United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, AIRMAIL CENTER, 

Seattle, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1189 

Issued: August 21, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

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 May 4, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 19, 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 this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of a 

medical condition commencing June 28, 2013 causally related to her accepted December 10, 

2002 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board with respect to the termination of 

appellant’s compensation benefits. In an August 4, 2006 decision,2

 the Board affirmed OWCP’s 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 Docket No. 06-0729 (issued August 4, 2006). 
2

termination of appellant’s benefits on November 17, 2005 and its determination that she had not 

established any continuing residuals from her accepted employment-related thoracic strain after 

that date. In decisions dated February 13, 2009 and March 27, 2012, the Board affirmed OWCP 

decisions finding that appellant’s requests for reconsideration were insufficient to warrant merit 

review of her claim.3

 The facts and circumstances surrounding the prior Board decisions are 

herein incorporated by reference. The relevant facts are set forth below. 

On February 21, 2003 OWCP accepted that on December 10, 2002 appellant, then a 45-

year-old mail handler dock technician, sustained a thoracic strain as a result of pushing a mail 

hamper. In September 2004, she retired on disability from the employing establishment. 

On July 5, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of medical condition on June 28, 

2013 causally related to her accepted December 10, 2002 employment injury. She alleged that 

she experienced a stabbing sharp pain while walking to check her mail and that she could barely 

move. Appellant sought medical treatment on July 1, 2013 from Dr. Robert B. Kaler, a Boardcertified family practitioner. 

By letter dated October 9, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and medical 

evidence necessary to establish her recurrence claim. 

In an undated statement, appellant described the symptoms she experienced in her 

thoracic area, right hand, and back. She stated that her thoracic area symptoms arose after she 

walked one quarter of a block from her residence to the mailbox area to check for her mail. 

Appellant further stated that she did not have any hobbies or participate in any sports or home 

improvement. 

Appellant submitted a July 21, 2004 thoracic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan 

report from Dr. Alexander D. Serra, a Board-certified radiologist. Dr. Serra provided an 

impression of mild-to-moderate thoracic disc disease with 20 percent partial compression 

fracture at T6 (chronic) and secondary kyphosis. 

In a June 23, 2009 thoracic MRI scan report, Dr. Aria Parker, a Board-certified 

radiologist, provided an impression of mild disc desiccation and small bulging compatible with 

degenerative disc disease at T5-6, T6-T7, and T7-T8. She also found a prominent osteophyte 

extending from the left facet into the canal causing an impression on the thecal sac and mild 

canal stenosis at the T4 vertebral body level. 

A progress note by Dr. Kaler dated July 1, 2013 provided examination findings and 

assessed appellant as having cervical disc disorder, cervicothoracic strain, and chronic pain 

syndrome. 

In a November 19, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim as she 

failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her current 

conditions and her accepted December 10, 2002 work injury. 

 3

 Docket No. 08-2168 (issued February 13, 2009); Docket No. 11-2001 (issued March 27, 2012). 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A recurrence of a medical condition is defined as a documented need for further medical 

treatment after release from treatment for the accepted condition or injury.4

 Continuous 

treatment for the original condition or injury is not considered a recurrence of a medical 

treatment nor is an examination without treatment.5

 

An employee who claims a recurrence of medical condition has the burden of proof to 

establish causal relationship by the weight of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. This 

burden 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 employee’s need for 

additional medical care is causally related to the accepted injury and supports that conclusion 

with sound medical reasoning.6

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish a recurrence of a medical condition 

commencing June 28, 2013. OWCP accepted that on December 10, 2002 appellant sustained a 

thoracic strain while working as a mail handler dock technician. Appellant retired on disability 

in September 2004. On July 5, 2013 appellant filed a recurrence claim alleging that her current 

thoracic conditions were causally related to the accepted condition. 

Dr. Serra’s July 21, 2004 thoracic MRI scan reports provided an impression of mild-tomoderate thoracic disc disease with 20 percent partial compression fracture at T6 (chronic) and 

secondary kyphosis. Dr. Parker’s June 23, 2009 thoracic MRI scan report provided an 

impression of mild disc desiccation and small bulging compatible with degenerative disc disease 

at T5-6, T6-T7, and T7-T8. She also found a prominent osteophyte extending from the left facet 

into the canal causing an impression on the thecal sac and mild canal stenosis at the T4 vertebral 

body level. While these reports predate appellant’s recurrence claim, it is noted that neither 

Dr. Serra nor Dr. Parker explained or offered any medical rationale as to how her accepted 

thoracic strain deteriorated over the years and resulted in the diagnosed thoracic conditions. 

Dr. Kaler diagnosed cervical disc disorder, cervicothoracic strain, and chronic pain 

syndrome in his July 1, 2013 progress report but did not address causal relationship. The 

cervical conditions and chronic pain syndrome have not been accepted by OWCP. It was 

appellant’s burden of proof to establish causal relationship.7

 This progress note is insufficient to 

establish her claim. 

The Board finds that there is insufficient rationalized medical evidence of record to 

establish that appellant sustained a recurrence of a medical condition commencing June 28, 2013 

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(y). 

5 Id. 

6 E.O., Docket No. 11-1099 (issued February 24, 2012); J.B., Docket No. 11-1410 (issued January 5, 2012). 

7 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 
4

causally related to the accepted December 10, 2002 employment injury. Appellant did not meet 

her burden of proof. 

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 established a recurrence of a medical condition 

commencing June 28, 2013 causally related to her accepted December 10, 2002 employment 

injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 19, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 21, 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