United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Green Tree, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1997 

Issued: February 4, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 17, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 26, 2014 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employee’s 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 

At issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of 

disability beginning July 13, 2013 causally related to his accepted employment condition. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 29, 2001 appellant, then a 47-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on January 27, 2001 he sustained a right knee injury when he slipped on a 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

newspaper that was hidden underneath snow. Appellant stopped work on January 31, 2001 and 

initially returned to light duty on February 2, 2001. 

In a February 1, 2001 report, Dr. Gary Smith, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted 

the history of injury and related that appellant heard a pop after he twisted and hyperextended his 

knee. On physical examination, he found moderate effusion, tenderness along the medial joint 

line, and no lateral tenderness. A February 6, 2001 right knee magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan revealed a horizontal tear of the posterior horn from the medial meniscus, a possible 

tear of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), and a small popliteal cyst. In a February 26, 2001 

surgery report, Dr. Smith advised that appellant underwent an arthroscopy, medial 

meniscectomy, and ACL reconstruction. On April 3, 2001 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for 

right knee meniscus tear and authorized the right knee arthroscopy. 

In an October 4, 2001 report, Dr. Smith advised that appellant was eight months post 

ACL reconstruction, medial meniscectomy, and debridement of the medial compartment of the 

right knee. He opined that appellant’s improvement had plateaued and advised that appellant 

related that he was able to return to normal activities. Dr. Smith stated that appellant still had 

some occasional aching after time on his feet and effect of weather which was most likely a 

result of underlying osteoarthritis that was found at surgery. An October 18, 2001 regular-duty 

assignment memorandum from the employing establishment, signed by appellant and his 

supervisor on October 19, 2001, noted that appellant was cleared for regular duty by his 

physician and advised that he had accepted the employing establishment’s offer to return to his 

regular job.2

 

 OWCP received no further medical evidence until a June 14, 2006 report was submitted 

by Dr. Lawrence Cooperstein, Board-certified in diagnostic radiology, who advised that 

appellant had a history of knee pain and stiffness. Dr. Cooperstein stated that appellant had a 

normal appearing reconstructed ACL and mild degenerative changes. 

 In a July 14, 2008 fitness-for-duty evaluation, Dr. Victoria Langa, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted the history of appellant’s 2001 injury and advised that appellant 

related to her that he never returned to being asymptomatic after his 2001 injury. She noted that 

appellant sustained a knee sprain in 2006 during an unrelated work incident. Dr. Langa stated 

that currently appellant was experiencing circumferential right knee discomfort, pain, and 

stiffness that was exacerbated by walking, climbing steps, and inclines. She advised that a 

July 7, 2008 x-ray revealed moderate medial joint space narrowing, chondrocalcinosis both 

laterally and medially, and spurring of the patellofemoral articulation. Dr. Langa diagnosed 

degenerative joint disease (arthritis) and chondrocalcinosis. She opined that appellant’s 

degenerative joint disease was age related and part post-traumatic in nature relating to the 

previous injury and resultant surgery. Dr. Langa further opined that the most recent 2006 workrelated injury in part was a typical knee sprain and in part represented an exacerbation of 

appellant’s underlying arthritis. She stated that appellant was able to work full time so long as 

his route consisted of a level terrain with minimal steps and inclines. 

 2

 Appellant initially worked light duty after his surgery. 
3

The record was dormant after Dr. Langa’s report until 2012. In a July 18, 2012 

statement, appellant advised that his mail delivery route was changed to include an additional 

hour and a half of mail delivery in an area that included hills and uneven terrain. He noted that 

he was attempting to get a duty status report (Form CA-17) from his supervisor to update his 

work limitations. In a July 19, 2012 duty status report, Dr. Smith advised that appellant’s work 

duties should be limited to three to four and a half hours of walking and climbing only as 

tolerated. 

There were no further submissions to the record until 2014 when appellant submitted an 

April 21, 2014 MRI scan report from Dr. Justin Torok, Board-certified in diagnostic radiology, 

who advised that an MRI scan of the right knee revealed an intact ACL reconstruction, 

degeneration of the medial meniscus, degeneration involving the lateral meniscus versus a 

somewhat vague horizontal tear, and areas of chondrosis. Dr. Torok stated that it was unclear if 

the medial meniscus degeneration was from the previous tearing or partial meniscectomy. 

On June 18, 2014 appellant submitted a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) claiming a 

recurrence of disability beginning July 13, 2013. He did not report stopping work. Appellant 

advised that in 2006 he returned to the care of Dr. Smith who diagnosed arthritis. He noted that 

since that time he had pain and numbness in his knees as well as back pain. From 2006 to 2012 

appellant reported having trouble walking on steps, hills, and uneven ground. In July 2013, he 

stated that his route changed to include more walking on uneven ground causing his pain to 

worsen. Appellant stated that eventually he was diagnosed with a meniscus tear as a result.3

 

In a May 21, 2014 report, Dr. Smith reviewed appellant’s history, noting his work injury 

on February 1, 2001, when he slipped on snow. He stated that this resulted in an ACL tear. 

