United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New Baltimore, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0922 

Issued: September 22, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 1, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 8, 2016 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. 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 April 6, 2015 due 

to the accepted February 5, 2015 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 6, 2015 appellant, then a 51-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed neck and shoulder pain as a result of 

approaching mailboxes in excessive snow, as well as reaching and twisting to reach mailboxes. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

She stated that she first became aware of the condition and its relationship to her employment on 

February 5, 2015. 

In a note dated February 12, 2015, a person with an illegible signature stated that 

appellant could return to light-duty work for four hours per day over the next week. 

In an unsigned duty status report (Form CA-17) dated February 12, 2015, an unidentified 

person indicated that appellant was not advised to resume work and could not perform the 

regular duties of her employment. 

By letter dated March 2, 2015, Dr. Robert A. Chang, a Board-certified internist, and 

Dr. John R. Santa Ana, an osteopath, reported that appellant was unable to work until she 

received an epidural injection from Dr. Santa Ana. The physicians further noted that appellant 

would be unable to work for two days following the injection. 

In a report dated March 31, 2015, Dr. Chang reviewed appellant’s medical history and 

results of diagnostic testing. He diagnosed her with cervical fusion, moderately advanced 

spondylitic changes, and spinal cord stenosis. Dr. Chang noted that given her symptoms and the 

fact that these symptoms were exacerbated by her work responsibilities, she could not work 

regular duties without worsening her condition. He further noted that appellant’s ability to return 

to work would depend on future visits with Dr. Santa Ana. 

In a record of telephone conversation dated March 31, 2015, an OWCP representative 

documented that appellant had returned to work on March 30, 2015 with no restrictions. 

By letter dated April 2, 2015, appellant notified OWCP that she had received an epidural 

injection on March 27, 2015 and returned to work on March 30, 2015. 

In a record of a telephone conversation dated April 8, 2015, an OWCP representative 

noted that appellant had stopped work as of April 6, 2015. Appellant had worked for 1 hour and 

20 minutes on April 6, 2015 and stopped work allegedly due to her work injury. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated April 16, 2015, Dr. Santa Ana noted that 

appellant was unable to perform regular duties of her federal employment. He recommended 

work restrictions of lifting no more than 10 pounds continuously or 25 pounds intermittently for 

no more than four hours per day, pulling and pushing of no more than four hours per day, and 

reaching above the shoulder no more than four hours per day. 

By decision dated May 18, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It noted that she had 

not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between duties of her 

federal employment and her diagnosed conditions. 

On June 1, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s May 18, 2015 decision. 

In a report dated May 28, 2015, Dr. Santa Ana diagnosed appellant with failed neck 

syndrome, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical stenosis of the spine. He performed an epidural 

steroid injection to appellant’s neck, noting that, while this treatment offered relief, the pain 

would return when she resumed her duties as a mail carrier. Dr. Santa Ana concluded that 
3

appellant was disabled from any form of work requiring lifting or overhead activities between 

the dates of February 26 to May 28, 2015. He noted that appellant was able to return to work as 

of May 28, 2015 with restrictions of no lifting of objects weighing more than 10 pounds; no 

excessive bending, twisting, or prolonged standing; and no overhead activities. 

By decision dated August 28, 2015, OWCP declined to modify its May 18, 2015 decision 

finding that Dr. Santa Ana’s May 28, 2015 report did not contain a sufficiently rationalized 

explanation of the causal connection between appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions and the 

physical duties of her federal employment. 

On November 19, 2015 appellant, through a representative, requested reconsideration of 

OWCP’s August 28, 2015 decision. Appellant submitted a letter dated September 24, 2015, in 

which Dr. Santa Ana noted that appellant had current restrictions of no overhead activities, no 

lifting more than 15 pounds, and no bending or twisting. He noted that appellant’s repetitive 

neck movements, upper extremity lifting maneuvers, and carrying mail and packages had 

aggravated appellant’s preexisting cervical fusion at C5-7. 

By letter dated November 12, 2015, Dr. Santa Ana noted that appellant was currently 

being treating for neck pain related to an aggravation of prior cervical fusion and stenosis 

directly related to her position as a postal employee. He noted that her cervical spinal stenosis 

and aggravation of cervical fusion were attributable to duties of persistent reaching and twisting 

to reach mailboxes; looking up, down, left, and right while lifting trays of mail; bundling mail; 

and loading tubs of mail into her postal vehicle. Dr. Santa Ana provided the diagnoses of failed 

neck syndrome and cervical spinal stenosis. 

By decision dated November 24, 2015, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for 

aggravation of a cervical post laminectomy syndrome and aggravation of cervical spinal stenosis. 

In December 1, 2015 appellant submitted claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for 

intermittent leave without pay from February 2 through December 11, 2015. The case record 

documents that appellant received supplemental rolls benefits from February 2 to 

March 20, 2015. 

By letter dated October 29, 2015, Dr. Santa Ana recommended work restrictions of no 

lifting of objects over 10 pounds; no bending, twisting, or squatting; and no overhead activities. 

In a record of a telephone conversation dated December 18, 2015, appellant stated that 

Dr. Chang released her to full duties in March 2015, until she stopped work on April 6, 2015. 

