United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Powell, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1708 

Issued: January 12, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 31, 2014, appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 19, 2014 merit decision 

and a June 23, 2014 nonmerit 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 case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of 

disability on or about September 30, 2013 causally related to the accepted employment injury of 

August 29, 2009; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 29, 2009 appellant, then a 58-year-old rural carrier associate, injured her back 

when lifting a flat short tray while in the performance of duty.2 On April 12, 2010 OWCP 

accepted displacement of intervertebral lumbar disc at L4-5 and lumbar sprain and authorized a 

L4-5 discectomy on April 9, 2010. Appellant stopped work on September 14, 2009 and returned 

to work on October 14, 2009 and resigned from employment on August 2, 2010. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Mathew A. Bridger, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

from September 24, 2009 to January 26, 2010, for worsening low back pain after a lifting 

incident at work. Dr. Bridger diagnosed herniated disc of the lumbar spine, sciatica, and sprain 

of the lumbar region. He recommended surgery. An October 17, 2009 magnetic resonance 

imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine revealed a paracentral disc protrusion at L4-5 with 

compression on the left L5 nerve root. Appellant was treated by Dr. Michael J. Meagher, a 

Board-certified neurosurgeon, on October 26, 2009, who diagnosed herniated disc at L4-5 

compressing the nerve root and recommended surgery. An April 6, 2010 MRI scan of the 

lumbar spine revealed L4-5 left disc extrusion displacing the L5 nerve root and an L3-4 disc 

protrusion. Appellant came under the treatment of Dr. Janet Bay, a Board-certified 

neurosurgeon, who on April 9, 2010 performed a left L4 discectomy and diagnosed herniated 

disc at L4 on the left. In a July 29, 2010 report, Dr. Bay estimated that appellant could return to 

regular duty on September 13, 2010. 

In an SF-50 notification of personnel action dated August 5, 2010, the employing 

establishment indicated that appellant voluntarily resigned on August 2, 2010. Appellant began 

working full time for a private employer on August 9, 2013. 

On November 29, 2010 appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of disability beginning 

November 10, 2010. Appellant indicated that she had back pain when she got up on the morning 

of November 10, 2010. In a January 21, 2011 decision, OWCP denied the recurrence of 

disability claim, finding that she had been released to full duty, that she voluntarily left the 

employing establishment, and that there was no current medical evidence that established a 

recurrence of her work injury. Appellant did not appeal from this decision. 

On October 18, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of disability, asserting that 

on or about September 30, 2013 she had a recurrence for which she stopped work on 

October 4, 2013. She reported getting out of bed and experiencing sharp pain in her back and 

left leg. Appellant indicated that she worked in a desk job which did not require lifting or 

walking as a customer service representative in the private sector from September 2013 to the 

present. On October 18, 2013 she filed a Form CA-7, claim for compensation, requesting leave 

without pay for total disability for the period October 4 to 8, 2013. The employing establishment 

provided an October 16, 2013 letter which indicated that appellant was released to full duty 

without restrictions and that she voluntarily resigned on August 2, 2010. 

 2

 Appellant filed her claim as an occupational disease; however, OWCP noted that appellant alleged that she was 

injured on August 29, 2009 while lifting a tray and therefore developed the claim as a traumatic injury. 
3

Appellant submitted emergency room records dated October 4, 2013 where she sought 

treatment for chronic low back pain beginning four days prior. She was treated by a nurse 

practitioner who diagnosed sprain and lumbar strain. Appellant reported difficulty getting out of 

bed and excruciating pain radiating down her leg to her knee. She was treated by Dr. Meagher 

on October 8, 2013 for recurrent leg pain. Dr. Meagher noted a history of appellant’s workrelated back injury and surgery in April 2010 for an L4-5 disc herniation. He noted that 

postoperatively appellant improved and was doing well until September 2013 when she was 

getting out of bed and developed severe back and leg pain. Dr. Meagher noted findings of mild 

weakness in appellant’s quadriceps and absent left knee reflexes bilaterally. He diagnosed 

recurrent L4 radiculopathy and opined that her condition was part of her original work claim for 

disc herniation at L4-5. Dr. Meagher noted that, since there was a prior disc herniation, any new 

herniation would be related to the original claim and the original disc herniation since it was 

presumably at the same level. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Bridger on October 11, 2013 for low back and left leg pain. 

