United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, San Diego, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-201 

Issued: May 8, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 5, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 18, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of 

disability beginning August 14, 2013 causally related to his accepted right shoulder and back 

conditions. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the October 18, 2013 decision. Since 

the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, the 

Board may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 

ECAB 126 (2005). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 3, 2012 appellant, then a 48-year-old transportation security officer, filed 

an occupational disease claim alleging that he sustained injuries to his lower back and right 

shoulder and arm as a result of repetitively screening and lifting heavy bags.3 He first became 

aware of his condition and realized it resulted from his employment on November 23, 2012. 

Appellant worked modified duty. OWCP accepted his claim for sprains of the back, right 

shoulder and upper arm. 

On April 19, 2013 appellant underwent right shoulder surgery. He stopped work and 

received wage-loss compensation. Appellant returned to full-time modified duty on 

May 27, 2013. 

In July 2 and 15, 2013 reports, Dr. Norman Kane, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

related that appellant continued to have right shoulder pain and discomfort and chronic back 

problems dating back to his November 2012 employment injury. He noted that it had been two 

months since appellant underwent right shoulder surgery. Upon examination, Dr. Kane observed 

range of motion of the shoulder at 170 degrees of flexion and abduction. He noted that 

appellant’s spinal flexibility was such that his fingertips reached halfway down his tibias with his 

knees extended. Dr. Kane reported that an x-ray of the lumbosacral spine demonstrated some 

narrowing of the intervertebral disc spaces of lower lumbar vertebrae and no evidence of 

spondylolisthesis. He diagnosed status post right shoulder arthroscopic subacromial 

decompression and lower back pain as a result of a November 22, 2012 industrial injury. 

Dr. Kane stated that appellant’s symptoms had worsened and noted that he was having radicular 

symptoms. He recommended physical therapy and a magnetic resonance imaging scan of 

appellant’s lumbosacral spine to rule out a herniated nucleus pulposus. Dr. Kane noted that 

appellant was working light duty and could continue working with a 10-pound lifting limitation. 

In an August 13, 2013 disability note, Dr. Kane indicated that appellant was temporarily 

partially disabled from August 13 to September 3, 2013. He limited appellant to a five-hour 

workday with restrictions of lifting up to 10 pounds and no working at or above the shoulders. 

On August 28, 2013 appellant filed a claim for disability compensation for reduced hours 

beginning August 14 to 28, 2013. Attached CA-7a forms demonstrated that he began working 

five hours a day and claiming three hours of wage-loss compensation beginning 

August 14, 2013. 

By letter dated September 10, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that he was claiming a 

recurrence of disability and that he had submitted insufficient evidence to support his claim. It 

requested additional evidence to establish that he sustained a recurrence of disability beginning 

August 14, 2013. 

In September 3 and 24, 2013 disability notes, Dr. Kane indicated that appellant was 

temporarily partially disabled from September 3 to October 7, 2013. He restricted appellant to 

 3

 The record reveals that he previously filed an occupational disease claim on June 13, 2006 (File No. xxxxxx858) 

and a traumatic injury on March 27, 2008. (File No. xxxxxx872). 
3

no reaching at or above the shoulders, gripping, grasping, pushing or pulling. Dr. Kane also 

limited appellant to lifting up to 10 pounds and working five hours per day. 

In a September 15, 2013 statement, appellant explained that on August 13, 2013 his work 

restrictions changed and Dr. Kane limited him to a five-hour workday. 

Appellant submitted various physical therapy treatment notes beginning August 3, 2013. 

In a September 24, 2013 questionnaire form, appellant explained that when he went to the 

physician on August 13, 2013 he complained about swollen ankles and lower back tenderness 

and soreness. He stated that since returning to work he was on light duty and that his back was 

very tight and sore from prolonged standing. Appellant believed that his disability was due to 

his original injury because he continued to have lower back pain and swollen ankles when 

standing throughout an eight-hour shift. He noted that since working five-hour shifts his swollen 

ankles had decreased and his lower back flared up only periodically. 

