United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Bristol, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1122 

Issued: September 15, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, 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 April 21, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 9, 

2014 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 established that she sustained a recurrence of disability 

commencing January 18, 2011 causally related to her February 8, 2010 employment injury. 

On appeal counsel asserts that the opinion of the impartial physician, Dr. Ronald N. 

Rosenfeld, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, is of insufficient medical rationale to carry the 

weight of the medical evidence. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 8, 2010 appellant, then a 45-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that she injured her back when she slipped on ice and fell while delivering mail 

that day. She returned to modified duty on February 17, 2010. On April 29, 2010 OWCP 

accepted sprain of back, thoracic region; sprain of back, lumbar region; and sprain of trapezius, 

bilateral. Appellant subsequently returned to full duty. 

In October 2010, OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Robert A. Smith, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion evaluation. In a November 19, 2010 report, Dr. Smith 

reported that appellant had a benign examination and advised that she could perform her regular 

job duties and needed no further therapy. In correspondence dated November 30, 2010 and 

February 4, 2011, OWCP asked him if appellant’s employment injury aggravated, accelerated, 

exacerbated, or precipitated any preexisting conditions, and, if so, whether the aggravations were 

temporary or permanent. 

On February 1, 2011 appellant filed a claim for a recurrence of disability. She stated that 

she had ongoing back spasms and lower back pain, and that on January 12, 2011 they became so 

severe that she took medication which relieved some pain, but by January 18, 2011 the pain 

became too much so she sought medical treatment for therapy and was told that she needed 

another magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Appellant stopped work on January 18, 2011 

and never returned. 

On January 13, 2011 Dr. Ashok Thanki, a Board-certified neurosurgeon, reported 

complaints of low back and right lower extremity pain. He stated that an MRI scan study 

demonstrated a herniated disc and spondylosis at L3-4 and L4-5. Dr. Thanki performed a lower 

extremity electrodiagnostic study which, he reported, was within normal limits. 

In treatment notes dated January 13 to February 18, 2011, Dr. John Pickard, an osteopath, 

described appellant’s treatment and therapy. He indicated that she complained of severe, 

constant pain in the upper and lower back, and that she had difficulty sleeping. On duty status 

reports dated January 31 and February 18, 2011, Dr. Pickard advised that appellant could not 

work due to lumbar disc disease. In a narrative report dated February 15, 2011, he noted that she 

had been treated at his practice since February 12, 2010. Dr. Pickard reported that a January 28, 

2011 MRI scan of the lumbar spine demonstrated disc degeneration, bulging at L4-5 and L5-S1, 

and moderate narrowing at the L5-S1 neural foramen. He described appellant’s treatment and 

therapy. Dr. Pickard diagnosed lumbosacral neuritis and lumbar disc bulging, and opined that 

her condition was a result of a February 8, 2010 employment injury that was aggravated on 

approximately December 30, 2010. 

In letters dated February 22 and March 2, 2011, OWCP informed appellant of the 

evidence needed to support her recurrence claim. In correspondence dated March 2, 2011, the 

employing establishment challenged the claim, stating that on January 11, 2011 she called out on 

sick leave and stated that she injured her back while removing snow from her car before she 

came to work. 
3

By report dated March 6, 2011, Dr. Arnold T. Berman, an OWCP medical adviser and a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted his review of the medical record. He recommended 

that the claim not be expanded to include lumbar neuritis. 

In a narrative report dated March 11, 2011, Dr. Pickard reported that on January 12, 2011 

he removed appellant from work because her back pain had significantly increased. He 

diagnosed a lumbar disc bulge at L4-5 with posterior annular tearing, a broad-based central disc 

protrusions, and lumbar neuritis. Dr. Pickard continued to submit reports describing appellant’s 

treatment and continued to advise that she was totally disabled. 

OWCP determined that a conflict in medical opinion had been created regarding the 

accepted conditions and the nature and extent of appellant’s disability, and referred her to 

Dr. Donald F. Leatherwood, II, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial 

evaluation.2

 In an April 14, 2011 report, Dr. Leatherwood described the history of injury, 

appellant’s complaints of thoracic and low back pain, and his review of medical records. He 

provided physical examination findings and advised that, with regard to the lumbosacral spine, 

she had no objective evidence of a continuing disability and was fully recovered from the 

employment injury. Dr. Leatherwood concluded that appellant needed no restrictions and there 

was no need for further medical care, medications, or therapy. He recommended additional 

studies with regard to her thoracic region. 

