United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, East Orange, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1290 

Issued: October 14, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 15, 2014 appellant timely appealed the April 25, 2014 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which denied his 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant sustained a recurrence on October 18, 2013 causally 

related to his September 30, 2003 employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (2006). 

2

 The record on appeal contains evidence received after OWCP issued its April 25, 2014 decision. The Board is 

precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP rendered its final decision. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1) (2012). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 30, 2003 appellant, then a 46-year-old fire protection inspector, sustained 

a concussion in the performance of duty. He fell off a desk and hit his head and neck. Appellant 

resumed work on October 6, 2003. OWCP accepted a recurrence beginning May 19, 2005. 

Appellant’s claim was expanded to include a left shoulder injury.3

 He underwent left shoulder 

arthroscopic surgery on July 13, 2005, which OWCP authorized. Appellant returned to work in a 

limited-duty capacity on August 29, 2005.4

On November 13, 2013 appellant filed a recurrence (Form CA-2a). He identified 

October 18, 2013 as the date of recurrence. Appellant indicated that he experienced neck pain on 

and off since his September 30, 2003 employment injury. The level of pain increased and 

remained constant. Appellant also indicated that he performed limited duty on and off until 

September 8, 2005. The employing establishment indicated that his limited duty involved no 

climbing on ladders. Appellant advised OWCP that he planned to retire effective 

January 3, 2014. 

OWCP received an October 21, 2013 cervical spine x-ray that revealed moderate 

spondylosis and cervical straightening. Appellant also resubmitted a July 8, 2005 report from a 

Dr. Richard Stark requesting authorization for left shoulder surgery. Dr. Stark provided a 

chronology of the medical treatment appellant received from September 2003 through 

May 2005. He diagnosed left shoulder pain with tear of the subscapularis tendon with 

impingement syndrome. Dr. Stark attributed appellant’s then-current left shoulder condition and 

need for surgery to the September 30, 2003 work-related fall. 

On March 24, 2014 OWCP advised appellant of the need for additional information 

regarding his claimed recurrence. This included the submission of a narrative medical report 

explaining how his current condition was causally related to his accepted employment injury. 

OWCP also requested specific factual information regarding appellant’s claimed recurrence. 

In a March 28, 2014 statement, appellant indicated that, since his September 30, 2003 

injury, he experienced neck and lower back pain that would flare up and then dissipate. 

Beginning in November 2013, he experienced neck pain that caused numbness in his arms and 

legs. Appellant further indicated that he remained on light-duty status until his retirement on 

January 3, 2014. He also listed four claims he filed for work-related injuries sustained between 

December 2005 and May 2013. 

OWCP did not receive any additional medical evidence in response to its March 24, 2014 

request. 

In an April 25, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claimed recurrence beginning 

October 18, 2013. 

 3

 OWCP accepted left shoulder supraspinatus sprain and unspecified left shoulder disorder of bursae and tendons. 

4

 OWCP compensated appellant for the period July 13 through August 19, 2005. 
3

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 resulted from a previous 

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

caused the illness.5

 Recurrence of disability 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 work-related injury or illness is withdrawn or when the physical 

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

limitations.6

Where an employee claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employmentrelated injury, he has the burden of establishing that the recurrence is causally related to the 

original injury.7 This burden includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a qualified 

physician who concludes that the condition is causally related to the employment injury.8

 The 

physician’s opinion must be based on a complete and accurate factual and medical history and 

supported by sound medical reasoning.9

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....”10 Continuous 

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

condition nor is an examination without treatment.11 As distinguished from a recurrence of 

disability, a recurrence of medical condition does not involve an accompanying work stoppage.12 

It is the employee’s burden to establish that the claimed recurrence is causally related to the 

original injury.13

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed a claim for recurrence beginning October 18, 2013. He attributed his 

current neck pain to his September 30, 2003 employment injury. The only contemporaneous 

medical evidence received was an October 21, 2013 cervical x-ray that revealed moderate 

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

6 Id.

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.104(b); see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.5a 

and 2.1500.6b. 

8 See S.S., 59 ECAB 315, 318-19 (2008). 

9 Id. at 319. 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(y). 

11 Id. 

12 Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

13 See 20 C.F.R. § 10.104(b); Mary A. Ceglia, 55 ECAB 626, 629 (2004). 
4

spondylosis and cervical straightening.14 OWCP has not accepted an employment-related 

cervical condition. Where an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by 

OWCP was due to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the 

condition is causally related to the employment injury.15 Appellant did not submit any recent 

medical evidence that attributed his claimed cervical degenerative arthritis to his accepted 

employment injury. 

Although appellant claimed a recurrence beginning October 18, 2013, he continued to 

work until his retirement effective January 3, 2014. It is unclear whether he seeks wage-loss 

compensation beginning January 3, 2014 or merely medical treatment for his current cervical 

condition. In either case, appellant has not established that his cervical spondylosis is causally 

related to his September 30, 2003 employment injury. 

The Board finds that appellant has not demonstrated either a recurrence of a medical 

condition or a recurrence of disability beginning October 18, 2013. The contemporaneous 

medical evidence does not establish a causal relationship between appellant’s current cervical 

condition and his September 30, 2003 employment injury. Moreover, there is no indication that 

appellant’s work stoppage effective January 3, 2014 was due to his accepted employment-related 

concussion and/or left upper extremity condition. 

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 

Appellant failed to establish his claimed recurrence beginning October 18, 2013. 

 14 Since Dr. Stark’s July 8, 2005 report, there was more than an eight-year gap in the medical evidence of record. 

15 Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004). Causal relationship is a medical question, which generally 

requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. See Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 25, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 14, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board