United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Carol Stream, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1673 

Issued: November 19, 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 July 31, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of an April 3, 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. 

ISSUE 

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

accepted medical conditions. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 27, 2009 appellant, then a 52-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on October 16, 2009 while delivering packages she injured the 

left side of her body and her back when she fell after slipping on a pile of wet leaves. On 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

December 16, 2009 OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar back and left knee sprains and paid 

compensation benefits.2 Appellant received wage-loss compensation from December 1, 2009 

through June 1, 2010. 

On February 11, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of medical treatment under 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx142. She also noted that her knee and back conditions had worsened 

since March 3, 2007. 

By letter dated February 27, 2015, OWCP informed appellant as to the definition of a 

recurrence for medical treatment and that the evidence submitted was insufficient to support her 

claim for additional medical treatment due to her accepted employment injury. It advised as to 

the medical and factual evidence required to support her claim and gave her 30 days to provide 

the requested information. OWCP noted that a review of the record showed that appellant had 

been released from medical care for the accepted employment conditions on June 2, 2010. 

In a March 27, 2015 statement, appellant stated that the pain and swelling has been 

ongoing since 2009, 2012, and March 24, 2015. 

By decision dated April 3, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of her 

accepted medical conditions. It found that she had been released from medical care due to her 

accepted condition on November 12, 2012. OWCP found that, while appellant had submitted 

her statement, she had failed to submit any medical evidence showing that she required 

additional medical treatment because her accepted employment injuries worsened without 

intervening cause. In addition, it noted that there appeared to be an intervening cause as she 

sustained a new injury since the October 16, 2009 injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Recurrence of a medical condition means a documented need for further medical 

treatment after release from treatment for the accepted condition or injury when there is no 

accompanying work stoppage. Continuous treatment for the original condition or injury is not 

considered a need for further medical treatment after release from treatment, nor is an 

examination without treatment.3

 

Appellant has the burden of establishing that she sustained a recurrence of a medical 

condition that is causally related to her accepted employment injury. To meet her burden, she 

must furnish medical evidence from a physician who, on the basis of a complete and accurate 

factual and medical history, concludes that the condition is causally related to the employment 

injury and supports that conclusion with sound medical rationale.4

 Where no such rationale is 

present, the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.5

 

 2

 This was assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx142. 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(y) (2002); J.H., Docket No. 15-0633 (issued July 10, 2015). 

4 O.H., Docket No. 15-0778 (issued June 25, 2015); Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001). 

5 Mary A. Ceglia, 55 ECAB 626 (2004); Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000). 
3

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a recurrence of a medical condition. 

OWCP accepted her October 16, 2009 traumatic injury claim for lumbar back and left knee 

sprains. Appellant has claimed the need for additional medical treatment. However, she has 

failed to submit medical evidence to establish that she required further treatment because of a 

continuing employment-related condition, related to the October 16, 2009 injury. 

Appellant has claimed entitlement to compensation for medical treatment as of 

February 11, 2015. She has failed to submit medical evidence to show that she required further 

treatment because of a continuing employment-related condition, related to her October 16, 2009 

injury. 

On February 27, 2015 OWCP requested that appellant submit additional medical 

evidence to support her need for continued treatment. No medical evidence was submitted. The 

only evidence appellant submitted was her statement responding to questions posed by OWCP in 

its February 27, 2015 letter. 

Appellant must submit an attending physician’s report that contains a description of the 

objective findings and supports a causal relationship between her current medical condition and 

the previously accepted lumbar back and left knee sprains.6

 She has the burden of submitting 

sufficient medical evidence to document the actual need for further specific medical treatment.7 

Appellant submitted no medical evidence in support of her claim for recurrence and thus failed 

to establish a need for continuing medical treatment. 

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or upon 

appellant’s own belief that there was a causal relationship between her condition and her 

employment.8 

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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish a recurrence 

of her accepted medical conditions. 

 6 See V.P., Docket No. 14-1557 (issued December 2, 2014). OWCP’s procedures provide that, after 90 days of 

release from medical care (based on the physician’s statement or instruction to return as needed or computed by the 

claims examiner from the date of last examination), a claimant is responsible for submitting an attending physician’s 

report which contains a description of the objective findings and supports causal relationship between the claimant’s 

current condition and the previously accepted work injury. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.4(b) (June 2013). 

7 Mary A. Ceglia, 55 ECAB 626 (2004); Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000). 

8 S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008); Patricia J. Glenn, 53 ECAB 159, 160 (2001). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated April 3, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: November 19, 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