In a supplemental report dated May 1, 2011, Dr. Smith advised that the soft tissue sprains 

appellant sustained on February 8, 2010 had resolved without residuals. He opined that her 

degenerative disc abnormalities were not caused, aggravated, or accelerated by the work incident 

and, while there may have been a temporary exacerbation, this had resolved at the time of his 

November 19, 2010 examination. 

A May 21, 2011 MRI scan of the thoracic spine demonstrated degenerative disc disease 

in the mid-thoracic spine with a small disc herniation at T4-5 and a right herniation at T7-8. On 

June 17, 2011 Dr. Leatherwood noted his review of the May 21, 2011 MRI scan and report. He 

advised that this demonstrated basically degenerative changes which caused small disc 

herniations and, although appellant’s fall at work could have caused the condition, at the present 

time it would not be responsible for her symptoms. Dr. Leatherwood concluded that she had 

recovered from the employment injury. 

On July 14, 2011 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s medical benefits and deny 

that she sustained a recurrence of disability of January 18, 2011. Counsel opposed the proposed 

termination and requested that the accepted conditions be expanded to include lumbar 

radiculopathy, lumbar and thoracic herniations, and aggravation of degenerative disc disease. 

Appellant submitted an August 1, 2011 statement in which she advised that she did not tell the 

employing establishment that she hurt her back clearing snow from her car but that her back was 

hurting and she did not want to hurt it anymore by clearing snow. 

 2

 The record includes the necessary OWCP ME023 form and four screen shots describing properly bypassed 

physicians. 
4

Dr. Pickard continued to submit treatment notes describing appellant’s condition and 

treatment. 

In separate decisions dated August 18, 2011, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical 

benefits, effective that day, and denied that she sustained a recurrence of disability beginning 

January 18, 2011. It found the weight of the medical evidence rested with the opinion of 

Dr. Leatherwood, the impartial physician. 

Appellant, through counsel, timely requested a hearing and submitted an August 15, 2011 

narrative report from Dr. Pickard. Dr. Pickard described the employment injury and noted that 

appellant tolerated back pain until January 12, 2011 when she felt the pain had significantly 

increased to the point that she could no longer work. He noted his review of medical records, 

including x-rays, MRI scans, and Dr. Leatherwood’s reports. Dr. Pickard advised that appellant 

had been evaluated on August 8, 2011 and complained of mid and low back pain, aggravated by 

bending and activities of daily living. He described physical examination findings of moderate 

spasm in the thoracic spine and mild spasm in the lumbar spine with decreased range of motion 

in all planes. Dr. Pickard disagreed with Dr. Leatherwood’s conclusions, opining that 

appellant’s thoracic and lumbar conditions were a direct result of the employment injury of 

February 8, 2010 when she incurred significant injuries. He also submitted additional treatment 

notes. 

On November 22, 2011 an OWCP hearing representative found that the reports of 

Dr. Smith and Dr. Leatherwood were not sufficiently rationalized to constitute the weight of 

medical opinion, that OWCP failed to properly identify the conflict in medical opinion, and that 

the conflict statement and the questions to Dr. Leatherwood were leading and prejudicial. The 

case was remanded to OWCP to exclude Dr. Leatherwood’s reports and refer appellant for a new 

second opinion evaluation with a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to be followed by a de

novo decision on whether the claim should be expanded, whether appellant sustained a 

recurrence of disability in January 2011, and whether she continued to have residuals of the 

accepted conditions. Medical benefits were reinstated. 

A December 12, 2011 electrodiagnostic study of the lower extremities demonstrated 

bilateral lumbar radiculopathy. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Steven J. Valentino, a Board-certified osteopath 

specializing in orthopedic surgery. In a December 21, 2011 report, Dr. Valentino noted the 

history of injury and appellant’s complaints of upper and lower back pain. He reviewed medical 

records and provided physical examination findings. Dr. Valentino diagnosed resolved sprains 

of the thoracic region, the lumbar region, and bilateral trapezius. He opined that appellant did 

not sustain a recurrence of disability in January 2011, stating that soft tissue injuries of this type 

would resolve in two to three months. Dr. Valentino further indicated that there was no evidence 

of ongoing disability, stating that she had significant positive Waddell’s signs which were 

indicative of symptom embellishment. In an attached work capacity evaluation, he advised that 

appellant had no limitations. 
5

Dr. Pickard continued to submit weekly treatment notes and, on a duty status report dated 

December 8, 2011, advised that appellant was totally disabled. On January 20, 2012 he advised 

that she could not work due to thoracic and lumbar disc disease. 

