United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, Benica, CA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-259 

Issued: October 24, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 15, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal of an October 8, 2013 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying his claimed 

recurrence of disability. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a 

recurrence of disability on June 10, 2012 causally related to his June 20, 2008 employment 

injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 4, 2008 appellant, then a 45-year-old marine machinery repairer, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging carpal tunnel syndrome due to job activities of wrenching or 

pulling on ropes or cables. He first became aware of his condition on June 20, 2008 and first 

attributed it to his employment on that date. Dr. Daniel Flores, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, examined appellant on June 6, 2008 and diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Appellant underwent electrodiagnostic studies on June 20, 2008 which demonstrated moderate 

median neuropathies at the left and right wrists or carpal tunnel syndrome perhaps more on the 

left. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral wrist strain on September 19, 2008.2

 It 

referred him for a second opinion evaluation. In a report dated October 13, 2008, Dr. Joseph 

McCoy, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, reviewed the statement of accepted fact and 

diagnosed mild-to-moderate bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He noted appellant’s history of 

injury and his symptoms, including numbness and tingling at night significant enough to wake 

him. On physical examination, Dr. McCoy found negative Tinel’s sign and mildly positive 

Phalen’s test. He reviewed the nerve conduction studies, which were compatible with moderate 

median neuropathy. Dr. McCoy opined that appellant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was industrially 

caused.3

 He stated that the only active diagnosis was mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome 

bilaterally which was clearly established. Dr. McCoy stated that appellant had participated in 

powerful and repetitive gripping activities as part of his usual and customary work for at least 

four year and had no other known risk factors for carpal tunnel syndrome. He stated, “I do 

believe the most significant causative factor is [appellant’s] above-noted industrial exposure.” 

Dr. McCoy further opined that this was not an aggravation of a preexisting problem, but a new 

occupational problem which has gradually developed. He found that appellant was capable of 

performing his regular duties. Dr. McCoy recommended that appellant wear anti-vibration 

gloves while working with power tools, that he take breaks when gripping and that he wear wrist 

splints at night. 

Appellant filed a recurrence of disability claim on September 11, 2012 alleging that on 

June 10, 2012 he sustained a recurrence of his June 20, 2008 employment injury. He stated that 

his condition had never changed and that he woke up at night from pain in his hands and palms. 

OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence from appellant on 

September 18, 2012. Appellant submitted a medical record establishing that he underwent a 

nerve conduction study on September 20, 2012 which demonstrated increased median 

neuropathy when compared to the 2008 study. 

 2

 At the time of OWCP’s September 19, 2008 decision, there is no medical evidence in the record with any 

diagnosis other than carpal tunnel syndrome. 

3

 The record does not contain a decision from OWCP accepting appellant’s claim for carpal tunnel syndrome as 

diagnosed by the second opinion physician nor is there additional development of the medical evidence regarding 

this diagnosed work-related condition. 
3

In a decision dated November 19, 2012, OWCP noted that appellant filed an occupational 

disease claim on September 4, 2008 which was accepted for bilateral wrist sprain. It denied his 

September 11, 2012 recurrence claim finding that he had not submitted sufficient medical 

evidence in support of his current claim and that the last medical report of record was dated 

January 27, 2004.4 

Appellant resubmitted the June 6, 2008 note of Dr. Flores and requested reconsideration 

on March 8, 2013. He also resubmitted Dr. McCoy’s October 13, 2008 report and submitted an 

October 14, 2008 work restriction evaluation from Dr. McCoy recommending that appellant 

wear viscoelastic anti-vibration gloves and perform powerful gripping in short segments when 

possible. 

By decision dated June 7, 2013, OWCP declined to reopen appellant’s claim for 

reconsideration of the merits. It found that he had submitted duplicative medical evidence from 

2008. OWCP also noted that there was no evidence that appellant continued to seek treatment 

for his work-related condition between 2008 and 2012. 

Appellant requested reconsideration on September 18, 2013. He submitted a note dated 

August 29, 2013 from Dr. Flores, who diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome on May 12, 2007 and 

noted that appellant underwent electrodiagnostic testing in June 2008, which confirmed the 

diagnosis. Dr. Flores stated that appellant continued to perform the same work duties and 

underwent a repeat nerve conduction study in September 2012 which demonstrated severe carpal 

tunnel syndrome. He stated, “I believe that [appellant’s] condition as of June 10, 2012 originated 

from his work injury of 2008.” 

By decision dated October 8, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. It 

found that appellant’s claim did not meet the definition of a recurrence of disability as he 

attributed his condition to his work duties. Futher, Dr. Flores opined that appellant’s ongoing 

work duties contributed to his current condition. 

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 had resulted from a 

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

that caused the illness.5

 

Appellant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, reliable and 

probative evidence, a causal relationship between his recurrence of disability commencing 

June 10, 2012 and his June 20, 2008 employment injury.6

 This burden includes the necessity of 

 4

 Appellant filed an occupational disease claim on November 1, 2012 alleging that he developed carpal tunnel 

syndrome due to his duties of handling tools and instruments. In a note dated November 2, 2012, he stated that he 

was withdrawing the filing of the occupational disease claim and wished OWCP to continue with the recurrence 

claim. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

6 Dominic M. DeScala, 37 ECAB 369, 372 (1986); Bobby Melton, 33 ECAB 1305, 1308-09 (1982). 
4

furnishing medical evidence from a physician who, on the basis of a complete and accurate 

factual and medical history, concludes that the disabling condition is causally related to 

employment factors and supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.7

 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed a claim for a bilateral wrist condition in 2008. The medical evidence to 

record diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome. This evidence included Dr. Flores’ June 6, 2008 

report and electrodiagnostic studies on June 20, 2008, both of which included a diagnosis of 

carpal tunnel syndrome. OWCP accepted this claim for bilateral wrist sprain. 

Dr. McCoy, an OWCP second opinion physician, reviewed the statement of accepted 

facts and examined appellant on October 13, 2008. He diagnosed mild-to-moderate bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome. On physical examination, Dr. McCoy found negative Tinel’s sign and 

mildly positive Phalen’s test. He reviewed the nerve conduction studies and opined that 

appellant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was industrially caused. Dr. McCoy found that appellant was 

capable of performing his regular duties with wear of anti-vibration gloves while working with 

power tools, as well as breaks when gripping and wrist splints at night. 

Appellant filed a claim alleging that on June 10, 2012 he sustained a recurrence of his 

June 20, 2008 employment injury. OWCP denied his claim on November 19, 2012. Appellant 

then requested reconsideration, which OWCP denied on June 7, 2013 on the grounds that the 

medical evidence submitted was repetitious. The Board notes that OWCP had not reviewed the 

medical evidence submitted by appellant on the merits at the time of the June 7, 2013 decision. 

Appellant again requested reconsideration on September 18, 2013 and OWCP denied his 

claim on October 8, 2013 on the grounds that he had additional employment exposures, that he 

and his physician implicated these exposures in describing his current condition and that 

appellant should have filed a new occupational disease claim. 

The Board finds appellant’s current claim one of an occupational disease rather than a 

recurrence of disability. Appellant attributed the worsening of his diagnosed condition of 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome to new exposures he encountered in the work environment, 

specifically to gripping and using power tools in the performance of duty. Therefore, his current 

claim is not a recurrence of disability as it is not a spontaneous change without new exposure to 

the work environment that caused the condition. The Board finds that appellant did not establish 

a claim for recurrence of disability. 

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. 

 7 See Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138, 1140 (1982). 
5

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a claim for 

recurrence of disability. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 8, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 24, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board