United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Newark, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0784 

Issued: July 27, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 24, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

November 14, 2014 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

 

                                                             1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3

 The Board notes that, following the issuance of the November 14, 2014 OWCP decision, appellant submitted 

new evidence. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it issued 

its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

ISSUE 

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

disability on November 28, 2011 and January 11 and 31, 2012 causally related to her August 27, 

2010 employment injury. 

On appeal, counsel contends that the employing establishment changed the nature and 

extent of appellant’s light-duty job requirements and, therefore, she sustained recurrences of total 

disability on November 28, 2011 and January 11 and 31, 2012. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 10, 2010 appellant, then a 43-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging neck and shoulder injuries on August 27, 2010 as a result of 

closing mailboxes. She stopped work on August 31, 2010. OWCP accepted the claim for sprain 

of neck and right shoulder sprain and authorized physical therapy.4 

On December 15, 2011 appellant, through counsel, filed a claim for a recurrence (Form 

CA-2a) commencing November 28, 2011. She returned to work on December 2, 2011. 

Appellant indicated that she had an indefinite restriction from a prior injury, under OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx029,5 but was told that she had no restrictions on file and was required to work full 

duty when she returned to work on November 28, 2011. The employing establishment stated 

that her “only restriction [was a] 30[-] pound weight restriction, which [was] full duty of position 

for carriers in her unit.” OWCP noted that there were “[i]nsufficient medical[s] to satisfy 

absence or additional restrictions.” 

In reports dated August 16 through December 9, 2011, Dr. Thomas Helbig, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed herniated disc at C6-7 and opined that appellant’s 

cervical condition was causally related to her August 27, 2010 employment injury. He indicated 

that she was unable to work due to her herniated cervical disc and could not work on 

November 29 and 30, 2011. Thereafter, until December 9, 2011, Dr. Helbig restricted appellant 

to no lifting over 10 pounds continuously, and 15 pounds intermittently. 

In a December 16, 2011 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim 

and afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

Appellant submitted a January 10, 2012 work excuse note from Dr. Helbig, indicating 

that she was able to work that day with the restriction of no delivery. 

                                                             4

 Appellant received continuation of pay from August 31 to October 14, 2010. She received wage-loss 

compensation for total disability from October 15, 2010 to April 16, 2011. She returned to part-time full-duty work 

on April 18, 2011 and received wage-loss compensation for the hours she did not work from that date through 

November 18, 2011. 

5

 The record reveals that OWCP had accepted this claim for a sprain of the right shoulder and upper arm and a 

cervical intervertebral disc displacement without myelopathy. Claim number xxxxxx029 is not presently before the 

Board. 
3

By decision dated January 18, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim, as the 

medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish a recurrence of disability commencing 

November 28, 2011 causally related to the August 27, 2010 employment injury. 

On January 25, 2012 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

a January 24, 2012 duty status report from Dr. Helbig indicating that appellant was restricted to 

lifting 20 pounds continuously and 10 pounds intermittently for four hours a day. On 

January 31, 2012 Dr. Helbig stated that appellant had been seen for a cervical disc herniation at 

C6-7 and a cervical sprain and indicated that she had been asked by her supervisor to perform 

duties that were beyond her restrictions. 

Appellant, through counsel, filed a second notice of recurrence on February 14, 2012. 

She indicated that on January 11, 2012 she was sent home and told there was no work for her. 

On the claim form, the employing establishment stated that appellant had been working full duty 

with a permanent 30-pound weight restriction. 

On February 16, 2012 appellant, through counsel, filed a third notice of recurrence. She 

indicated that on January 31, 2012 she was told there was no job offer for her at the time. The 

employing establishment noted that she had a “permanent restriction of 30 pounds lifting for 

another injury,” which was considered full duty in her current position. 

In a February 27, 2012 letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claims 

and afforded her 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its inquiries. 

Appellant submitted a February 21, 2012 report from Dr. Helbig who reiterated his 

diagnosis and indicated that she continued to have a lot of neck pain. 

By decision dated April 10, 2012, OWCP denied modification of its January 18, 2012 

decision. It found that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish that appellant 

sustained a recurrence of disability commencing November 28, 2011 causally related to the 

August 27, 2010 employment injury. 

In a second decision also dated April 10, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s additional 

recurrence claims of January 11 and 31, 2012 as the medical evidence submitted was insufficient 

to establish that she sustained a recurrence of disability commencing on those dates causally 

related to the August 27, 2010 employment injury. It explained that the evidence of record 

neither established a change in the nature or extent of her employment-related injury, nor a 

change in the nature and extent of her light-duty position. 

On November 20, 2012 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of both 

OWCP decisions, and submitted progress reports dated May 12, 2011 through September 27, 

2012 from Dr. Helbig. She also submitted reports dated April 4 through October 24, 2012 from 

Dr. David Conyack, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, who diagnosed cervical radiculopathy 

secondary to C4-7 herniated disc, cervical myofascial dysfunction of the cervical paraspinous 

muscles, and myofascial spasm of the bilateral trapezius muscles. 

