United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS, J. STROM THURMOND POWER 

PLANT, Clark Hill, SC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1451 

Issued: December 14, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 6, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from March 28 and June 23, 2016 merit 

decisions 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 a recurrence of disability on June 11, 2015 

caused by a December 1, 2006 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 6, 2007 appellant, then a 55-year-old shift operator, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on December 1, 2006, he injured his right knee while rounding 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

a corner of a desk.2 Appellant did not stop work at that time. On April 12, 2007 Dr. Craig T. 

Kerins, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed arthroscopic repairs of right medial and 

lateral meniscal tears. OWCP accepted right knee medial and lateral meniscal tears on 

May 9, 2007. 

Appellant retired in December 2007. After that time he worked sporadically for the 

employing establishment as a reemployed annuitant in a monitoring position which, by his 

report, did not require standing for long periods. Appellant indicated that he only worked there 

once a year for approximately 30 days. 

Appellant had a second authorized arthroscopic repair of a degenerative tearing of the 

right lateral meniscus on April 20, 2010, done by Dr. Edward M. Crossland, Board-certified in 

orthopedic surgery and an associate of Dr. Kerins. In a July 29, 2010 report, Dr. Crosland 

advised that appellant was deployable for field duty with the employing establishment.3

 OWCP 

paid wage-loss compensation for the period April 20 through July 28, 2010. 

On June 23, 2015 appellant filed a recurrence claim (Form CA-2a). He indicated that the 

recurrence occurred on June 11, 2015 when he stopped work, alleging that right knee pain had 

been increasing over the last few months, and that on June 11, 2015 he turned and his knee 

almost gave out twice. Appellant indicated that from February 2, 2008 to the present he was a 

reemployed annuitant with the Department of Defense as a high voltage electrician, that from 

April 1 to May 1, 2014 he had worked as a salesman at an automobile parts store, and that from 

May 5, 2014 to May 1, 2015 he had worked for a temporary agency at John Deere Commercial 

Products as a maintenance technician performing all repairs and installations. 

In an undated disability slip, Dr. Kerins advised that appellant was seen in his office on 

June 23, 2015 and could return to work on August 5, 2015. 

By letter dated July 21, 2015, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

establish his recurrence claim. This included a narrative medical report from his physician 

describing the objective medical findings that formed the basis of his renewed disability for 

work. 

On July 24, 2015 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for the period 

June 11 to July 25, 2015. 

In a brief report dated August 5, 2015, Dr. Kerins advised that appellant was seen that 

day, was scheduled for surgery, and would be out of work for six to eight weeks following the 

surgery. 

 2

 The record indicates that appellant initially injured his right knee in April 2006 when he was deployed with the 

employing establishment for Hurricane Katrina relief, and that it worsened due to the December 1, 2006 

employment injury. The employing establishment did not challenge the claim. 

3

 Appellant also submitted a disability slip from Dr. Crossland dated May 17, 2010 indicating that appellant could 

not work. In a second disability slip dated October 22, 2010, Dr. Kerins advised that appellant could not work 

beginning November 6, 2009. 
3

In an August 6, 2015 responsive questionnaire, appellant reported that for the past six to 

eight months his knee would give out, and once severe pain caused him to fall. He explained 

that knee pain and locking steadily increased. Appellant indicated that from May 2014 to 

May 2015 his job required walking and use of hands to make repairs. 

By decision dated September 1, 2015, OWCP found that the medical evidence of record 

failed to establish that the claimed condition was a result of his federal employment and denied 

the recurrence claim. 

In a report dated June 24, 2015, received by OWCP on September 3, 2015, Dr. Kerins 

noted appellant’s complaint of a six-month history of significant recurrent right knee pain, 

associated with intermittent locking, popping, and swelling. He described appellant’s past 

surgical care. Dr. Kerins provided physical examination findings and recommended a right knee 

MRI scan. A July 23, 2015 MRI scan of the right knee demonstrated early osteoarthritic changes 

and an oblique tear to the posterior horn and body of the lateral meniscus. On August 5, 2015 

Dr. Kerins noted his review of the MRI scan. He reported effusion, collateral compartment pain, 

and a very positive lateral McMurray’s sign on examination of the right knee. Dr. Kerins 

diagnosed derangement of the posterior horn of the right lateral meniscus and recommended 

arthroscopic repair. 

On September 21, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. He advised that he had been 

employed as a maintenance technician, working an average of 10 hours a day six days a week, 

from May 2014 to April 2015, and that he was still listed with the employing establishment as a 

reemployed annuitant but that, due to the problems with his right knee, he could not be deployed. 

Appellant stated that he continued to work wearing a knee brace until an MRI scan demonstrated 

an actual tear. 

In a merit decision dated December 4, 2015, OWCP denied modification. It found the 

medical evidence of record insufficient, noting that Dr. Kerins did not address how appellant’s 

current knee condition and need for surgery were directly related to the December 1, 2006 

employment injury. 

On March 17, 2016 appellant again requested reconsideration. He reiterated that his 

current condition was caused by the employment injury and submitted a February 18, 2016 

operative report in which Dr. Kerins described right knee arthroscopic chondroplasty and lateral 

meniscectomy. The postoperative diagnosis was torn lateral meniscus, right knee, and 

significant degenerative arthritis. On February 24, 2016 Dr. Kerins referred appellant for 

physical therapy. 

