United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Detroit, MI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1513 

Issued: March 2, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 6, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 22, 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 appellant has established disability for the periods November 16 to 

20, 2013 and February 15, 2014 and continuing causally related to her accepted April 16, 2013 

employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the January 22, 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)(1); Sandra D. Pruitt, 

57 ECAB 126 (2005). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 16, 2013 appellant, then a 54-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 16, 2013 she was casing mail when she fell down on 

her side and sustained injuries to her hip and back. At that time, she was working modified duty 

as a result of a previous employment-related back injury.3

 Appellant continued to work with 

restrictions. OWCP administratively paid medical expenses for the injury because there was no 

time loss from work. 

On January 27, 2014 appellant filed a recurrence of disability claim (Form CA-2a) 

alleging that on November 16, 2013 she sustained a recurrence of her April 16, 2013 

employment injury. She stated that she had previously been placed on work restrictions of 

limited walking and climbing and that her right hip injury required essentially the same 

restrictions. Appellant explained that her right hip gradually worsened so she made an 

appointment with her doctor. She noted that on November 16, 2013 her doctor ordered 

additional restrictions of no driving over 10 miles. Appellant asserted that management could 

not accommodate these restrictions and sent her home. She returned to work on 

November 20, 2013. 

OWCP advised appellant that as the original claim had not been fully developed, it would 

develop the initial claim. In an April 16, 2013 report, Dr. Robert Bowen, a Board-certified 

internist, related that she was at work when she fell and injured her back, right hip, and buttocks. 

He noted examination findings of swelling, tenderness, and limited range of motion. Straight leg 

raise testing was negative bilaterally. Dr. Bowen indicated that an x-ray of the lumbar spine 

revealed no acute fracture. He diagnosed lumbar strain and right hip contusion. Dr. Bowen 

authorized appellant to work modified duty on April 22, 2013 with restrictions of no repetitive 

motion, no kneeling or squatting, no climbing stairs or ladders, and no lifting, pushing, or pulling 

over 10 pounds. He also submitted an attending physician’s report and discharge summary. 

The record contains a job offer dated April 16, 2013 for a modified full-time city letter 

carrier position. The duties required standing for two hours, sitting for six hours, and casing and 

hub work for two hours each. The modified position required reaching above the shoulder, 

simple grasping, bending, stooping, fine manipulation, and driving for up to eight hours. 

On November 12, 2013 appellant accepted a different modified job offer, under protest. 

The duties required picking up Express Mail for one to two hours. The physical requirements 

were stated as driving for one to two hours, lifting 10 pounds for less than one hour, standing and 

walking for less than an hour. 

According to a November 12, 2013 Web Electronic Search Process (WebESP) computer 

screen printout, appellant and her supervisor acknowledged, with their signatures, that work was 

not selected for her because it exceeded her restrictions. 

 3

 The record reveals that OWCP accepted a traumatic injury claim for a February 25, 2002 crush injury of the left 

foot and left ankle sprain (File No. xxxxxx757). OWCP also accepted a September 15, 2004 injury for right wrist 

and ankle injury, (File No.xxxxxx345) and a February 12, 2008 injury for lumbar strain (File No. xxxxxx941). 
3

Appellant came under the treatment of Dr. Linda Shu, a Board-certified internist, who in 

a November 15, 2013 report, indicated that appellant should work with restrictions of no lifting 

greater than 10 pounds, no repetitive bending or stooping, and no driving more than 10 miles, for 

the next three months due to hip pain. 

On December 17, 2013 appellant accepted under protest a modified job offer as a mail 

carrier with duties of casing mail for half an hour to one hour and pulling down a route for half 

an hour. The physical requirements of the position involved bending, stooping, kneeling, 

pushing, pulling, standing, and walking for 1 hour and lifting less than 10 pounds for 45 minutes. 

In a January 23, 2014 report, Dr. Shu opined that appellant should be off work from 

January 23 to February 28, 2014. She noted that appellant could return to work on 

March 1, 2014. 

On the back of the recurrence claim form, appellant’s supervisor, Michelle Lewis, noted a 

date of injury of February 12, 2008. She explained that after the original injury appellant worked 

under restrictions which only allowed her to work for 2.5 hours before being placed on stand-by 

time.4

 The supervisor related that on April 16, 2013 appellant sustained an accident at work 

when she tripped and fell. Appellant continued to work her modified-duty job of working 2.5 

hours and then stand-by time. Ms. Lewis related that appellant brought in new restrictions that 

she could not drive more than 10 miles and could not work more than one hour, therefore, a new 

job offer was provided. She explained that the recurrence did not occur until November 12, 2013 

when job searches through WebESP were started and appellant was sent home because of her 

restrictions and hours of work. Ms. Lewis noted that appellant did not believe that her back 

condition had changed, but that because of her April 16, 2013 work incident she needed new 

restrictions. She explained that the employing establishment continued to do work searches, but 

appellant was currently off work due to her restrictions. 

