United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1844 

Issued: February 13, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 20, 2014 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

June 10, 2014 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 the claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant established a recurrence of total disability beginning 

September 2, 2011 causally related to her February 5, 1999 employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board. On February 28, 2014 the Board issued an 

order dismissing appeal on the grounds that appellant’s representative requested that the appeal 

be withdrawn.2 

On February 8, 1999 appellant, then a 33-year-old modified letter carrier, filed a 

traumatic injury claim alleging that she injured her back and shoulders while lifting a tray of mail 

and then turning to resume racking. OWCP accepted the claim for a back strain, lumbar region. 

Appellant returned to limited duty eight hours a day March 23, 1999 and resumed her previous 

rehabilitation position on May 22, 1999. 

On March 17, 2010 appellant claimed a material worsening of her back condition 

commencing November 24, 2009. By decision dated February 22, 2011, OWCP accepted the 

November 24, 2009 recurrence. This was based on the November 20, 2010 report from 

Dr. Leonard Langman, a Board-certified neurologist, who opined that appellant’s lumbar 

radiculopathy was a recurrence of her February 5, 1999 low back injury. 

On September 15, 2011 appellant filed a (Form CA-7) claim for a September 2, 2011 

recurrence of injury and indicated that the pain in her back worsened while moving around. She 

awoke in pain on September 2, 2011 and went to the hospital the next day as the pain worsened. 

Evidence of record included appellant’s statement regarding how the injury occurred. In 

a September 20, 2011 Form CA-20, Dr. Langman noted that the September 7, 2011 magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine showed lumbar radiculopathy. He also 

opined that appellant was totally disabled from September 6, 2011 as a result of injury sustained 

on the job. 

By letter dated September 29, 2011, OWCP requested additional information. It received 

an admitting form, discharge summary, and notes from Staten Island University Hospital for the 

period September 3 and 4, 2011, which contained a finding of intractable back pain and which 

diagnosed muscle spasm. The hospital also conducted lumbar and cervical x-rays, which were 

included. A September 7, 2011 lumbar MRI scan provided an impression of disc bulges in the 

midline L2-3 and L5-S1 disc space levels and degenerative changes at L2-3 disc space level. 

In an October 14, 2011 report, Dr. Langman noted the history of injury and referenced 

recurrences of February 5, 1999 and November 24, 2009. No mention of the September 2, 2011 

recurrence or subsequent hospitalization was provided. 

By decision dated November 4, 2011, OWCP denied the claimed September 2, 2011 

recurrence. 

On November 16, 2011 appellant requested reconsideration. In an October 4, 2011 note, 

Dr. Langman diagnosed her with lumbar radiculopathy with pain and spasm and opined that she 

was totally disabled. 

 2

 Docket No. 14-190 (issued February 28, 2014). 
3

Medical notes from Dr. Howard Baum, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, were also 

received. In a October 25, 2011 note, he reviewed appellant’s file and stated that the initial 

injury of 1999 was consistent with a thoracic spine injury and that she continued to have thoracic 

and low back pain from June 28, 2010 when she aggravated this back condition again as she 

continued to have symptoms. In a December 6, 2011 note, Dr. Baum provided an assessment of 

long-standing thoracic and lumbar spine pain. In a January 3, 2012 note, he noted appellant’s 

physical examination findings and opined that she remained totally disabled. 

By decision dated February 15, 2012, OWCP denied the September 2, 2011 claimed 

recurrence. It also determined that appellant was not claiming a recurrence of disability related 

to her February 5, 1999 injury but rather a new traumatic injury for a new condition and 

converted her recurrence claim to a new traumatic injury claim under case file number 

xxxxxx169. 

On February 21, 2012 Dr. Langman opined that appellant could return to work on 

February 27, 2012 in her rehabilitation position. He also completed a duty status report. 

