United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.T., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Reno, NV, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1661 

Issued: November 3, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 3, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 19, 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 that he sustained a 

recurrence of disability from May 1 to 12, 2014 causally related to the accepted February 21, 

2010 employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the March 19, 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)(1); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 

126 (2005). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 1, 2010 appellant, then a 51-year-old carpenter, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on February 21, 2010 he strained his left knee when he was removing 

snow from the premises of the employing establishment. He did not stop work. 

Appellant was initially examined in the hospital by Dr. Frederick S. Drach, Boardcertified in emergency medicine. In a February 22, 2010 report, Dr. Drach related that appellant 

injured his left knee the previous day when on a snow removal crew. Appellant noted that he 

continued to experience pain and difficulty ambulating. Upon examination of his left knee, 

Dr. Drach observed no redness, effusion, or swelling. Range of motion was full with occasional 

pain in the lateral joint space. Dr. Drach noted no pain in the joint space on palpation and no calf 

swelling or Baker’s cyst. He reported that appellant had a left knee injury and advised minimal 

weight bearing. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left knee sprain and left knee chondromalacia 

patellae. Appellant continued to receive medical treatment from Dr. Anthony E. Twite, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. William R. Ford, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. No 

medical evidence was received by OWCP from 2010 to 2014. 

On May 31, 2014 appellant filed a recurrence claim alleging that on May 1, 2014 he 

sustained a recurrence of the February 21, 2010 employment injury. He stopped work and 

returned on May 12, 2014. Appellant indicated that since the original injury he had worked light 

duty. Appellant’s supervisor noted on the claim form that appellant was given modified duty 

although no medical documents were provided which indicated that modified duty was 

necessary. The employing establishment also asserted that there was no evidence to demonstrate 

that his current condition was related to the February 21, 2010 employment injury. 

By letter dated June 12, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that no evidence was submitted 

to establish his recurrence claim. It requested that he submit additional evidence to substantiate 

the factual elements of his claim and additional medical evidence to establish that he was unable 

to work as a result of his February 21, 2010 employment injury. 

On March 2, 2014 appellant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan by 

Dr. Mitchell N. Terrill, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist. He reported that appellant had a 

tear of the medial meniscus with displacement from midline and small associated contusion, 

intrameniscal degeneration of lateral meniscus, and low grade chondromalacia patella. 

In a March 14, 2014 report, Dr. William J. Gray, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

related that appellant worked as a maintenance man and injured his left knee three or four years 

ago. He noted that appellant now complained of a three-month long history of knee clicking and 

feeling very unstable. Appellant denied any injury or new pain but explained that he had lost 

confidence in his knee. Upon examination of the left knee, Dr. Gray observed tenderness along 

both the medial and lateral joint line. Range of motion was to 130 degrees. Dr. Gray indicated 

that there was no significant edema or effusion. Medial McMurray’s test was positive. Dr. Gray 

reviewed appellant’s history and noted that a March 2, 2014 MRI scan of the left knee revealed 

evidence of chondrocalcinosis and a tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. He 
3

diagnosed symptomatic medial meniscus tear and left knee chondrocalcinosis. Dr. Gray 

indicated that appellant was not experiencing much pain but was concerned about the sensation 

of instability. He reported that appellant decided to proceed with surgery. 

On May 2, 2014 appellant underwent left knee arthroscopy and partial medial 

meniscectomy. 

In an August 7, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence of disability claim. 

It found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that he had disability due to a 

change or worsening of his accepted February 21, 2010 work-related conditions. 

On August 19, 2014 OWCP received appellant’s request for a review of the written 

record by an OWCP hearing representative. Appellant stated that from the time of his 

February 21, 2010 employment-related knee injury until his most recent surgery in May 2014 he 

was not informed by any of his supervisors or given any information regarding his rights and 

procedures for workers’ compensation. He indicated that he was enclosing a CD of his records 

regarding his February 21, 2010 knee injury. 

By decision dated March 19, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

August 7, 2014 decision. He noted that appellant had submitted a CD which contained the 

March 2, 2014 MRI scan study. The hearing representative concluded that appellant had not met 

his burden of proof to establish that his current left knee conditions were causally related to the 

accepted employment injury. 

