United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Alexandria, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-856 

Issued: March 27, 2015 

Appearances: Oral Argument January 20, 2015 

Kimberly A. Vertolli, Esq., for the appellant

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 March 5, 2014 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 6, 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 the claim.2

 

ISSUE 

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

February 27, 2013 causally related to his January 12, 2012 employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2

 Appellant’s attorney submitted several pleadings following oral argument and indicated that additional evidence 

would be submitted. However, the Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the 

time it issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 13, 2012 appellant, then a 66-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that he slipped on wet grass and mud on January 12, 2012 while delivering 

mail. He claimed injury to his left thigh/upper leg. In a January 13, 2012 statement, appellant 

provided details of his slip and fall, which occurred at approximately 11:00 a.m. He noted that 

he had called his supervisor from his truck and was advised that someone would come out to 

check on him, but that did not happen until 3:30 p.m. In the meantime, appellant continued his 

route. OWCP accepted the claim for a sprain of the left hip and thigh, a sprain of the sacrum, 

and a contusion of the buttock. 

In a January 13, 2012 report, Dr. Jerry W. McConnell, a Board-certified internist, advised 

that appellant was unable to work for seven days as he had great difficulty walking due to sprain 

of the left thigh. He also indicated that appellant had also bruised his sacrum. X-rays of both 

areas revealed no fractures. Appellant was released to work with restrictions on January 19, 

2012 and he accepted a modified-duty job for four hours a day on January 21, 2012. On 

December 19, 2012 Dr. McConnell advised that appellant was able to return to full duty on his 

route. 

On January 30, 2013 Dr. McConnell noted appellant’s complaints that his left lower back 

and left thigh pain were worse since he started working extra hours about three weeks ago. He 

requested that appellant reduce his work schedule, preferably to only his regular mail route. No 

examination findings were provided. 

On February 27, 2013 appellant filed a Form CA-2a, notice of recurrence, claiming 

disability as of that day because his leg pain had increased while casing mail that morning. In a 

February 28, 2013 verification of treatment report, Dr. McConnell advised that appellant had 

been ill and unable to work from February 28, 2013, indefinitely, until seen and evaluated in 

rheumatology. 

In a March 7, 2013 verification of treatment report, Dr. Vrishali M. Dalvi, a Boardcertified internist and rheumatologist, advised that appellant was evaluated for back and knee 

pain and would be off work until March 22, 2013. 

By letter dated March 25, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and medical 

evidence needed to establish his recurrence claim. 

Appellant provided statements dated March 1 and 12, and April 19, 2013. In his 

March 12 and April 19, 2013 statements, he asserted that the employing establishment would not 

accept his doctor’s forms without a return to work date. Appellant indicated that he provided 

verification of treatment forms to his station manager regarding his doctor’s instructions, but his 

supervisor made him carry his route and part of another carrier’s route for approximately one 

hour during specific dates, which he listed, in December 2012, January and February 2013.3

 He 

 3

 The dates listed, which appellant asserted were not all inclusive, were: December 28 and 29, 2012; January 7 

through 10; January 15; January 17 through 19; January 23 through 25; January 29 through 31; February 1, 12 

and 13, 2013. 
3

alleged that the extra workload violated his doctor’s restrictions. The extra walking and heavy 

load caused excessive pressure on his leg and back resulting in his inability to walk on 

February 27, 2013. Appellant further alleged that the CA-17 forms he provided to his supervisor 

clearly indicated that he was to only carry his route. In his April 19, 2013 statement, he stated 

that he stopped work at 2:00 p.m. on February 27, 2013 and he received medical attention the 

next day. Appellant stated that his leg was swollen, he could not walk without tremendous pain, 

and that he was ordered to end his tour. He noted that Dr. Daniel R. Glor, a Board-certified 

neurologist, diagnosed left lumbar radiculopathy and opined that he was unable to work. 

Appellant stated that he believed the disability was due to the original injury as his pain was in 

the same areas he experienced following the original injury. He alleged that as his workload 

increased, the pain and physical symptoms, such as swelling, also increased in the areas which 

were originally impacted by his original injury. Appellant stated that his doctors confirmed that 

his disability was directly related to his original work injury. 

Appellant submitted a March 20, 2013 note from Dr. McConnell, which stated that 

appellant was disabled for work for illness from February 28 through March 30, 2013; work 

excuse notes dated March 7 and 27 and April 3, 2013 from Dr. Glor that indicated that appellant 

was unable to work as a letter carrier due to left lumbar radiculopathy; duty status reports from 

Dr. McConnell dated March 7 and August 31, 2012; a March 16, 2013 magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan of the left knee. 