OWCP determined that a conflict in medical evidence had been created between 

appellant’s attending physicians and Dr. Valentino regarding whether her work stoppage in 

January 2011 was caused by the February 8, 2010 injury, whether she still had residuals of the 

work injury, and what were the injury-related diagnoses. In February 2012, it referred appellant 

to Dr. Ronald B. Greene, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial evaluation.3

 The 

record includes an OWCP ME023 and a number of bypass screen shots. 

In a February 28, 2012 report, Dr. Greene noted the history of injury, appellant’s 

complaints of radiating back pain, bilateral lower extremity numbness, and pain between the 

shoulders. He reviewed medical records including imaging studies and provided physical 

examination findings. Dr. Greene advised that on February 8, 2010 appellant sustained a lumbar 

sprain and strain and a thoracic intrascapular sprain and strain with secondary strain of the 

trapezius muscles. He opined that there was no objective medical evidence to support additional 

diagnoses, noting that the MRI scan studies of the thoracic and lumbar spines demonstrated no 

nerve root compression and showed age-related degenerative changes. Dr. Greene opined that 

the February 8, 2010 fall caused an aggravation of appellant’s lumbar degenerative disc disease 

and that, although symptomatic, her pain could be controlled with medication and a back brace. 

He further advised that she did not sustain a recurrence of disability in January 2011 and had no 

need for continuing physical therapy. Dr. Greene concluded that appellant had recovered from 

all accepted conditions except the aggravation of degenerative arthritis at L3-4 and L4-5, which 

was the only residual of the February 8, 2010 work injury. He advised that she could return to 

work for eight hours a day with physical restrictions. 

In a March 19, 2012 decision, OWCP denied that appellant sustained a recurrence of 

disability on March 19, 2012. On March 19, 2012 it also accepted temporary aggravation of 

degenerative arthritis at L3-4 and L4-5. Appellant, through counsel, timely requested a hearing 

and submitted a copy of a January 28, 2011 MRI scan study of the lumbar spine that 

demonstrated disc degeneration and bulging at L4-5 and L5-S1 with moderate narrowing the 

right L5-S1 neural foramen. Dr. Pickard submitted additional treatment notes describing her 

condition. 

By decision dated October 12, 2012, OWCP’s hearing representative found that 

Dr. Greene was not properly selected as an impartial specialist as the record was devoid of any 

required documentation. The case was remanded to OWCP to select another impartial specialist, 

following procedures ordered by the Board. 

Dr. Pickard continued to treat appellant. In November 2012, OWCP referred appellant to 

Dr. Robert E. Liebenberg, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an impartial evaluation. The 

record includes an ME023 form and screen shots of bypassed physicians. 

 3

 Appellant was initially referred to Dr. Stanley Askin. Counsel informed OWCP that Dr. Askin had recently 

examined appellant’s husband, and the impartial evaluation was rescheduled with Dr. Greene. 
6

In a January 22, 2013 report, Dr. Liebenberg noted appellant’s description of the 

employment injury and her complaint of radiating low back pain and pain in the upper back 

between her shoulders. He reviewed the medical evidence and provided physical examination 

findings. Dr. Liebenberg diagnosed pain syndrome involving the thoracic and lumbar spine 

associated with degenerative disc disease, and sprain of trapezius and lumbar spine, resolved. 

He disagreed with Dr. Greene’s conclusion that appellant suffered an aggravation of 

degenerative disc disease on February 8, 2010. Dr. Liebenberg advised that there was no need 

for continued therapy, and that there was no evidence that an aggravation of degenerative disc 

disease occurred in January 2011. He advised that appellant could perform her usual job without 

restrictions. 

In separate decisions dated February 12, 2013, OWCP found the weight of the medical 

evidence rested with the opinion of Dr. Liebenberg and terminated appellant’s medical benefits 

effective that day and denied that she sustained a recurrence of disability beginning 

January 18, 2011. 

Appellant, through counsel, timely requested a hearing from both decisions. In treatment 

notes dated January 29 to March 8, 2013, Dr. Pickard described her treatment and advised that 

she was unable to perform her preinjury job. 

In an August 8, 2013 decision, the hearing representative affirmed the February 12, 2013 

decision that terminated medical benefits. However, she set aside the February 12, 2013 

decision denying a January 2011 recurrence and directed OWCP to seek a supplemental report 

from Dr. Liebenberg regarding whether appellant sustained a recurrence of disability.4

In a September 10, 2013 report, Dr. Liebenberg advised that appellant did not experience 

a recurrence of disability on January 18, 2011 due to the accepted conditions. He indicated that 

she told him that she stopped work due to pain but not because of an injury. Dr. Liebenberg 

stated that, although appellant had ongoing degenerative disc disease, a review of the medical 

records proceeding and subsequent to the claimed recurrence, did not reveal any significant 

difference in symptoms or signs, and that there were no objective differences on imaging studies 

of significance. He concluded that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, she did not 

sustain a recurrence of disability on January 18, 2011. 