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.3

Appellant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the substantial, reliable, 

and probative evidence, a causal relationship between his recurrence of disability and the 

accepted employment injury. This burden includes the necessity of furnishing 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 employment factors and supports that 

conclusion with sound medical reasoning.4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on February 21, 2010 appellant sustained a left knee sprain and 

chondromalacia patellae as a result of removing snow from the employing establishment’s 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

4 Dominic M. DeScala, 37 ECAB 369, 372 (1986); Bobby Melton, 33 ECAB 1305, 1308-09 (1982). 
4

premises.5

 On May 1, 2014 appellant filed a recurrence of disability claim alleging that he did 

not work from May 1 to 12, 2014 as a result of his February 21, 2010 employment injury. 

OWCP denied his claim finding insufficient medical evidence to establish that his current left 

knee condition and inability to work from May 1 to 12, 2014 was a result of the February 21, 

2010 employment injury. 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that he sustained a recurrence of 

disability from May 1 to 12, 2014 causally related to his accepted employment injury. 

Appellant received medical treatment from Dr. Gray who noted in a March 14, 2014 

report that appellant worked as a maintenance man and injured his left knee three or four years 

ago. Dr. Gray indicated that appellant was not claiming a new injury. Upon examination of the 

left knee, he observed tenderness along both the medial and lateral joint line and range of motion 

to 130 degrees. Dr. Gray reported that there was no significant edema or effusion. A 

McMurray’s test was positive. Dr. Gray diagnosed symptomatic medial meniscus tear and left 

knee chondrocalcinosis. 

The Board notes that Dr. Gray provided examination findings and medical diagnoses 

which were different than the accepted left knee conditions. Dr. Gray did not discuss whether 

appellant’s current diagnoses and his inability to work were causally related to the February 21, 

2010 employment injury. He also did not provide an opinion as to whether appellant’s accepted 

left knee condition had worsened to cause the newly diagnosed conditions and inability to work. 

As such, Dr. Gray has not substantiated that appellant sustained a spontaneous change in the 

accepted medical conditions, causing disability from work. 

Similarly, Dr. Terrill, in the March 2, 2014 MRI scan report, did not provide any opinion 

on the cause of the diagnosed tear of appellant’s left knee medical meniscus, intrameniscal 

degeneration of the lateral meniscus, and low grade chondromalacia. He also did not provide 

any opinion regarding appellant’s inability to work. As previously noted, when establishing a 

recurrence of disability an employee has the burden of proof to demonstrate that he or she has a 

disabling condition which was caused by the accepted injury.6

 Appellant has not provided any 

such evidence in this case. Therefore, the Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of 

proof to establish that he was unable to work from May 1 to 12, 2014 due to his February 21, 

2010 employment injury. 

On appeal appellant described the February 21, 2010 employment injury. He asserted 

that the VA medical records demonstrated that he continued to have problems with his knees and 

 5

 While appellant performed modified work duties following the accepted injury, the employing establishment 

has explained that medical evidence had never been submitted which substantiated a need for light work. The term 

“recurrence” 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 or 

when the physical requirements of such an assignment are altered so that they exceed appellant’s established 

physical limitations. The record does not substantiate that appellant’s light-duty assignment was made specifically 

to accommodate appellant’s work-related physical restrictions. See L.F., Docket No. 15-1069 (issued 

August 12, 2015). 

6 Supra note 4. 
5

required shots and anti-inflammatory drugs in order to work. Appellant alleged that his left knee 

worsened so he sought treatment from Dr. Gray who concluded that there was sufficient damage 

done to his knee from the February 21, 2010 employment injury to require surgery. He also 

noted that he was unaware that he had to make sure his employing establishment knew that his 

claim was not settled. Although appellant has asserted that Dr. Gray determined that his current 

knee condition was related to the February 2010 left knee injury, he does not provide any 

medical evidence to establish this assertion. As previously noted above, Dr. Gray’s March 14, 

2014 report is insufficient to establish that appellant was unable to work from May 1 to 12, 2014 

causally related to the February 21, 2010 employment injury. Appellant also received treatments 

from Drs. Drach, Twite, and Ford. None of their reports address the issue of causation relating 

his symptoms to his original injury on March 1, 2010. 

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 failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained a recurrence of disability from May 1 to 12, 2014 causally related to the February 21, 

2010 employment injury. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 19, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 3, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board