United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.N., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0230 

Issued: April 4, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

James D. Muirhead, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 19, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

April 27, 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 OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disability commencing August 27, 2014 after his wage-loss benefits were terminated for refusal 

of suitable work. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the April 27, 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). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 24, 2009 appellant, then a 48-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained a bruise and cut on his left elbow as a result of falling 

down steps in the performance of duty. He stopped work. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for 

left elbow bursitis and paid compensation. 

OWCP referred appellant’s case, along with the medical record and statement of accepted 

facts, to Dr. Michael Katz, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion 

examination to determine whether appellant continued to suffer residuals of his employment 

injury and was able to work. In a December 7, 2009 report, Dr. Katz provided an accurate 

history of the July 24, 2009 employment injury. Upon examination of appellant’s left elbow, he 

observed no erythema, swelling, or induration. Range of motion was normal and Tinel’s sign 

was negative. Dr. Katz diagnosed left lateral epicondylitis and opined that this condition was 

causally related to the July 24, 2009 employment incident. He reported that appellant had not 

reached maximum medical improvement, but was capable of returning to work full time with 

restrictions of no lifting greater than 20 pounds. 

On February 8, 2010 the employing establishment offered appellant a position as a 

modified city carrier, delivering and casing mail. The physical requirements of the position were 

lifting not to exceed 20 pounds for one to four hours, and standing, walking, reaching, pulling 

limited to one to four hours. 

In a letter dated February 12, 2010, OWCP informed appellant that the offered modified 

city carrier position was suitable in light of his work restrictions. Appellant was advised that he 

had 30 days to accept the position or provide a valid reason for refusing suitable work. 

On March 12, 2010 Elizabeth Chan, a human resource specialist for the employing 

establishment, informed OWCP that the modified position was still available, but appellant had 

neither reported to work, nor provided any explanation as to why he could not perform the job. 

She requested that appellant’s compensation be terminated. 

In a letter dated March 23, 2010, OWCP advised appellant that he had 15 days to accept 

the offered job position and that, if he did not do so, his entitlement to wage-loss and schedule 

award compensation benefits would be terminated pursuant to section 8106(c) of FECA. 

On June 15, 2010 OWCP terminated appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss and schedule 

award compensation benefits, effective June 15, 2010, because he refused suitable work. The 

claim remained open for medical benefits. 

On April 17, 2015 appellant filed a claim for recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) 

beginning August 27, 2014 as a result of the July 24, 2009 employment injury. He specifically 

indicated by checkmark on the claim form that the claim was not for medical treatment, but 

rather was for wage-loss compensation benefits. Appellant indicated that the employing 

establishment terminated him in September 2010 and that his left elbow worsened to the point 

that he needed surgery. 

Appellant submitted various physical therapy treatment notes dated April 7 to 17, 2015 

from Jennilyn Munda, a physical therapist. Ms. Munda related a diagnosis of left elbow sprain 

and recommended appellant continue physical therapy. 
3

By decision dated April 27, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence of disability 

claim. It found that appellant was not entitled to any monetary compensation due to his July 24, 

2009 employment injury because OWCP had terminated his compensation for refusing suitable 

work under section 8106 of FECA. OWCP noted that the June 15, 2010 termination decision 

stood as a bar to any subsequent monetary compensation arising out of the July 24, 2009 injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP regulations provides that, after termination of compensation under section 

8106(c) of FECA a claimant has no further entitlement to compensation under section 8105, 

8106, and 8107 of FECA.3

 However, the claimant remains entitled to medical benefits as 

provided by 5 U.S.C. § 8103.4 Section 8106(c) of FECA serves as a penalty provision, barring 

an employee’s future entitlement to compensation for the same injury based on a refusal to 

accept a suitable offer of employment.5

OWCP procedures provide that if the claimant does not accept a suitable work offer, the 

claims examiner should prepare a formal decision which provides full findings of facts as to why 

claimant’s reasons for refusing the job are deemed unacceptable and terminate compensation 

under section 8106(c)(2) of FECA as of the end of the roll period. Such a decision should not be 

modified even if the claimant’s medical condition later deteriorates and he claims a recurrence of 

disability.6

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a left elbow condition due to a July 24, 2009 

employment injury. In a decision dated June 15, 2010, it terminated his wage-loss and schedule 

award benefits effective June 15, 2010 because he refused an offer of suitable work. On 

April 17, 2015 appellant filed a claim for recurrence of disability beginning August 27, 2014 due 

to his July 24, 2009 employment injury. By decision dated April 27, 2015, OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim on the basis that he was not entitled to compensation due to his prior refusal of 

suitable work. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that the June 15, 2010 decision 

terminating appellant’s compensation for refusing suitable work served as a bar to any 

subsequent monetary compensation as a result of the July 24, 2009 work injury.7 Section 

8106(c) of FECA provides that an employee who refuses suitable work is not entitled to further 

compensation for total disability or permanent impairment.8

 Because OWCP terminated 

appellant’s compensation due to his refusal of suitable work, he is barred from future entitlement 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.517. 

4 Id. 

5 See Joan F. Burke, 54 ECAB 406 (2003). 

6 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Job Offers and Return to Work, Chapter 2.814.6 

(June 2013). 

7 See C.C., Docket No. 07-2031 (issued April 7, 2008). 

8

 5 U.S.C. § 8106(c); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.517(a). 
4

to wage-loss compensation for his July 24, 2009 employment injury. The Board therefore finds 

that appellant’s recurrence claim for disability compensation is precluded by section 8106(c).9

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 OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for recurrence of disability 

commencing August 27, 2014 after he refused suitable work.10

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 27, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 4, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 9 See E.M., Docket No. 9-39 (issued March 3, 2009). 

10 Following the April 27, 2015 decision appellant’s counsel alleged that appellant was seeking medical benefits. 

The issue of entitlement of medical benefits was not before OWCP at the time of the April 27, 2015 decision, and 

therefore will not be reviewed by the Board on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c).