Dr. Bridger noted that appellant was injured on August 28, 2009 when lifting a tray and loading 

it onto a truck. He stated that appellant worked at the employing establishment full-time, regular 

duty. Appellant reported having pain and weakness down the left leg on October 11, 2013 upon 

turning over and getting out of bed. Dr. Bridger noted mild pain on range of motion, negative 

straight leg test bilaterally, no tenderness to palpation, and intact sensory and motor examination 

in the legs. He diagnosed herniated disc of the lumbar spine, left sciatica, sprain of the lumbar 

region, and herniated disc of the lumbar spine at L4-5. Dr. Bridger opined that appellant’s work 

activities aggravated her underlying preexisting condition and further testing was required before 

this could be determined with any certainty. He returned her to regular duty. In a form report of 

work ability dated October 11 and November 7, 2013, Dr. Bridger diagnosed lumbar sprain and 

strain, sciatica, and recurrent herniated disc at L4-5 and released appellant to her former position 

without restrictions. In an October 11, 2013 Ohio Workers’ Compensation form report, he noted 

that on August 28, 2009 she was taking a tray from a shelf and loading it onto a truck and injured 

her low back. Dr. Bridger diagnosed herniated lumbar disc, left sciatica, and lumbar sprain. He 

checked a box “yes” that appellant’s condition was causally related to the work injury. In 

employer discharge summaries dated October 11 and November 7, 2013, Dr. Bridger noted a 

history of injury and diagnosed herniated disc of the lumbar spine, left sciatica, and sprain of the 

lumbar region and returned appellant to work regular duty. 

By letter dated November 19, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual and 

medical evidence needed to establish her claim for recurrence of disability. It particularly 

requested that she submit a physician’s reasoned opinion addressing the relationship of her 

claimed condition and specific employment factors. In a November 19, 2013 letter, OWCP 

asked the employing establishment to address whether appellant was currently employed. In a 

letter dated November 27, 2013, the employing establishment confirmed that it no longer 

employed appellant. 

Appellant submitted a questionnaire dated November 25, 2013 and indicated that on 

September 30, 2013 she was getting out of bed and experienced back and left leg pain. She 

reported working as a customer service representative which did not require heavy lifting or 

walking. Appellant believed her condition was related to her original work injury and the 

recurrence was due to the surgical removal of a disc which weakened her low back. She noted 
4

that she did not have any other injuries since August 29, 2013 and left the employing 

establishment because she could not perform the lifting requirement and did not want to get 

reinjured. 

Appellant was again treated by Dr. Bridger from November 7 to December 9, 2013 for 

persistent back and leg pain. He noted appellant was injured on August 28, 2009 when lifting a 

tray and loading it onto a truck. Dr. Bridger noted that appellant worked full-time, regular duty. 

Appellant reported getting out of bed and experiencing pain and weakness down the left leg. 

Dr. Bridger noted lumbar findings of mild pain on range of motion, and intact sensory and motor 

examination in the lower extremities. He diagnosed lumbar herniated disc, left sciatica, lumbar 

sprain, and herniated disc at L4-5. Dr. Bridger opined that appellant’s work activities aggravated 

her underlying preexisting condition and further testing was required. He returned appellant to 

regular duty and noted she had not missed work due to this injury. In form reports dated 

November 18 and December 9, 2013, Dr. Bridger diagnosed sprain and strain of the lumbar 

spine, pain, sciatica, and recurrent herniated disc at L4-5 and released appellant to her former 

position without restrictions. 

In an employer discharge summary dated December 9, 2013, Dr. Bridger noted a history 

of injury and diagnosed herniated disc of the lumbar spine, left sciatica and sprain of the lumbar 

region and returned appellant to work regular duty. A November 8, 2013 lumbar spine MRI scan 

revealed interval development of a left paracentral disc extrusion at L5-S1 displacing the S1 

nerve root, decrease in size of the left paracentral disc protrusion at L4-5 with improved spinal 

stenosis, and stable spinal canal stenosis at L3-4. A November 18, 2013 lumbar spine x-ray 

revealed no acute abnormality and degenerative changes most pronounced at L4-5 and L5-S1 

levels. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Meagher, on December 4, 2013, who noted that she did not 

have a recurrent herniation at L4-5 and the large disc herniation present prior to her surgery in 

April 2010 had resolved. Dr. Meagher noted a new disc herniation at L5-S1 on the left. He 

indicated that in 2010 there were degenerative changes and a disc bulge at L5-S1 and he opined 

that this in all likelihood related to the previous injury and was a delayed disc herniation. 