Appellant underwent surgery for an ACL reconstruction and medial meniscus tear and noted that 

there was no abnormality of the lateral meniscus in 2001. Dr. Smith related that on October 4, 

2001 appellant was released to normal activities. He further noted that in 2006 appellant had 

recurrent pain that began with climbing stairs at work. A June 2006 MRI scan showed a normal 

lateral meniscus. Dr. Smith also advised that on July 19, 2012 appellant had a flare-up of knee 

pain and it was determined that there was a medial narrowing calcification in both the medial and 

lateral meniscus. He stated that an April 2014 right knee MRI scan showed degenerative 

changes in the medial and lateral meniscus and a possible horizontal or degenerative type tear in 

the lateral meniscus. Dr. Smith opined that all the degenerative changes in appellant’s right knee 

were degenerative in nature and not directly related to the nonwork 2006 injury. He further 

advised that, “in general all degenerative change in your knee can be related to some extent to 

your ACL ligament injury in 2001.” Dr. Smith noted that ACL injuries are “generally associated 

with an increase in the rate of wear and degenerative arthritis of the knee.” 

By letter dated July 24, 2014, OWCP notified appellant that evidence was insufficient to 

establish his claim and advised him of the evidence needed to establish his claim. Appellant 

subsequently submitted a July 7, 2014 statement summarizing the history of his claims. He 

indicated that he was advised by the employing establishment and also by a hearing 

representative in his other claim, to pursue the matter as a recurrence of his accepted 2001 injury. 

 3

 In an accompanying June 18, 2014 statement, appellant indicated that he had filed a separate claim regarding his 

condition in 2006. This other claim is not before the Board on the present appeal. 
4

By decision dated August 26, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim because 

the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that he was disabled due to a material change 

or worsening of the accepted work-related conditions. 

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 or new exposure to the work environment that 

caused the illness.4

An employee who claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employment injury 

has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence 

that the disability for which he or she claims compensation is causally related to the accepted 

injury. This burden of proof requires that an employee 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 sound reasoning.5

 Where no such rationale is present, medical evidence is of 

diminished value.6

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a recurrence of disability. OWCP 

accepted his traumatic injury claim for right meniscus tear on April 3, 2001. Appellant was 

released to full duty on October 18, 2001. In 2014, he claimed entitlement to benefits and a 

recurrence of disability. The Board finds that there is insufficient medical evidence to establish 

that appellant’s current condition and any disability are causally related to his work-related 

injury. 

In his May 21, 2014 report, Dr. Smith advised that appellant underwent surgery for an 

ACL and medial meniscus tear in 2001. He opined that all the degenerative changes in 

appellant’s knee were related to the ACL ligament injury in 2001. Dr. Smith noted that ACL 

injuries are generally associated with an increase in the rate of wear and tear of degenerative 

arthritis of the knee. Although he opined that appellant’s current condition was causally related 

to the 2001 work incident, his opinion is not sufficiently rationalized. Dr. Smith merely states 

that ACL injuries are “generally associated” with an increased rate of wear and tear. This 

statement is general and is not sufficiently tailored to appellant’s condition specifically. The 

need for rationale regarding why a degenerative condition would be due to the 2001 injury is 

important as OWCP has not accepted an ACL injury and also because Dr. Smith, in his 

October 4, 2001 report, advised that appellant’s occasional aching was most likely a result of 

underlying osteoarthritis that was found at surgery. Thus, this more contemporaneous report 

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); R.S., 58 ECAB 362 (2007). 

5 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138, 1140 (1982). 

6 See Ronald C. Hand, 49 ECAB 113 (1957); Michael Stockert, 39 ECAB 1186, 1187-88 (1988). 
5

seems to characterize a degenerative condition, osteoarthritis, as a condition that preexisted his 

2001 surgery. 

In his April 21, 2014 diagnostic report, Dr. Torok noted right knee MRI scan findings and 

stated that it was unclear if the medial meniscus degeneration was from the previous tearing or 

partial meniscectomy. He did not specifically address whether appellant’s current diagnosis was 

causally related to his 2001 accepted condition. Thus, this report is not sufficient to establish the 

claim. There is no other current medical evidence addressing how appellant’s current condition 

in causally related to his January 27, 2001 work injury. 

The Board has held that a claimant who alleges that he has experienced a recurrence of an 

accepted condition must submit rationalized medical evidence that addresses how his current 

symptoms are causally related to the accepted employment injury.7

 As appellant has not 

submitted such evidence, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof. 

On appeal, appellant asserts that the employing establishment advised him to claim a 

recurrence of his 2001 injury as Dr. Smith indicated that his condition was related to that injury. 

As explained, the medical evidence is not sufficient to establish causal relationship. The Board 

also notes that, in appellant’s notice of recurrence, he attributed his worsening symptoms to a 

change in his route in 2012 that included more hours of mail delivery and an area with uneven 

terrain. Should appellant believe that new employment factors contributed to his condition, he 

could file an occupational disease claim.8

 

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish a recurrence 

of disability causally related to his accepted employment condition. 

 7 D.B., Docket No. 13-717 (issued July 24, 2013). 

8 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q) (provides that occupational disease or illness means a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 26, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 4, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board