In a February 7, 2012 report, Dr. Baum indicated that appellant has radiculopathy 

symptoms to both upper and lower extremities but the electromyography (EMG) for the upper 

extremities was negative. He opined that she had a postural spinal, or foraminal stenosis and 

requested authorization for further diagnostic testing. 

In a March 5, 2012 report, Dr. Langman noted that appellant injured her lower back on 

February 5, 1999. He indicated that on September 2, 2011, while in bed, she felt pain in the 

lower back radiating down her legs. Dr. Langman noted that appellant was admitted to hospital 

for muscle spasms on September 3, 2011 and discharged September 4, 2011. He noted that, 

since her initial injury, she complained of lower back pain with radiation to the left lower 

extremity. Dr. Langman presented examination findings and noted that the September 7, 2011 

MRI scan of the lumbar spine showed disc bulges midline L2-3 and L5-S1. He provided an 

impression of lumbar radiculopathy, exacerbated, and opined that this was a recurrence of a 

lower back injury sustained while working on February 5, 1999. 

In a March 5, 2012 report, Dr. Baum noted the history of the February 5, 1999 work 

injury. On September 2, 2011 appellant was lying down in bed when she had an acute event 

where she began to experience radiculopathy-type symptoms with sensation radiating to her legs. 

Dr. Baum noted that she has been treated conservatively for many years, but had a progressive 

increase in pain and numbness shooting down her lower extremities. He noted that the 

August 10, 2010 EMG revealed a left L5-S1 radiculopathy with a left peroneal neuropathy and 

that MRI scans have shown some bulging discs at multiple levels in appellant’s lumbar spine. 

Dr. Baum diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and opined that she could continue to work a 

modified assignment two hours a day with no lifting. 

In an April 3, 2012 report, Dr. Baum diagnosed left L5-S1 radiculopathy by August 10, 

2010 EMG. He opined that appellant should continue modified duty two hours a day with 

significant weight and bending restrictions. In a May 8, 2012 report, Dr. Baum stated that, while 

she continued to complain of pain in the lower back, she had no lumbar radiculopathy. He 
4

continued to opine that appellant was totally disabled. Prescriptions for physical therapy and 

back support were also provided. 

In a June 5, 2012 report, a Dr. Charles Pearlman3 noted appellant’s complaints of back 

pain and that she had been limited to work two hours a day. He opined that she continued to be 

moderately disabled and should avoid all pushing, pulling, lifting, or carrying. 

Additional progress reports were received from Dr. Baum along with prescriptions for 

physical therapy and back brace. In a June 19, 2012 report, he opined that appellant had lumbar 

L5-S1 left radiculopathy. In a July 24, 2012 report, Dr. Baum noted her examination findings 

and that she would continue physical therapy. In an October 9, 2012 report, he continued 

appellant in her two-hour-a-day modified-duty assignment. In a November 6, 2012 report, 

Dr. Baum provided an assessment of chronic back pain, L5 spine radiculopathy and LS spine 

herniated nucleus pulposus. In December 4, 2012, January 8, February 5, and March 6, 2013 

reports, he provided an assessment of lumbosacral spine derangement and radiculopathy of the 

lumbar spine. 

On April 19, 2013 appellant’s counsel inquired as to the status of his reconsideration 

request. By decision dated May 13, 2013, OWCP denied the reconsideration on the grounds that 

it was untimely filed and failed to present clear evidence of error. 

Additional medical evidence from Dr. Baum indicated decreased range of motion and 

lumbar derangement on May 6, 2013, lumbar derangement on June 11, July 9, August 13, and 

September 10, 2013. Prescriptions for physical therapy and back support were also received. 

By decision dated November 6, 2013, OWCP vacated its decisions of February 15, 2012 

and May 13, 2013 as a new claim was erroneously created when appellant filed the recurrence 

claim. It doubled case number xxxxxx169 into the current case file, with the current case file as 

the master case. In another decision dated November 6, 2013, OWCP affirmed the recurrence 

denial of November 4, 2011 as the medical opinion evidence in support of a causal relationship 

between the accepted injuries and the claimed September 2. 2011 recurrence was lacking. 

