20 C.F.R. § 30.410

Can OWCP require an employee to be examined by another physician?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) OWCP sometimes needs a second opinion from a medical specialist. The employee must submit to examination by a qualified physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP as often and at such times and places as OWCP considers reasonably necessary. Also, OWCP may send a case file for second opinion review to a qualified physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP where an actual examination is not needed, or where the employee is deceased.

(b) If the initial examination is disrupted by someone accompanying the employee, OWCP will schedule another examination with a different qualified physician who conforms to the standards regarding conflicts of interest adopted by OWCP. The employee will not be entitled to have anyone else present at the subsequent 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.

(c) OWCP may administratively close the claim and suspend adjudication of any pending matters if the employee refuses to attend a second opinion examination.

[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3052, Feb. 8, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: Lahndorff v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 289 F. Supp. 3d 826 (W.D. Ky. 2017).
Lahndorff v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 289 F. Supp. 3d 826 (W.D. Ky. 2017). “" And 20 C.F.R. § 30.410 (a) provides that OWCP may send a case file to a medical professional selected by DOL for review when the agency deems such review necessary.”
Counts v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.S.C. 2025). “And 20 C.F.R. § 30.410 (a) provides that the OWCP may send a case file to a medical professional selected by the DOL for review when the agency deems such review necessary.”
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.