United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Sullivan, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1118 

Issued: August 4, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 21, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) merit decision dated November 12, 2014. 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained a 

recurrence of disability and is entitled to compensation for wage loss from August 15 to 

November 3, 2014. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 61-year-old mail carrier, fell on December 10, 2007 and filed a claim for 

benefits on December 13, 2007. The claim was accepted for bilateral shoulder and upper arm 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

sprain, bilateral shoulder and upper arm contusion, bilateral wrist sprain, bilateral wrist 

contusion, bilateral hand sprain, and bilateral finger contusion. Appellant underwent authorized 

bilateral shoulder arthroscopic subacromial decompressions in 2012 and she missed work for 

intermittent periods. She accepted a modified light-duty position on December 16, 2013. 

Appellant submitted numerous CA-7 forms requesting compensation for wage loss from 

August 15 to November 3, 2014. 

By letter to appellant dated September 10, 2014, OWCP requested additional factual and 

medical evidence to show disability for work, including medical documentation to establish 

medical treatment or that she was unable to work as a result of her work injury for the dates 

claimed. It noted that it had not received any medical documentation to support the claimed 

periods of disability. OWCP advised appellant that she had 30 days to submit the requested 

information. 

In a brief medical note dated August 6, 2013, Dr. Anthony Miniaci, a specialist in 

orthopedic surgery, stated that he was treating appellant for bilateral shoulder issues. Appellant 

also submitted a Form CA-17 dated August 13, 2014 from Dr. Miniaci in which he indicated that 

appellant was off work and unable to return because of a rotator cuff injury. Neither of these 

reports discussed whether appellant was disabled due to her accepted conditions for the periods 

claimed. 

By decision dated November 12, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 

compensation for wage loss from August 15 to November 3, 2014. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A recurrence of disability means an inability to work after an employee has returned to 

work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition which has resulted from a previous 

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

caused the illness.2

 When an employee, who is disabled from the job he or she held when 

injured on account of employment-related residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the 

medical evidence establishes that light duty can be performed, the employee has the burden to 

establish by the weight of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence of disability. 

As part of this burden of proof, 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.3

The Board has long held that whether a particular injury causes an employee disability 

for employment is a medical question which must be resolved by competent medical evidence.4

 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

3 Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 

4 See Donald E. Ewals, 51 ECAB 428 (2000). 
3

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim and requested that appellant submit medical evidence 

to support the period of disability claimed. Appellant did not provide a probative rationalized 

medical opinion that she was disabled for work because of her accepted conditions between 

August 15 and November 3, 2014.5

 

To establish entitlement to compensation, an employee must provide medical evidence 

that a disability from work resulted from the employment injury.6

 The Board will not require 

OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of medical evidence directly addressing 

the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so would essentially 

allow an employee to self-certify his or her disability and entitlement to compensation.7

 

Whether a claimant’s disability is related to an accepted condition is a medical question which 

must be answered by a physician with a complete and accurate factual and medical history. The 

physician must state that the disability is causally related to employment factors and support that 

conclusion with sound medical reasoning.8 There is no such evidence in this case. 

The only medical reports which described her conditions were the August 6, 2014 

summary note and an August 13, 2015 form report from Dr. Miniaci. Dr. Miniaci indicated only 

that he was treating appellant for bilateral shoulder issues and that she was off work and unable 

to work due to a rotator cuff injury. He did not provide a medical opinion explaining how her 

accepted bilateral shoulder condition caused disability during the period claimed.9 Appellant has 

thus failed to submit such evidence which would indicate that her accepted conditions caused 

any wage loss for any periods. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden to establish that she sustained a 

recurrence of disability causally related to her accepted injury and was entitled to compensation 

for wage loss from August 15 to November 3, 2014. 

 5 William C. Thomas, 45 ECAB 591 (1994). 

6 Supra note 4. 

7 Paul E. Thams, 56 ECAB 503 (2005). 

8 Howard A. Williams, 45 ECAB 853 (1994). 

9 Id.
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 12, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 4, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board