On March 10, 2014 appellant, through counsel, submitted a March 10, 2014 

reconsideration request, recorded by OWCP on March 17, 2014. Multiple medical reports and 

physical therapy notes dated January 2, 2013 onward were received. 

By decision dated June 10, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its November 6, 2013 

decision. 

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 

 3

 Dr. Pearlman’s credentials are not of record. 
5

that caused the illness.4

 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 total 

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.5

The term disability as used in FECA means the incapacity because of an employment 

injury to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.6

 For each period 

of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of establishing that she was disabled for work 

as a result of the accepted employment injury.7

 Whether a particular injury caused an employee 

disability for employment is a medical issue which must be resolved by competent medical 

evidence.8

 The fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of employment does not 

raise an inference that there is a causal relationship between the two.9

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of 

any 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 their disability and 

entitlement to compensation.10 

Generally, findings on examination are needed to justify a physician’s opinion that an 

employee is disabled for work.11 Appellant’s burden of proving she was disabled on particular 

dates requires that she furnish 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 the employment injury and supports that conclusion with medical reasoning.12 

Where no such rationale is present, the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.13

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

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

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

7

 Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 92005); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001). 

8 G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001). 

9 D.I., 59 ECAB 158 (2007). 

10 Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

11 S.F., 59 ECAB 525 (2008). 

12 Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001). 

13 Mary A. Ceglia, 55 ECAB 626 (2004). 
6

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a back strain on February 8, 1999 and paid 

appropriate benefits, including a recurrence of November 24, 2009. Appellant was working 

limited duty at the time of injury and returned to her eight-hour limited-duty position 

March 23, 1999. She subsequently filed a recurrence claim for September 2, 2011 stating that 

her pain in her back got worse while moving around and she went to the hospital. OWCP 

erroneously converted the recurrence claim into a new traumatic injury under case file number 

xxxxxx169. In its November 6, 2013 decision, it doubled case file number xxxxxx169 into the 

current claim, with the current claim as the master file and denied the recurrence claim. In its 

June 10, 2014 decision, OWCP reviewed all the medical records relevant to the recurrence claim 

of September 2, 2011 and denied modification of its November 6, 2013 decision. 

The Board has reviewed the medical record and finds that the evidence does not support, 

nor does appellant allege, that there was any change in her light-duty assignment on or about 

September 2, 2011. The Board has also reviewed the medical record and finds no reasoned 

opinion to support the claim that she sustained a spontaneous change in her medical condition on 

or about September 2, 2011 that was causally related to her January 5, 1999 work injury. 

The record reflects that the last medical report prior to appellant’s recurrence claim of 

September 2, 2011 was Dr. Langman’s November 20, 2010 report in which he indicated that her 

lumbar radiculopathy was a recurrence of her February 5, 1999 low back injury. While this 

report predates her recurrence claim, it is noted that he did not explain or offer any medical 

rationale as to how her accepted back strain deteriorated over the years and resulted in a 

disabling lumbar radiculopathy. 

There are no other medical reports of record dated before September 3, 2011, when 

appellant sought treatment for her back in the hospital for the alleged September 2, 2011 

recurrence. The hospital record, which contains diagnosis of muscle spasm, and the various 

diagnostic tests completed provided no opinion as to the cause of her condition and also did not 

address recurrence of disability.14 Thus, this report is of limited probative value. 