On February 6, 2014 OWCP referred appellant’s record to its medical adviser for an 

opinion as to whether the diagnosed L5-S1 disc herniation was causally related to the August 29, 

2009 work injury by acceleration, precipitation, or aggravation. In a February 8, 2014 report, the 

medical adviser opined that, based on his review of the medical record, the additional diagnosis 

of L5-S1 disc herniation was not causally related to the August 29, 2009 work injury. He noted 

that appellant had an L4-5 disc herniation that was treated surgically and there was no evidence 

of L5-S1 involvement diagnostically or clinically at the time. The medical adviser opined that 

even though there was degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 in 2010 it was implausible that it 

developed into L5-S1 disc herniation and took three years to manifest. 

In a decision dated February 19, 2014, OWCP found that the evidence did not establish 

that appellant sustained a recurrence of disability on or about September 30, 2013 causally 

related to her August 29, 2009 work injury. 
5

In an undated appeal request form, appellant requested reconsideration. In an undated 

statement, she referenced an MRI scan from 2009 and reports from Dr. Bridger which supported 

that she sustained a disc herniation at L5-S1 from the original injury. Appellant asserted that the 

disc herniation at L5-S1 was from the 2009 work injury and that this condition was work related. 

She submitted an MRI scan of the lumbar spine dated October 17, 2009, reports from 

Dr. Meagher dated October 8 and December 4, 2013 and an OWCP decision dated February 19, 

2014, all previously of record. Appellant submitted a written note from Dr. Bridger dated 

March 24, 2014 which noted that neurosurgery supported the delayed development from a 

previous injury and traction forces related to a previous surgery as a neurosurgical complication 

and flow through injury of a juxtaposed disc. 

In a June 23, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration as the 

evidence submitted was insufficient to warrant a merit review. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

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 resulted from a previous 

injury or illness without an intervening injury or a new exposure to the work environment.3 

When an employee claims a recurrence of disability causally related to an accepted 

employment injury, he or she has the burden of establishing by the weight of the reliable, 

probative, and substantial medical evidence that the claimed recurrence of disability is causally 

related to the accepted injury.4

 This burden includes the necessity of 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 the employment injury and supports 

that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.5

 An award of compensation may not be made on 

the basis of surmise, conjecture, or speculation or on an appellant’s unsupported belief of causal 

relation.6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted appellant’s displacement of lumbar disc intervertebral at L4-5 and 

lumbar sprain and authorized a L4-5 discectomy on April 9, 2010. Appellant resigned from the 

employing establishment on August 2, 2010 to take a job in private industry. At the time she 

resigned, her physician indicated that she would be released to regular duty on 

September 13, 2010. On October 18, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of disability 

noting that she sustained a recurrence on or about September 30, 2013 causally related to the 

August 29, 2009 injury. The Board finds that the medical record lacks a well-reasoned narrative 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

4

 Alfredo Rodriguez, 47 ECAB 437 (1996); see Dominic M. DeScala, 37 ECAB 369 (1986). 

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

6 Ausberto Guzman, 25 ECAB 362 (1974). 
6

from appellant’s physicians relating her claimed recurrent disability to her accepted employment 

injury. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Meagher on October 8, 2013 who diagnosed recurrent L4 

radiculopathy and opined that this condition was part of her original industrial claim for disc 

herniation at L4-5 on the left. Dr. Meagher noted that since there was a prior disc herniation any 

new herniation would be related to the original claim and the original disc herniation. The Board 

finds that, although Dr. Meagher supported causal relationship, he did not provide medical 

rationale explaining the basis of his conclusory opinion regarding why any current condition or 

disability was due to the employment injury of August 29, 2009. Dr. Meagher did not explain 

how or why the recurrent radiculopathy, low back and leg pain was related to the accepted 

employment injury and why it was not due to nonwork-related factors such as age-related 

degenerative changes.7

 Similarly, in a December 4, 2013 report, he noted that appellant did not 

have a recurrent herniation at L4-5 but rather she developed a new herniation at L5-S1 on the left 

and opined that this in all likelihood related to the previous injury and was a delayed disc 

herniation. However, the record does not indicate that OWCP accepted a disc herniation at L5-