On September 26, 2013 OWCP wrote Dr. Liebenberg notifying him that a temporary 

aggravation of preexisting degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine had been accepted and 

asked him to address whether appellant experienced a recurrence of disability due to any 

employment-related condition. Dr. Liebenberg did not respond.5

In a December 16, 2013 decision, OWCP found that the weight of the medical evidence 

rested with Dr. Liebenberg’s opinion and denied that appellant sustained a recurrence of 

disability on January 18, 2011. 

 4

 Appellant did not file an appeal with the Board regarding the hearing representative’s finding that OWCP 

properly terminated appellant’s medical benefits. 

5

 Dr. Liebenberg’s office indicated that he was retiring. 
7

Appellant, through counsel, timely requested a hearing. In an April 2, 2014 decision, the 

hearing representative found the case not in posture for decision and vacated the December 16, 

2013 decision. She found that OWCP did not obtain sufficient clarification from Dr. Liebenberg 

and therefore, a new referee examination was in order. 

On April 10, 2014 OWCP referred appellant, along with a medical conflict statement, a 

set of questions, a statement of accepted facts, and the medical record, to Dr. Ronald N. 

Rosenfeld, for an impartial evaluation. An OWCP ME023 form and bypass log were found in 

the record. The latter indicated that two physicians were bypassed, and reasons for the bypasses 

were provided. 

In a May 7, 2014 report, Dr. Rosenfeld noted the history of injury, his review of the 

conflict statement, statement of accepted facts, and medical record. He described appellant’s 

complaints of lower back and left shoulder blade pain, and pain that radiated into both lower 

legs. Dr. Rosenfeld noted that she maintained that there had been no significant change in her 

symptoms since their onset in 2010. He described physical examination findings, noting that 

appellant walked without the use of any external ambulatory supports and was not wearing 

braces. Dr. Rosenfeld indicated that she was tender to palpation at multiple locations, including 

the intrascapular paraspinal muscles, the midline lumbar area at approximately L4-5, and over 

the posterior superior iliac spine on the left. He found no palpable muscle spasm at any location. 

Voluntary cervical range of motion was unrestricted, and Spurling’s and foraminal compression 

tests were negative. Shoulder range of motion was well maintained bilaterally. Appellant 

reported lower back pain at the end range of movement of the lumbar spine, especially on 

forward flexion. Hip rotation was diminished and produced complaints of groin pain. 

Dr. Rosenfeld advised that, on questioning, appellant indicated that her hip motion had been 

restricted for years. She refused to perform squatting maneuvers. Heel and toe walking were 

performed without difficulty or sign of motor weakness, and straight leg raising was negative at 

70 degrees although appellant did report some posterior thigh tightness bilaterally. 

Dr. Rosenfeld found that deep tendon reflexes and motor strength appeared fully intact in 

all extremities. Sensory examination was reported to be decreased for light touch and pinprick 

over the lateral aspect of the left calf. No other sensory deficits were found. Appellant’s 

circumferential mid-calf measurements were bilaterally equal, and there was no evidence of 

muscle atrophy, fasciculation, or clonus. Dr. Rosenfeld indicated that the remainder of her 

physical examination was noncontributory. He discussed the conflict in medical evidence and 

accepted conditions. Dr. Rosenfeld advised that there was no clinical evidence on examination 

of the accepted thoracic, lumbar, and trapezius sprains. In regard to the temporary aggravation 

of spinal arthritis, he advised that there was no evidence on physical examination or review of 

diagnostic studies to indicate that the aggravation persisted, opining that appellant’s ongoing 

complaints of back pain would not be the result of a temporary aggravation of underlying 

arthritis. Dr. Rosenfeld further opined that the cause of her current left-sided complaints was 

undetermined but did not seem to be related to the February 8, 2010 injury, noting that her initial 

complaints were right-sided. He advised that there did not appear to be a specific event that 

occurred in January 2011 to explain appellant’s increased complaints such that she could not 

continue to work, noting that she had been working since shortly after the February 2010 injury. 
8

Dr. Rosenfeld voiced his agreement with Dr. Valentino’s opinion that appellant did not 

sustain a recurrence of disability in January 2011 as a result of the February 8, 2010 injury and 

that she was capable of returning to her previous duties without limitation as regard to the 

injuries sustained on February 8, 2010. He concluded that all accepted conditions had healed 

and appellant had recovered from the injuries sustained on February 8, 2010, based upon the 

history provided by appellant, the objective findings noted during his physical examination, and 

his review of the medical record. 