Dr. Langman, in his September 20, 2011 CA-20 form, noted MRI scan evidence of 

lumbar radiculopathy and opined appellant was totally disabled from September 6, 2011 as a 

result of injury sustained on the job. However, he fails to address how the September 5, 1999 

employment injury caused the currently diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. Medical evidence that 

does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative 

value.15 As previously noted, OWCP accepted only a back strain in this case. Appellant has the 

burden of proof to establish causal relationship between the conditions not accepted by OWCP 

and the February 5, 1999 employment injury.16 

 14 See Mary E. Marshall, 56 ECAB 420 (2005). 

15 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

16 Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006); Kimper Lee, 45 ECAB 565 (1994); Thomas D. Petrylak, 39 ECAB 

276 (1987). 
7

In his October 14, 2011 report, Dr. Langman failed to mention the September 2, 2011 

recurrence or that appellant had been hospitalized. In his October 4, 2011 note, he opined that 

she was totally disabled from lumbar radiculopathy. However, as in his earlier reports, 

Dr. Langman failed to address how the September 5, 1999 employment injury caused the lumbar 

radiculopathy.17 These reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

In his March 5, 2012 report, Dr. Langman noted the history of the February 5, 1999 

injury and the event of September 2, 2011. He noted that the September 7, 2011 MRI scan of the 

lumbar spine showed disc bulges midline L2-3 and L5-S1. While Dr. Langman opined that 

appellant’s lumbar radiculopathy was exacerbated and was a recurrence of the February 5, 1999 

back injury, he offered no medical rationale for his opinion. He also failed to address how the 

September 5, 1999 employment injury caused the lumbar radiculopathy or resulted in disc bulges 

midline L2-3 and L5-S1.18 Thus, this report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

Numerous medical reports from Dr. Baum were received. In his October 25, 2011 report, 

Dr. Baum opined that the 1999 injury was consistent with a thoracic spine injury and he opined 

in that report as well as in reports dated December 6, 2011 and January 3, 2012 that appellant 

had long-standing thoracic and lumbar spine pain. In his February 7, 2012 report, Dr. Baum 

opined that she has more of a postural spinal or foraminal stenosis. However, he did not address 

how the September 5, 1999 employment injury, which was accepted for back sprain, caused or 

aggravated the thoracic and lumbar spine pain or caused postural spinal or foraminal stenosis and 

disabled appellant. Furthermore, Dr. Baum did not address the claimed recurrence of 

September 2, 2011. Thus, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

In his March 5, 2012 report, Dr. Baum noted the history of the February 5, 1999 work 

injury and appellant’s radiculopathy-type symptoms she experienced on September 2, 2011. He 

noted that she had a left L5-S1 radiculopathy with left peroneal neuropathy by August 10, 2010 

EMG and bulging discs at multiple levels in her lumbar spine by MRI scan. While Dr. Baum 

noted that appellant had a progressive increase in pain and numbness radiating down her lower 

extremities and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, he provided no opinion on the claimed 

recurrence of September 2, 2011, nor did he provide any medical rationale as to how the 

February 6, 1999 work injury could cause the conditions as diagnosed on EMG and MRI scan. 

Thus, this report is also insufficient to establish her claim. 

The remainder of the medical evidence of record from Dr. Baum and Dr. Pearlman do not 

address the claimed recurrence of September 2, 2011 or provide any medical rationale as to how 

the February 6, 1999 work injury could cause appellant’s disability or diagnosed conditions. 

In summary, the medical evidence of record is unsupported by rationalized medical 

evidence, which demonstrates that the claimed recurrence was caused, precipitated, accelerated, 

 17 See Michael E. Smith, supra note 15. 

18 Id.
8

or aggravated by the accepted injury or which explains the nature of relationship between 

appellant’s current conditions and her accepted injury.19 

On appeal, appellant contends that the factual and medical basis of her recurrence has 

been established. However, for the reasons set forth above, she has not established either the 

claimed recurrence or that her current conditions are due to her accepted injury. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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 failed to establish a recurrence of disability on or after 

September 2, 2011 causally related to her February 5, 1999 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ 

decision dated June 10, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: February 13, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 19 A.M., Docket No. 09-1895 (issued April 23, 2010) (when a claimant stops work for reasons unrelated to the 

accepted employment injury, there is no disability within the meaning of FECA).