CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT › PART 10—CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, AS AMENDED › Subpart D—Medical and Related Benefits
(a) If one medical opinion holds more probative value, OWCP will base its determination of entitlement on that medical conclusion (see § 10.502). A difference in medical opinion sufficient to be considered a conflict occurs when two reports of virtually equal weight and rationale reach opposing conclusions (see James P. Roberts, 31 ECAB 1010 (1980)).
(b) If a conflict exists between the medical opinion of the employee's physician and the medical opinion of either a second opinion physician or an OWCP medical adviser or consultant, OWCP shall appoint a third physician to make an examination (see § 10.502). This is called a referee or impartial examination. OWCP will select a physician who is qualified in the appropriate specialty and who has had no prior connection with the case. The employee is not entitled to have anyone present at the examination unless OWCP decides that exceptional circumstances exist. For example, where a hearing-impaired employee needs an interpreter, the presence of an interpreter would be allowed. Also, a case file may be sent for referee or impartial medical review where there is no need for an actual examination, or where the employee is deceased.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1988–2016 · leading case:
Brown v. Perez, 835 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2016).
Brown v. Perez, 835 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2016).
“§ 8123 (a); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.321 . The referee’s opinion is frequently dispositive of the benefits decision.”
United States v. Vetti, 681 F. Supp. 986 (D. Conn. 1988).
· cites it 2× “It argues that defendant’s fifth amendment challenge in this case is merit-less as it is clear that the Secretary followed the regulations set out at 20 C.F.R. § 10.321 and in so doing provided defendant the process to which he was due.”
Wacks v. Reich, 950 F. Supp. 454 (D. Conn. 1996).
· cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 10.321 (g). However, Plaintiff is attempting to use the recoupment section in FECA to obtain judicial review of his denial of benefits.”
Williams v. Tapella, 658 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D.D.C. 2009).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 10.321 (b). 3 . The Court presumes that the title "Pfc.”
Brown v. Perez (10th Cir. 2016).
“§ 8123 (a); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.321 . The referee’s opinion is frequently dispositive of the benefits decision.”
Williams v. Turri (D.D.C. 2009).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 10.321 (b). 3 The OWCP “reject[ed] [plaintiff’s] challenge based on ‘the weight of medical evidence in [his] file,’” id.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.