By decision dated May 22, 2014, OWCP found the weight of the medical evidence rested 

with the opinion of Dr. Rosenfeld and denied that appellant sustained a recurrence of disability 

on January 18, 2011. Appellant, through counsel, timely requested a hearing. 

The hearing was held on October 27, 2014. Counsel asserted that Dr. Rosenfeld was not 

properly selected as the referee physician because the record did not contain bypass screen shots. 

He also maintained that Dr. Rosenfeld’s report was not sufficiently reasoned to constitute the 

weight of the medical evidence, such that a conflict remained. 

On December 9, 2014 an OWCP hearing representative found that OWCP followed 

proper procedure in selecting Dr. Rosenfeld under its Medical Management Application (MMA), 

noting that the record contained a properly executed OWCP ME023 form and that the record 

provided sufficient reasons for the physicians who were bypassed. He afforded special weight to 

the opinion of Dr. Rosenfeld, finding that the physician provided sufficient supportive medical 

rationale regarding his conclusion that appellant did not establish a recurrence of disability on 

January 18, 2011, and affirmed the May 22, 2014 decision. 

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 had 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 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 

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 light-duty position or the medical evidence 

establishes that the employee can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden to 

 6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see Theresa L. Andrews, 55 ECAB 719 (2004). 

7 Id. 
9

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 light duty.8 

Section 8123(a) of FECA provides that, if there is disagreement between the physician 

making the examination for the United States and the physician of the employee, the Secretary 

shall appoint a third physician who shall make an examination.9

 The implementing regulation 

states that, if a conflict exists between the medical opinion of the employee’s physician and the 

medical opinion of either a second opinion physician or an OWCP medical adviser, OWCP shall 

appoint a third physician to make an examination. This is called a referee examination, and 

OWCP will select a physician who is qualified in the appropriate specialty and who has no prior 

connection with the case.10 When there exist opposing medical reports of virtually equal weight 

and rationale and the case is referred to an impartial medical specialist for the purpose of 

resolving the conflict, the opinion of such specialist, if sufficiently well rationalized and based 

upon a proper factual background, must be given special weight.11 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish that she sustained a recurrence of 

disability on January 18, 2011 causally related to a February 8, 2010 employment injury. The 

accepted conditions in this case are sprain of back, thoracic region; sprain of back, lumbar 

region; sprain of trapezius, bilateral, and temporary aggravation of degenerative arthritis at L3-4 

and L4-5. 

Following an involved history described above, in April 2014 OWCP determined that a 

conflict in medical evidence had been created between the opinions of appellant’s attending 

physicians and Dr. Valentino regarding whether appellant’s work stoppage in January 2011 was 

caused by the February 8, 2010 injury, whether she still had residuals of the work injury, and 

what were the injury-related diagnoses. OWCP ultimately referred appellant, along with a 

medical conflict statement, a set of questions, a statement of accepted facts, and the medical 

record, to Dr. Rosenfeld, for an impartial evaluation. 

Contrary to the arguments of counsel on appeal, the Board finds that Dr. Rosenfeld’s 

detailed and well reasoned May 7, 2014 report is entitled to the special weight afforded an 

impartial medical examiner.12 In his report, Dr. Rosenfeld advised that there did not appear to be 

a specific event that occurred in January 2011 to explain appellant’s increased complaints such 

that she could not continue to work, noting that she had been working since shortly after the 

February 2010 injury. He voiced his agreement with Dr. Valentino’s opinion that appellant did 

 8 J. F., 58 ECAB 124 (2006); Carl C. Graci, 50 ECAB 557 (1999); Mary G. Allen, 50 ECAB 103 (1998); see 

also Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8123(a); see Y.A., 59 ECAB 701 (2008). 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.321. 

11 V.G., 59 ECAB 635 (2008). 

12 Id. 
10

not sustain a recurrence of disability in January 2011 as a result of the February 8, 2010 injury 

and that she was capable of returning to her previous duties without limitation as regard to the 

injuries sustained on February 8, 2010. Dr. Rosenfeld concluded that all accepted conditions had 

healed and appellant had recovered from the injuries sustained on February 8, 2010, based upon 

the history provided by her, the objective findings noted during his physical examination, and his 

review of the medical record. Based on this report, the Board finds that appellant has not met her 

burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability on January 18, 2011. 

Appellant submitted no additional medical evidence after Dr. Rosenfeld’s report. 

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 establish that she sustained a recurrence of 

disability on January 18, 2011 causally related to her February 8, 2010 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 9, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 15, 2015 

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