The employing establishment attached a job offer as a modified carrier technician which 

appellant had accepted on January 26, 2012. The duties included casing mail up to four hours a 
4

day with the following restrictions: standing and reaching at, above, or over the shoulder up to 

four hours a day; lifting up to 10 pounds intermittently up to four hours a day. 

By decision dated February 14, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its prior decisions, 

finding that the evidence submitted in support of the three recurrence claims did not show a 

change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or change in the nature and extent 

of the limited-duty job requirements. 

On March 5, 2013 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and submitted 

progress reports dated February 14 through May 14, 2013 from Dr. Helbig. She also submitted a 

position description indicating that the duties and requirements of a letter carrier included lifting 

up to 10 pounds continuously and 70 pounds intermittently. 

By decision dated June 7, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its February 14, 2013 

decision. 

On October 24, 2013 counsel again requested reconsideration and submitted progress 

reports dated July 16 through September 10, 2013 from Dr. Helbig reiterating prior diagnoses 

and findings. 

By decision dated December 23, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its June 7, 2013 

decision. 

On January 7, 2014 appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration and 

submitted reports dated January 2 through September 30, 2014 from Dr. Helbig who indicated 

that the cervical spine was tender in the right parascapular and trapezial muscles. Appellant 

further submitted a July 15, 2014 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine, 

requested by Dr. Conyack, which showed disc ridging and foraminal narrowing. 

By decision dated November 14, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. 

It found that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish either that appellant was 

working limited duty at the time of the claimed recurrences, that there was a worsening of her 

employment-related condition, or that there was a withdrawal of a limited-duty offer. 

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 has resulted from a previous 

injury or illness without an intervening injury or new exposure to the work environment that 

caused the illness.6 This term also means an inability to work that takes place 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-in-force) or when the physical 

                                                             6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). See T.S., Docket No. 09-1256 (issued April 15, 2010). 
5

requirements of such an assignment are altered so that they exceed his or her established physical 

limitations.7

 

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 such limited-duty work. As part of 

this burden, the employee must show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related 

condition or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty job requirements.8

 This burden 

includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a qualified physician who concludes, on the 

basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, that the disabling condition is 

causally related to the employment injury. The medical evidence must demonstrate that the 

claimed recurrence was caused, precipitated, accelerated or aggravated by the accepted injury.9

 

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.10 The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the employee.11 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence 

of total disability causally related to her August 27, 2010 employment injury. 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a neck and right shoulder sprain on August 27, 

2010 in the performance of duty. Appellant filed three recurrence claims. On appeal, counsel 

contends that the employing establishment changed the nature and extent of appellant’s lightduty job requirements (essentially placing her in a position which exceeded her lifting 

restrictions) and, therefore, she sustained a recurrence commencing November 28, 2011 and 

January 11 and 31, 2012. Appellant has the burden to provide medical evidence sufficient to 

establish that she was totally disabled due to a change in her job duties such that she was unable 

to perform her light-duty work. 

On the recurrence claim forms, the employing establishment stated that appellant’s only 

restriction was a 30-pound lifting restriction for a prior injury and explained that she was 

                                                             7 Id. 

8 See A.M., Docket No. 09-1895 (issued April 23, 2010). 

9 See L.F., Docket No. 14-1817 (issued February 2, 2015); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.2 (January 2013). 

10 See I.R., Docket No. 09-1229 (issued February 24, 2010). 

11 See I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); see also Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 
6

considered full duty in her carrier position even with the weight restriction as a 30-pound 

restriction was considered full duty for carriers. Appellant later accepted a modified carrier 

technician position on January 26, 2012 with restrictions on lifting no more than 10 pounds 

intermittently up to four hours a day. On April 10, 2013 the employing establishment indicated 

that it complied with appellant’s restrictions and accommodated her. 

Appellant alleged that her recurrence of total disability was caused by an inability to 

perform her light-duty job requirements. However, the record shows that on January 24, 2012 

appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Helbig, found that she could perform light-duty work within 

the restriction of lifting 20 pounds continuously and 10 pounds intermittently for four hours a 

day. Appellant did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that her assigned duties 

had changed such that she was not medically able to perform them. She did not submit adequate 

medical evidence to support that her assigned duties exceeded her medical limitations or that she 

otherwise had a spontaneous change in her accepted condition in the present claim. On 

January 31, 2012 Dr. Helbig noted that appellant had been asked by her supervisor to perform 

duties that were beyond her restrictions. However, he failed to provide a rationalized medical 

opinion explaining how appellant’s assigned duties exceeded her physical limitations or caused 

or aggravated her accepted conditions. The Board finds that the evidence of record is 

insufficient to establish that appellant’s light-duty job requirements changed such that the job 

requirements were no longer within the restrictions provided by Dr. Helbig and appellant was 

unable to perform her position.12 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence 

of total disability causally related to her August 27, 2010 employment injury. 

                                                             12 See J.F., 58 ECAB 124 (2006); see also Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 14, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.13 

Issued: July 27, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

                                                             13 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015.