In a February 28, 2013 report, Dr. McConnell noted that appellant’s thigh had been weak 

since the January 12, 2012 fall and that he was seen for increased leg pain. Appellant stated that 

his supervisor required him to work more than eight hours and that, with the increased work, his 

left lower back flared up. His wife reported that appellant was unable to work without limping 

and he was not sleeping well because of the left leg pain. Appellant requested that the doctor 

provide a letter to help him reduce his hours and to only carry his route. No examination 

findings for appellant’s back or legs were provided. The lumbar and leg x-rays showed arthritic 

changes with no fractures or acute changes. An assessment of knee pain/thigh pain/leg pain was 

provided. 

In his report of March 7, 2013, Dr. Dalvi noted that appellant worked as a mailman and, 

for the past year, had low back pain and knee pain. He noted that appellant had an abnormally 

high stepping gait with the left knee, which he suspected originated in the lumbar spine 

(radiculopathy/stenosis) which caused downstream neuropathic effects on the left leg, affecting 

his gait and putting unusual stress on the left knee. Dr. Dalvi noted that the knee examination 

was normal, but that appellant had a Bakers’ cyst in the left knee which had resolved with steroid 

therapy. The left femur x-rays were compared and did not show any significant arthritic change 

in the left knee over the past year. Dr. Dalvi noted that appellant requested time off from work 

until the workup yielded some answers, so Dr. Dalvi agreed. 

In his April 3, 2013 report, Dr. Glor noted that appellant had a neurology consultation on 

March 22, 2013. Appellant reported that he fell in January 2012 while on the job as a letter 

carrier. Prior to the fall he had no back/leg pain symptoms, but after the fall he developed low 

back and left leg pain. The pain went as far as the lateral calf and there was also tightness in the 

left knee. Appellant would drag the left leg when going up stairs. After the injury, the primary 

care physician recommended limited duty which helped and symptoms improved. Appellant 
4

was returned to his full usual route. Appellant stated that his supervisor made him do more than 

his usual route, even though the primary care physician had advised doing no more than his usual 

route. This extra work aggravated his symptoms and, because of this, appellant has not been to 

work since February 27, 2013. Dr. Glor reviewed the March 16, 2013 lumbosacral MRI scan 

which showed degenerative facet arthropathy with some encroachment on the nerve root 

foramen, and the March 16, 2013 left knee MRI scan which showed joint effusion with small 

popliteal cyst and degenerative changes. He diagnosed left lumbar radiculopathy and stated that 

appellant remained off work as a letter carrier due to his symptoms. Trigger point injections 

were given. 

By decision dated May 15, 2013, OWCP denied the claimed recurrence as the medical 

evidence did not establish that any of appellant’s current conditions were causally related to the 

January 12, 2012 employment injury. It noted that to the extent appellant claimed his conditions 

resulted from a violation of his work restrictions, this may be a basis for filing a new 

occupational disease claim. 

On May 22, 2013 appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP hearing 

representative. He resubmitted the case file already of record and additional evidence. 

In an April 16, 2013 form, Dr. Glor advised that appellant could not perform any of his 

job duties due to pain. He diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and that the period of incapacity 

indefinitely began on February 28, 2013. In reports dated March 22, April 3, and May 22, 2013, 

Dr. Glor diagnosed left lumbar radiculopathy and provided trigger point injections. He opined 

that appellant was still disabled. 

In a March 28, 2014 note, Dr. McConnell advised that lumbar and leg x-rays showed 

arthritic changes with no fractures or acute changes. 

In June 17, 24, and July 15, 2013 reports, Dr. Yvette C. Ross Hebron, a Board-certified 

physiatrist, indicated that appellant began a course of acupuncture for his condition on June 17, 

2013 and that a return to work date was unknown. In the July 16, 2013 report, she indicated that 

on July 1, 2013 appellant underwent electrodiagnostic studies. Dr. Hebron stated that continued 

treatment was planned to control and reduce appellant’s low back pain. 

In her April 22, 2013 letter, appellant’s attorney argued that appellant’s work stoppage 

was a spontaneous change in his medical condition, which resulted from his original injury of 

January 12, 2012, without an intervening injury, or new exposure to factors. 

Appellant advised that he stopped work on February 27, 2013 because his leg was 

swollen, he could barely walk without tremendous pain, and he was ordered to end tour. He 

argued that, between December 2012 and the February recurrence, his level of pain increased 

with the loads he carried, particularly over the Christmas holidays. Appellant stated that, as his 

manager increased his loads, he felt the areas of his body that were hurt in the original injury 

becoming more and more stressed. He argued that his physicians validated the likelihood that 

his February 27, 2013 recurrence was a continuation of his original injury, and they also 

corroborated that the recurrence was likely due, at least in part, to his manager’s failure to follow 

his doctor’s instructions. 
5

By decision dated September 6, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

May 15, 2013 denial of the recurrence claim. She noted that appellant consistently claimed his 

recurrence was due to his supervisor forcing him to work beyond his eight-hour-a-day work 

restrictions by making him carry other carrier’s routes, which were intervening work factors. 