By decision dated October 18, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim finding 

insufficient medical evidence to establish that he was unable to work full time beginning 

August 14, 2013 as a result of his accepted back and right shoulder conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The term disability as used in FECA means the inability to work after an employee has 

returned to work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition, which resulted from a 

previous injury or illness without an intervening injury or new exposure to the work environment 

that caused the illness.4

 This term also means an inability to work when a light-duty assignment 

made specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to his or her workrelated injury or illness is withdrawn (except when such withdrawal occurs for reasons of 

misconduct, nonperformance of job duties or a reduction-in-force) or when the physical 

requirements of such an assignment are altered so that they exceed his or her established physical 

limitations.5 

An individual who claims a recurrence of disability resulting from an accepted 

employment injury has the burden to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence a recurrence of total disability and show that he or she cannot perform such 

light duty. As part of this burden, the employee must show either a change in the nature and 

extent of the injury-related condition or a change in the nature and extent of the light-duty 

requirements.6

 This burden includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a qualified 

physician who concludes, on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, 

that the disabling condition is causally related to the employment injury. The medical evidence 

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

5 Id. 

6 Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); Mary A. Howard, 45 ECAB 646 (1994); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 

222 (1986). 
4

must demonstrate that the claimed recurrence was caused, precipitated, accelerated or aggravated 

by the accepted injury.7

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8

 The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.9

 

OWCP’s procedures require that in cases where recurrent disability for work is claimed 

within 90 days or less from the first return to duty, the attending physician should describe the 

duties which the employee cannot perform and the demonstrated objective medical findings that 

form the basis for the renewed disability for work.10

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s December 3, 2012 occupational disease claim for a back, 

right shoulder and upper arm sprain. On April 19, 2013 appellant underwent authorized right 

shoulder surgery and stopped work. He returned to full-time modified duty on May 27, 2013. 

On August 14, 2013 appellant stopped working full time and began working five hours per day. 

He subsequently claimed wage-loss compensation for these reduced hours beginning 

August 14, 2013. Appellant explained that his work restrictions changed and his physician 

limited him to work five hours per day. By decision dated October 18, 2013, OWCP denied that 

he suffered a recurrence of disability beginning August 14, 2013 when he stopped working fulltime modified duty. The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish 

a recurrence of disability and was unable to work full time beginning August 14, 2013. 

In support of his claim, appellant provided several reports from Dr. Kane. In July 2 

and 15, 2013 reports, Dr. Kane related appellant’s complaints of continued right shoulder pain, 

discomfort and chronic back problems. He noted that appellant underwent right shoulder surgery 

two months ago and provided findings on examination. Dr. Kane diagnosed status post right 

shoulder arthroscopic subacromial decompression and lower back pain. He stated that 

appellant’s symptoms had worsened but recommended that he continue working light duty with 

a 10-pound lifting limitation. The Board notes that while Dr. Kane opined that appellant’s 

condition had worsened he did not explain whether appellant’s conditions had worsened to the 

extent that required a change in his work restrictions and his ability to perform his modified 

duties full time. 

 7

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.2 (January 2013). 

8 I.R., Docket No. 09-1229 (issued February 24, 2010); D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007). 

9

 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 

10 See supra note 7 at Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.5 (June 2013). 
5

In disability notes dated from August 13 to September 24, 2013, Dr. Kane indicated that 

appellant was partially disabled beginning August 13, 2013 and limited him to work five hours 

per day. Although he addressed the period of disability commencing August 13, 2013 he did not 

address any particular examination findings that established the need for his order for a reduction 

in his work hours. Dr. Kane did not provide any findings or rationale to support any objective 

worsening of appellant’s accepted conditions and what specific duties of the full-time, modifiedduty position he could no longer perform. Medical evidence that states a conclusion but does not 

offer any rationalized medical explanation is of limited probative value.11 Accordingly, 

Dr. Kane’s reports are insufficient to establish that appellant’s claimed disability beginning 

August 14, 2013 is causally related to his accepted conditions.12

On appeal, appellant related that his injuries continued and that his modified schedule 

was decided by his orthopedic surgeon. As previously noted, however, Dr. Kane’s reports are 

insufficient to establish that appellant was no longer able to work full time, modified duty as it 

did not contain any findings or medical rationale to support his recurrence of disability for work. 

Appellant did not submit any other medical evidence supporting a worsening of his accepted 

condition, which substantiated work-related disability during the claimed period. He did not 

meet his burden of proof in establishing his claim for a recurrence of disability. Any medical 

opinion evidence appellant may submit to support his claim for compensation benefits should 

reflect a correct history and should offer a medically sound explanation by the physician of how 

the specific employment duties of a transportation security officer physiologically caused or 

aggravated a recurrence of his accepted back and right shoulder conditions. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish a recurrence 

of disability beginning August 14, 2013 causally related to his accepted employment conditions. 

 11 J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

12 See P.T., Docket No. 12-1439 (issued January 23, 2013). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 18, 2013 merit decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 8, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board