S1 resulted from the accepted August 29, 2009 injury or that the L5-S1 disc herniation was 

employment related. Additionally, Dr. Meagher failed to otherwise provide medical reasoning 

explaining why any current condition or disability was due to the employment injury of 

August 29, 2009. The Board has found that vague and unrationalized medical opinions on causal 

relationship have little probative value.8

 The need for fortified rationale is especially important 

in a situation where appellant claimed a recurrence on or about September 30, 2013, where she 

resigned from her job on August 2, 2010. Therefore, these reports are insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Bridger dated October 11 to December 9, 2013. 

Dr. Bridger diagnosed herniated disc of the lumbar spine, sciatica, sprain of the lumbar region, 

and herniated disc of the lumbar spine at L4-5. He noted a history of injury on August 28, 2009 

and noted that appellant reported that in 2013 she was getting out of bed and experienced pain 

and weakness down the left leg. Dr. Bridger opined that appellant’s work activities aggravated 

her underlying preexisting condition but that further testing was required. He returned appellant 

to regular duty and noted that she had not missed work due to this injury. However, Dr. Bridger 

failed to specifically provide medical reasoning explaining why any current condition or 

disability was due to the employment injury. Additionally, he did not seem to be aware that 

appellant no longer worked for the employing establishment or how work activities aggravated 

her underlying preexisting conditions and why it was not due to nonwork-related factors such as 

age-related degenerative changes or duties from her current employment. The Board has found 

that vague and unrationalized medical opinions on causal relationship have little probative 

value.9

 7

 For conditions not accepted by OWCP as being employment related, it is the employee’s burden to provide 

rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relation, not OWCP’s burden to disprove such 

relationship. See Alice J. Tysinger, 51 ECAB 638 (2000). 

8

 See Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 

9

 See id.. 
7

Similarly, in form reports dated October 11 to December 9, 2013, Dr. Bridger diagnosed 

sprain and strain of the lumbar spine, sciatica, and recurrent herniated disc at L4-5. He noted 

that appellant was released to her former position without restrictions. In employer discharge 

summaries dated October 11 to December 9, 2013, Dr. Bridger noted a history of injury and 

diagnosed herniated disc of the lumbar spine, left sciatica, and sprain of the lumbar region and 

returned appellant to work regular duty. However, Dr. Bridger did not specifically explain 

whether appellant sustained a recurrence of disability causally related to the accepted 

employment condition or otherwise provide medical reasoning explaining why any current 

condition or disability was due to the employment injury. This is especially important where the 

claim was dormant for a number of years. Likewise, in an October 11, 2013 Ohio workers’ 

compensation form report, Dr. Bridger diagnosed herniated disc of the lumbar spine, left sciatica 

and sprain of the lumbar region. He noted with a checkmark “yes” that appellant’s condition 

was causally related to the industrial injury. The Board has held that when a physician’s opinion 

on causal relationship consists only of checking “yes” to a form question, without explanation or 

rationale, that opinion is of diminished probative value and is insufficient to establish a claim.10

The Board further notes that, in a February 8, 2014 report, an OWCP medical adviser 

reviewed the medical evidence and opined that appellant’s L5-S1 condition was not causally 

related to the accepted injury. He noted that appellant’s physicians had not explained why 

appellant’s degenerative condition would take more than three years to develop into a clinically 

significant disc herniation as a result of her work injury. 

Appellant submitted reports from a nurse practitioner dated October 4, 2013; however, 

the Board has held that treatment notes signed by a nurse are not considered medical evidence as 

this provider is not a physician under FECA.11 Likewise, medical reports of record, such as 

reports of diagnostic testing do not address causal relationship between the claimed disability 

and the accepted displacement of lumbar disc intervertebral at L4-5 and lumbar sprain. 