By letter dated December 18, 2015, OWCP notified appellant that she had not submitted 

sufficient evidence to establish a recurrence of disability on April 6, 2015. It informed her that 

her claims for compensation appeared to be a claim for recurrence, because she returned to fullduty work on March 30, 2015. OWCP noted that the evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish her claim because Dr. Santa Ana’s predominant finding was pain. 

On January 7, 2016 appellant, through a representative, responded to OWCP’s letter 

dated December 18, 2015. In an attached letter of the same date, Dr. Santa Ana noted that 

appellant had a history of cervical fusion that was aggravated by her repetitive work, lifting, and 
4

other work-related activities. He noted that on March 27, 2016 he performed a cervical epidural 

injection to address her pain and neuropathy. After returning to work at full duty two days after 

the injection, Dr. Santa Ana noted that it was apparent that appellant would be unable to perform 

some duties of her federal employment due to neck pain and persistent upper extremity 

weakness. He noted that she was put back on restrictions on April 6, 2015, and be recommended 

no bending, lifting, or twisting activities. Dr. Santa Ana noted that due to the nature of her 

position, repetitive head, neck, and upper arm movements would aggravate her prior cervical 

fusion, causing symptoms of radiculopathy and stenosis. He concluded, “Her condition will not 

allow her to continue with her current and similar occupation.” 

By decision dated March 8, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for recurrence of 

disability as of April 6, 2015. It noted that Dr. Santa Ana’s predominant finding was pain, and 

that he failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating a material change or worsening in the 

nature or extent of her accepted conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Under FECA,2

 the term disability is defined as incapacity, because of employment injury, 

to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.3 Disability is not 

synonymous with a physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn the 

wages. An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment 

injury, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn wages he or she was receiving at the time of 

injury, has no disability as that term is used in FECA.4

OWCP’s procedures recognize that if an alleged recurrence occurs less than 90 days after 

a return to light or full duty, the claimant is not required to produce the same evidence as for a 

recurrence claimed long after apparent recovery and return to work. Therefore, in cases where 

recurring disability for work is claimed within 90 days or less from the first return to duty, the 

focus is on disability rather than causal relationship.5 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for aggravation of cervical post laminectomy 

syndrome and aggravation of cervical spinal stenosis on November 24, 2015. Appellant filed 

claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for leave without pay between February 2 and 

December 11, 2015. OWCP found that appellant had not established her claim for recurrence 

commencing April 6, 2015, after a return to work at full duty on March 30, 2015. 

 2 Id.

3 See Prince E. Wallace, 52 ECAB 357, 358 (2001). 

4 Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999); Maxine J. Sanders, 46 ECAB 835, 840 (1995). 

5

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.5(a) (June 2013). See R.C., 

Docket No. 12-1879 (issued March 21, 2013). 
5

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish a 

recurrence of disability on April 6, 2015. 

The record establishes that appellant returned to work on March 30, 2015 with no 

restrictions. Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Chang dated March 2 and 31, 2015. In his 

March 31, 2015 report, Dr. Chang related that appellant could not work regular duty without 

worsening her condition, but he conceded that appellant’s ability to return to work would depend 

on future visits with Dr. Santa Ana. He did not relate appellant’s inability to work to the 

accepted employment conditions.6

 Dr. Chang’s reports are therefore of reduced probative value 

regarding appellant’s disability status after April 6, 2015 as his opinion was contingent upon the 

medical opinion of Dr. Santa Ana. 

In a letter dated January 7, 2016, Dr. Santa Ana stated that appellant had a history of 

cervical fusion that was aggravated by her repetitive work, lifting, and other work-related 

activities. He noted that on March 27, 2016 he performed a cervical epidural injection to address 

her pain and neuropathy. After returning to work at full duty two days after the injection, 

Dr. Santa Ana noted that it was apparent that appellant would be unable to perform some duties 

of her federal employment due to neck pain and persistent upper extremity weakness. He noted 

that she was put back on restrictions on April 6, 2015, recommending no bending, lifting, or 

twisting activities. Dr. Santa Ana noted that, due to the nature of her position, repetitive head, 

neck, and upper arm movements would aggravate her prior cervical fusion, causing symptoms of 

radiculopathy and stenosis. He opined, “Her condition will not allow her to continue with her 

current and similar occupation.” 

While Dr. Santa Ana’s letter of January 7, 2016 noted that appellant was placed on 

restrictions from work on April 6, 2015, he merely noted appellant’s neck pain and upper 

extremity weakness, and then concluded that continued work would aggravate her prior cervical 

fusion. His restrictions are thus found to be prophylactic in nature. However, restrictions 

premised only on a fear of future injury are not compensable under FECA.7

The Board also notes that Dr. Santa Ana did not explain why he had released appellant to 

full duty as of March 30, 2015, but then concluded that appellant could not perform her work 

duties as of April 6, 2015. As such, the Board finds that Dr. Santa Ana’s reports of record are 

insufficient to establish a recurrence of total disability. 

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of 

any medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation 

is claimed. To do so would essentially allow employees to self-certify their disability and 

entitlement to compensation.8

 6

 The Board has found that medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s 

condition is of limited probative value of the issue of causal relationship. See W.S., Docket No. 15-0602 (issued 

August 11, 2016); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

7 See C.L., Docket No. 16-0004 (issued June 14, 2016). 

8 L.F., Docket No. 15-1069 (August 12, 2015). 
6

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 and 

20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence 

of disability beginning April 6, 2015. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 8, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 22, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board