The hearing representative found no credible evidence substantiating appellant’s allegation that 

he was required to exceed his medical restrictions. She found that appellant had failed to 

establish a recurrence of disability on February 27, 2013 causally related to his January 12, 2012 

employment injury. 

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.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 he or 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

 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 (2005); 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) 
6

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 he was disabled on particular 

dates requires that he 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

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a sprain of the left hip and thigh, a sprain of the 

sacrum, and a contusion of the buttock during the performance of duty on January 12, 2012. 

Appellant accepted a modified-duty job assignment for four hours a day on January 21, 2012. 

Dr. McConnell released appellant to return to full duty on his route on December 19, 2012. On 

January 30, 2013 he requested that appellant reduce his work schedule, preferably to only his 

regular route. Dr. McConnell noted that appellant told him that his left lower back and left thigh 

pain worsened, after he started working extra hours three weeks prior. On February 27, 2013 

appellant filed a recurrence claiming time loss from work beginning that day. 

Before OWCP and at oral argument, appellant’s attorney argued that appellant sustained 

a spontaneous worsening of his original injury, without intervening injury or exposure to work 

factors causing the original injury. Appellant, however, consistently claimed that his supervisor 

forced him to work beyond his eight-hour-a-day route by making him carry other carrier’s routes 

for approximately one hour each day. These are intervening work factors. While appellant 

provided specific dates and times as to when he was forced to work beyond his work restrictions 

of eight hours a day, he did not provide any independent corroborative evidence, such as witness 

statements or time records, to support his allegation. While he asserted during oral argument that 

the data performance sheets and daily activity reports support that he was forced to work beyond 

his work restrictions, those reports were not in the record. Accordingly, appellant has not 

established that the employing establishment altered his assignment so as to require him to 

exceed his physical restrictions before he stopped work. 

The Board further finds that the medical record lacks a well-reasoned narrative from 

appellant’s physicians relating his claimed recurrent disability to his accepted employment 

injuries of January 12, 2012. 

Appellant submitted work excuse slips from Dr. McConnell, Dr. Glor, and Dr. Dalvi 

advising that he was unable to work. However, those reports fail to establish how appellant’s 

claimed recurrent disability on or after February 27, 2013 resulted from his accepted 

employment injuries. While Dr. McConnell noted in his February 27, 2013 report that 

appellant’s leg pain had worsened, he did not describe any examination findings for appellant’s 

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

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

13 Mary A. Ceglia, 55 ECAB 626 (2004). 
7

back or legs or document any objective worsening in appellant’s medical condition. Thus, his 

report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

In his March 7, 2013 report, Dr. Dalvi mentioned the January 12, 2012 fall and noted 

that, for the past year, appellant has had low back pain and knee pain. He noted that appellant 

had an abnormal high stepping gait with the left knee, which he suspected originated in the 

lumbar spine (radiculopathy/stenosis) causing downstream neuropathic effects on the left leg, 

affecting his gait, and putting unusual stress on the left knee. Dr. Dalvi noted that the knee 

examination was normal, with a resolved Bakers’ cyst. He did not provide an opinion on how 

appellant’s current conditions resulted from the accepted work injury. 

Dr. Glor noted the history of injury, the chronology of treatment, provided examination 

findings and diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy. He also noted findings on MRI scan, which 

included lumbar stenosis, popliteal cyst and degenerative changes of the left knee. Dr. Glor 

noted the extra work aggravated appellant’s symptoms and, because of this, appellant had not 

been able to work since February 27, 2013. However, he did not provide an opinion based on an 

accurate history and supported by sound medical reasoning establishing causal relationship 

between the diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy or findings on MRI scan and the accepted 

conditions. While appellant had sustained a back injury on January 12, 2012, that fact does not 

establish that all subsequent back treatment and diagnoses are related to that employment injury. 

Dr. Glor does not provide any further detail or explanation as to causation for the nonaccepted 

work conditions. 

The other medical evidence, including the MRI scan reports and reports from Dr. Hebron, 

fail to offer an opinion supporting a spontaneous change in appellant’s medical condition due to 

the accepted work injury. 

The Board finds that the evidence of record, while documenting a continuing back 

condition, does not establish that the condition is employment related. Accordingly, the Board 

finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof. 

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 

February 27, 2013 causally related to his January 12, 2012 employment injury. 
8

ORDER 

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

decision dated September 6, 2013 is affirmed. 

Issued: March 27, 2015 

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