On appeal appellant asserts that her work-related injury of a herniated disc at L4-5 caused 

her to have another disc herniation at L5-S1. She notes that she has back and leg pain with 

weakness and numbness. However, as explained, the medical evidence lacks a rationalized 

medical opinion explaining why her claimed recurrent condition or disability was due to the 

work injury. There is also no contemporaneous evidence of record establishing such assertions. 

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. 

 10 Sedi L. Graham, 57 ECAB 494 (2006); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006). 

11 See David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician’s assistants, nurses and 

physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under the FECA); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (this 

subsection defines a “physician” as surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, 

and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law). 
8

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

Under section 8128(a) of FECA,12 OWCP has the discretion to reopen a case for review 

on the merits. It must exercise this discretion in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 

section 10.606(b)(2) of the implementing federal regulations, which provide that a claimant may 

obtain review of the merits of his or her written application for reconsideration, including all 

supporting documents, sets forth arguments and contain evidence which: 

“(i) Shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law; 

or 

“(ii) Advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP; or 

“(iii) Constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered 

by OWCP.”13

Section 10.608(b) provides that any application for review of the merits of the claim 

which does not meet at least one of the requirements listed in section 10.606(b) will be denied by 

OWCP without review of the merits of the claim.14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

Following OWCP’s February 19, 2014 merit decision denying appellant’s claim for a 

recurrence, appellant requested reconsideration of the matter. 

In her request for reconsideration, appellant did not show that OWCP erroneously applied 

or interpreted a specific point of law. She did not identify a specific point of law or show that it 

was erroneously applied or interpreted. In an undated statement, appellant referenced an MRI 

scan from 2009 and reports from Dr. Bridger which she believed supported that she sustained a 

disc herniation at L5-S1 from the original injury. She asserted that the disc herniation at L5-S1 

was from the 2009 work injury and sought that this condition be accepted as work related. These 

assertions do not show a legal error by OWCP or a new and relevant legal argument. 

The underlying issue in this case is whether appellant submitted medical evidence 

establishing that she sustained a recurrence of disability on or about September 30, 2013 causally 

related to her August 29, 2009 work injury. That is a medical issue which must be addressed by 

relevant new medical evidence.15 However, appellant did not submit any new and relevant 

medical evidence in support of her claim. Appellant submitted an MRI scan of the lumbar spine 

dated October 17, 2009, reports from Dr. Meagher dated October 8 and December 4, 2013 and 

an OWCP decision dated February 19, 2014. However, this evidence is duplicative of evidence 

 12 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 

14 Id. at § 10.608(b). 

15 See Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004). 
9

previously submitted and was considered by OWCP in its decision dated February 19, 2014 and 

found insufficient. Evidence that repeats or duplicates evidence already in the case record has no 

evidentiary value and does not constitute a basis for reopening a case.16 Therefore, this evidence 

is insufficient to require OWCP to reopen the claim for a merit review. 

Appellant submitted a written note from Dr. Bridger dated March 24, 2014 which noted 

that neurosurgery supported the delayed development for a previous injury and traction forces 

related to the previous surgery as a neurosurgical complication flow through injury of a 

juxtaposed disc. Although this note is new, it is not relevant because it does not clearly address 

the particular issue involved, whether appellant established that she sustained a recurrence on or 

about September 30, 2013 causally related to the accepted work injury of August 29, 2009.17 

Dr. Bridger did not clearly reference the work injury or specifically indicate that she had a 

recurrence of that injury. Therefore, this new evidence is not relevant and is insufficient to 

warrant reopening the case for a merit review. 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). She did not show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a 

specific point of law, advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP, or 

constitute relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof in establishing that she 

sustained a recurrence of disability causally related to her accepted condition. The Board further 

finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration. 

 16 See Daniel Deparini, 44 ECAB 657 (1993); Eugene F. Butler, 36 ECAB 393, 398 (1984); Bruce E. Martin, 35 

ECAB 1090, 1093-94 (1984). 

17 Phillip S. Deering, 47 ECAB 692 (1996). 
10

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 23 and February 19, 2014 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: January 12, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board