United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

LOGISTICS AGENCY, ROBINS AIR FORCE 

BASE, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1279 

Issued: September 25, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 12, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the March 18, 2014 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which denied her recurrence claim. 

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 sustained a recurrence of disability on or about April 12, 

2011 that was causally related to her March 17, 2009 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 17, 2009 appellant, a then 48-year-old distribution process worker, sustained a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty while “lifting of big box one/two one online and one 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

chair.” She felt a sharp pain in the lower portion of her back. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim 

for lumbago and lumbar sprain. Appellant advised that she was out of work for a couple of days. 

She returned with no restrictions on March 27, 2009 but was again out of work because of her 

back until April 28, 2009, after which she again had no restrictions. Appellant received 

compensation for intermittent wage loss from May 11 to June 11, 2009. 

Appellant advised that she was placed in the bulk work area in March 2011. Her 

responsibility was to lift various material and equipment of various sizes out of large boxes all 

day. On most days appellant had to lift as many as 100 items from these large and deep boxes. 

On April 12, 2011, at the end of her shift, she began to feel very sharp, stabbing pains across her 

lower back and moving through her lower extremities. The pain lasted for hours, but appellant 

thought it would stop. By the next day, however, the pain had become worse. Appellant sought 

medical attention. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, ordered on August 6, 2011, 

showed lumbar spine damage. Appellant continued to seek treatment from April 2011 to 

October 2013. 

Appellant filed an occupational disease claim alleging that work factors had caused or 

aggravated her back condition. She stated that she first became aware of this occupational 

disease on April 12, 2011 and first realized that it was caused or aggravated by her employment 

on April 12, 2011. OWCP accepted this claim for lumbar spinal stenosis and displacement of 

L3, L4 and L5 intervertebral discs.2

In October 2013 appellant filed a claim alleging that she had sustained a recurrence of 

disability in 2011 that was causally related to her traumatic work injury on March 17, 2009. She 

described how the recurrence happened: “April 12, 2011 I was moved back to the bulk area and 

was now lifting heavier items out of cartons and the pain in my back returned. It felt like it was 

the same pain and expanded into my legs. Then the pain became worse over the next few days.” 

Appellant indicated that she first sought medical treatment on August 6, 2011, which was the 

same day her MRI scan was ordered. 

Dr. Rafael J. Aguila, a family physician, found that appellant’s condition in October 2013 

stemmed from a work-related injury while lifting boxes in 2009, which never fully resolved. 

Dr. Daxes M. Banit, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, found that appellant’s condition in 

October 2013 was related to an injury from lifting in 2011. He observed that her symptoms had 

been present for two years. 

In a decision dated December 18, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim. It 

explained that she had described a new injury occurring on April 12, 2011, not a return or 

increase of disability due to a change or worsening of her accepted condition from 

March 17, 2009. Further, the medical evidence failed to support a spontaneous change or 

worsening of her injury-related condition without an intervening injury or new exposure to 

factors causing the original injury. 

In a decision dated March 18, 2014, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim and 

denied modification of its prior decision. It noted that she had described a new injury occurring 

 2

 OWCP File No. xxxxxx282. 
3

on April 12, 2011, an intervening injury, and that there was no medical opinion addressing her 

need for medical care following that injury and her original injury on March 17, 2009. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of duty.3

 “Disability” means the incapacity, because 

of an employment injury, to earn the wages the employee was receiving at the time of injury. It 

may be partial or total.4

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 new exposure to the work environment that 

caused the illness.5 An individual who claims a recurrence of disability resulting from an accepted 

employment injury has the burden of establishing that the disability is related to the accepted 

injury. This burden requires 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 who supports that conclusion with sound medical 

reasoning.6

ANALYSIS 

When appellant filed her recurrence claim, she explained that in 2011 she was moved 

back to the bulk area and was lifting heavier items out of the cartons. On April 12, 2011 the pain 

in her back returned and became worse over the next few days. 

This is the same history that appellant provided when she filed her occupational disease 

claim, which OWCP accepted, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx282, for lumbar spinal stenosis and 

displacement of L3, L4 and L5 intervertebral discs. Thus, it is a matter of record that the 

recurrence for which she now seeks compensation was, in fact, a new work injury, an intervening 

injury, and not a spontaneous change in the initial injury she sustained on March 17, 2009. 

The Board has reviewed the medical record and has found no reasoned opinion to support 

the claim that appellant sustained a spontaneous change in her medical condition in 2011 that 

was causally related to her March 17, 2009 work injury. Dr. Aguila, the family physician, found 

that appellant’s condition in October 2013 stemmed from a work-related injury while lifting 

boxes in 2009, but he seemed to be unaware of the accepted work injury that intervened in 2011 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f). 

5 Id. at § 10.5(x). 

6 Dennis E. Twardzik, 34 ECAB 536 (1983); Max Grossman, 8 ECAB 508 (1956). 
4

as he did not address it.7 Dr. Banit, the orthopedic surgeon, found that appellant’s condition in 

2013 was related to an injury from lifting in 2011, as OWCP accepted. 

Appellant’s recurrence claim is not in the nature of a recurrence, as that word is defined 

by regulation, and she has submitted no probative medical opinion evidence to support the claim. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof. The Board will therefore 

affirm OWCP’s March 18, 2014 decision. Any compensation appellant might wish to claim 

from her accepted occupational disease claim in 2011 should be pursued under that OWCP file 

number. 

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. 

CONCLUSION 

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

recurrence of disability on or about April 12, 2011 that was causally related to her March 17, 

2009 employment injury. 

 7 James A. Wyrick, 31 ECAB 1805 (1980) (physician’s report was entitled to little probative value because the 

history was both inaccurate and incomplete). See generally Melvina Jackson, 38 ECAB 443, 450 (1987) (addressing 

factors that bear on the probative value of medical opinions). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 18, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 25, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board