In a merit decision dated March 28, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its prior 

decisions, finding that the medical evidence of record remained insufficient because it failed to 

establish causal relationship between appellant’s present disability and the December 1, 2006 

employment injury. 

Appellant again requested reconsideration on April 18, 2016. He submitted an April 14, 

2016 report in which Dr. Kerins described a history that appellant originally injured his right leg 

in 2006 while deployed to help with recovery from Hurricane Katrina and that, after conservative 
4

measures failed, in 2007 he had arthroscopic repair of medial and lateral meniscal tears. 

Dr. Kerins advised that, in April 2010, appellant had recurrent surgery for a recurrent lateral 

meniscal tear, and that finally he had a third operative procedure on February 18, 2016 where 

Dr. Kerins excised a complex lateral meniscal tear. He noted that appellant was found to have 

significant degenerative arthritis at surgery. Dr. Kerins opined that this was primarily a posttraumatic arthritis associated with damage to the right knee that began with the 2006 

employment injury. He reported that appellant’s deployment activities included significant 

walking, sometimes over uneven terrain, and climbing ladders. Dr. Kerins advised that appellant 

could not currently perform these duties due to right knee damage and was permanently 

restricted to light duty. He concluded that appellant would be a candidate for total knee 

replacement at some time in the future. 

In a merit decision dated June 23, 2016, OWCP again denied modification. It reviewed 

Dr. Kerins’ April 14, 2016 report and found it insufficient to modify the prior decision because 

he failed to provide sufficient medical rationale to support that the December 1, 2006 

employment injury caused or aggravated appellant’s current right knee condition. 

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.”4

 An individual person who claims a recurrence of disability due to an 

accepted employment-related injury has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, 

reliable, and probative evidence that the disability for which he or she claims compensation is 

causally related to the accepted injury. This burden of proof requires that an employee furnish 

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 the employment injury 

and supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.5 Where no such rationale is present, 

medical evidence is of diminished probative value.6

ANALYSIS 

On December 1, 2006 OWCP accepted employment-related medial and lateral meniscal 

tears of the right knee. On April 12, 2007 Dr. Kerins performed arthroscopic repair of both 

meniscal tears, and on April 20, 2010 Dr. Crossland repaired a degenerative tear of the lateral 

meniscus. 

Appellant filed a recurrence claim on June 23, 2015. He reported that right knee pain had 

increased over the past months and that the recurrence of disability occurred on June 11, 2015 

when his knee gave out. 

 4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); R.S., 58 ECAB 362 (2007). 

5

 S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008). 

6

 See Ronald C. Hand, 49 ECAB 113 (1997). 
5

Medical evidence of bridging symptoms must demonstrate that the claimed recurrence is 

causally related to the accepted injury.7

 In this case, appellant reported that, from February 2, 

2008 to the present, he was a reemployed annuitant with the Department of Defense as a high 

voltage electrician, that from April 1 to May 1, 2014 he worked as a salesman at an automobile 

parts store, and that from May 5, 2014 to May 1, 2015 he worked for a temporary agency at John 

Deere Commercial Products as a maintenance technician performing all repairs and installations, 

and that this job required walking and use of hands to make repairs, and he worked an average of 

10 hours a day for six days a week. 

There are no medical reports of record between Dr. Crossland’s July 29, 2010 report 

advising that appellant could return to work and the brief June 23, 2015 note in which Dr. Kerins 

advised that appellant was seen that day. Dr. Kerins performed a third arthroscopic repair of 

appellant’s right lateral meniscus on February 18, 2016. Postoperative diagnoses included 

significant degenerative arthritis. Dr. Kerins did not address the cause of appellant’s current 

knee condition until April 14, 2016 when he reported a history that appellant originally injured 

his right leg in December 2006 while deployed to help with recovery from Hurricane Katrina8

and that, after conservative measures failed, in 2007 he had arthroscopic repair of medial and 

lateral meniscal tears. He described appellant’s surgical history, noting that he found significant 

degenerative arthritis in 2016 surgery. Dr. Kerins opined that this was primarily post-traumatic 

arthritis associated with damage to the right knee that began with the December 1, 2006 

employment injury. While he reported that appellant’s deployment activities included significant 

walking, sometimes over uneven terrain, and climbing ladders, Dr. Kerins did not indicate 

whether this was in regard to his work duties prior to retirement or those that he did for brief 

periods each year as a reemployed annuitant. Moreover, he did not reflect an awareness of or 

comment on the significance of appellant’s outside employment. 

The Board has long held that medical reports must be based on a complete and accurate 

factual and medical background, and medical opinions based on an incomplete or inaccurate 

history are of little probative value.9 An individual who claims a recurrence of disability due to 

an accepted employment-related injury has the burden of establishing by the weight of the 

substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that the disability for which he or she claims 

compensation is causally related to the accepted injury.10 Appellant did not submit sufficient 

evidence to show that the claimed recurrence and disability were causally related to the 

December 1, 2006 employment injury.11

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. 

 7 Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001). 

8 Supra note 2. 

9 Douglas M. McQuaid, 52 ECAB 382 (2001). 

10 Supra note 6. 

11 Id. 
6

CONCLUSION 

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

disability on June 11, 2015 caused by a December 1, 2006 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 23 and March 28, 2016 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: December 14, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board