United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1278 

Issued: September 14, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 18, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 24, 2015 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.2

ISSUE 

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

disability on February 17 and 18, 2015 causally related to his December 31, 2014 employment 

injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the April 24, 2015 decision. Since the 

Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, the Board 

may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 

126 (2005). Appellant may submit that evidence to OWCP along with a request for reconsideration, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(2). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 1, 2015 appellant, then a 44-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on December 31, 2014 he fractured his left hand when he fell at work. He 

stopped work that day. OWCP accepted his claim for left finger contusion. 

On January 6, 2015 appellant returned to work with restrictions of no use of the left hand. 

Appellant was examined by Dr. Hannah H. Kim, Board-certified in occupational 

medicine, who, in a January 20, 2015 work status report, recommended that appellant work 

modified duty from January 20 to February 3, 2015. Dr. Kim reported the following restrictions 

of no driving, no repetitive left hand motion, no gripping or grasping of the left hand, and no 

lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling more than five pounds. 

In a February 3, 2015 work status report, Dr. Kim stated that appellant should work 

modified duty from February 3 to 18, 2015. She restricted appellant to repetitive left hand 

motions no more than 15 minutes per hour, gripping and grasping of the left hand no more than 

15 minutes per hour, and no lifting, carrying, pushing, or pulling more than 10 pounds. Dr. Kim 

reported that appellant could return to full duty on February 19, 2015. 

In a March 2, 2015 report, Dr. Kim related that on December 31, 2014 appellant 

sustained a fall injury and broke his left ring finger. She reported that appellant denied any 

radicular or radiation to his symptoms and any swelling, numbness, or weakness. Dr. Kim 

reviewed appellant’s history and conducted an examination. She observed normal range of 

motion of the left wrist and no tenderness, body tenderness, swelling, effusion, crepitus, or 

deformity. Dr. Kim diagnosed left ring finger proximal phalanx fracture. She reported that there 

was no need for future medical treatment and that appellant could return to his usual preinjury 

regular job. Dr. Kim indicated that there were no limitations to lifting, carrying, standing or 

walking, and pushing or pulling. 

On March 5, 2015 appellant requested disability compensation from February 17 

to 18, 2015. He indicated that on February 17 and 18, 2015 he was told by his manager that 

there was no work for him and he was sent home. A time analysis form dated March 5, 2015, 

which appellant signed claiming 16 hours of leave without pay for February 17 to 18, 2015, was 

also signed by an employing establishment official.3

 The employing establishment official noted 

that no documentation had been submitted to support that appellant was sent home and that the 

last medical report of record stated that he could return to full duty as of February 1, 2015. 

By letter dated March 13, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that there was no evidence 

from his employing establishment to reflect unavailability of work on February 17 and 18, 2015. 

Appellant was advised that he should provide written documentation, within 30 days, from his 

manager or another employing establishment official who could confirm that he was sent home 

because no work was available. Appellant did not submit such documentation. 

 3

 The signature is illegible. 
3

Appellant submitted a December 31, 2014 medical report by Dr. Stephen R. Greene, a 

general practitioner who specializes in preventive medicine. Dr. Greene related appellant’s 

complaints of right hand swelling and pain and described the history of injury. He reviewed 

appellant’s history and conducted an examination. Dr. Greene observed mild swelling and 

tenderness of the right dorsal hand and full range of motion of appellant’s fingers. He diagnosed 

right hand strain. Dr. Greene recommended that appellant resume regular work. 

In a decision dated April 24, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability 

compensation for the period February 17 to 18, 2015. It found that the evidence failed to 

substantiate that he had been sent home from work. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s implementing regulations define a recurrence of disability as 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.4 This term also means an inability to 

work when a light-duty assignment made specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical 

limitations due to his or her work-related injury or illness is withdrawn (except when such 

withdrawal occurs for reasons of misconduct, nonperformance of job duties or a reduction-inforce), or when the physical requirements of such an assignment are altered such that they 

exceed the employee’s physical limitations.5 Appellant has the burden of establishing that there 

was no medically-appropriate light duty available for the claimed period.6

 

When an employee who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account 

of employment-related residuals returns to a limited-duty position or the medical evidence of 

record establishes that he or she can perform the limited-duty position, the employee has the 

burden to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence 

of total disability and to show that he or she cannot perform the limited-duty position. As part of 

this burden, the employee must show either a change in the nature and extent of the injuryrelated condition or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty requirements.7

 

OWCP’s procedures require that in cases where recurrent disability for work is claimed 

within 90 days or less from the first return to duty, the attending physician should describe the 

duties which the employee cannot perform and the demonstrated objective medical findings that 

form the basis for the renewed disability for work.8

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

5 Id. 

6 J.F., 58 ECAB 124 (2006). 

7 Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); Mary A. Howard, 45 ECAB 646 (1994); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 

222 (1986). 

8

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.5 (June 2013). 
4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on December 31, 2014 appellant sustained a left finger contusion in 

the performance of duty. Appellant stopped work and returned to modified duty on 

January 6, 2015.9 

On March 5, 2015 appellant requested disability compensation from February 17 

to 18, 2015. He claimed he had been sent home because there was no work for him. A review of 

the record, however, fails to corroborate appellant’s assertion. On March 13, 2015 OWCP 

requested that appellant submit evidence corroborating that he had been sent home on 

February 17 and 18, 2015, but no such evidence was received. As previously noted, when 

establishing a recurrence of disability an employee has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a 

light-duty assignment made to accommodate his physical limitations due to his work-related 

injury or illness is unavailable.10 The Board thus finds that the evidence of record in this case 

fails to establish that no work was available to appellant within his restrictions on February 17 

and 18, 2015. 

Appellant submitted medical reports from Drs. Kim and Greene dated December 31, 

2014 to March 2, 2015. Although the medical reports show that appellant was advised to work 

modified duty, they did not demonstrate that he was unable to perform modified work duties for 

the employing establishment on February 17 and 18, 2015 or that the employing establishment 

was unable to accommodate appellant’s work restrictions. 

Therefore, the Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish 

total disability on February 17 and 18, 2015 due to his December 31, 2014 employment injury. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for recurrence of total 

disability from February 17 to 18, 2015 due to his December 31, 2014 employment injury 

 9

 The record is unclear as to the date appellant returned to full duty. 

10 Supra note 6. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 24, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 14, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board