On February 24, 2014 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of the lumbosacral 

joint ligament and contusion of the right hip. 

By second letter dated February 24, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that if she were 

claiming a recurrence of disability, she would need to demonstrate that she sustained a 

spontaneous change in her accepted employment injury without an intervening injury or new 

exposure to factors causing the original injury or a withdrawal of a light-duty assignment made 

specifically to accommodate her condition due to the work-related injury. It requested that she 

submit additional evidence to establish her claim. 

On March 10 and April 8, 2014 appellant also requested disability compensation for the 

period February 15 to April 4, 2014 due to the April 16, 2013 employment injury. 

 4

 There is evidence in the record that suggests appellant had been offered the April 16, 2013 position due to a 

May 14, 2012 prearbitration settlement. She started work in that position on April 16, 2013. Appellant stopped 

work on November 16 until 20, 2013. 
4

By letter dated March 12, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that it had received her claim 

for disability compensation for the period beginning February 16, 2014. It advised her to refer to 

the February 24, 2014 letter for evidence necessary to establish her recurrence claim. 

In an April 3, 2014 report, Dr. Shu related that she had examined appellant on April 17, 

2013 after appellant injured her back and right hip at work. She noted that appellant had a 

history of chronic back pain due to previous work injuries. Upon examination, Dr. Shu observed 

decreased range of motion in appellant’s lower back and paraspinal muscles and weakness in her 

right leg. She reported that an October 15, 2013 x-ray of the hip revealed osteoarthritis of the 

hip, right greater than left. Dr. Shu indicated that appellant could not stand for long periods of 

time and could not bend or lift due to pain, which was required for her work duties. She 

concluded that appellant continued to be unable to work. 

In a decision dated April 25, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for recurrence of 

disability for the periods November 16 to 20, 2013 and February 16, 2014 and continuing as the 

evidence failed to establish disability due to a change or worsening of her accepted employment 

conditions. It noted that Dr. Shu’s April 3, 2014 report diagnosed appellant with osteoarthritis of 

appellant’s hips, and lumbar back pain and radiculopathy, likely secondary to neural foraminal 

compression, sacroilitis, and facet arthropathy, which were not accepted conditions. 

On April 29, 2014 appellant, through her representative, disagreed with the decision and 

requested a telephone hearing before an OWCP hearing representative of the Branch of Hearings 

and Review. 

Appellant continued to receive treatment from Dr. Shu. In reports dated August 29 to 

November 24, 2014, Dr. Shu noted that appellant had diagnoses of low back pain and right hip 

pain. She reported that appellant could not work from August 29, 2014 to January 12, 2015, but 

could return to work on January 13, 2015. 

On November 12, 2014 a telephone hearing was held. Appellant’s representative 

participated and testified that appellant had sustained three back injuries in her work history and 

described them. He related how she initially had a job offer dated April 16, 2013 that provided 

for four hours of work. On November 12, 2013 appellant’s job was modified to allow for one to 

two hours of work that involved a single driving errand. Appellant’s representative explained 

that this job offer was not included in the file, but he provided it for the record. He stated that 

the employing establishment withdrew all work from appellant between November 16 to 20, 

2013 due to the implementation of a new WebESP that allowed for management to search for 

work for injured persons on line rather than directly. Appellant’s representative also alleged that 

appellant had a valid recurrence claim under ECAB decision Terry R. Hedman.

5

 He pointed out 

that the employing establishment clearly looked through work previously assigned in April 2013 

and tried to find work on November 12, 2013 as a direct consequence of WebESP. The 

representative noted, however, that later appellant’s doctor disabled appellant in April 3, 2013 

and January 23, 2014 medical reports. He further asserted that her claim had been improperly 

developed. 

 5

 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 
5

Upon direct examination, appellant explained that she was working limited duty due to a 

prior back injury when she was reinjured on April 16, 2013. She continued to work the same job 

she had been working until November 12, 2013 when the employing establishment changed her 

job offer. The hearing representative questioned whether the employing establishment changed 

the job because they were trying to accommodate work restrictions in this present case or one of 

appellant’s previous cases. Appellant stated that she worked the modified job offer until 

November 16, 2013 when the employing establishment informed her that they did not have any 

work to accommodate her restrictions. The hearing representative noted that it was unclear 

whether she was claiming disability due to her present condition changing and worsening, or 

whether she was claiming disability because the employing establishment withdrew a job 

assignment created to accommodate a previously accepted back injury. Appellant responded that 

when she returned to work on November 20, 2013 she returned to the job that was changed on 

November 12, 2013. She stopped working in January 2014 because her hip condition was 

worsening the longer that she stood. Appellant noted that the buildings had concrete floors and 

that when she stood to case the mail she had to walk and get mail and then return. 

In a December 3, 2014 report, Dr. Shu noted that appellant had been a patient for many 

years for diagnoses of chronic low back pain, herniated disc, degenerative spondylosis, bilateral 

hip arthritis, sacroiliac joint pain, trochanteric bursitis, and history of vertebral fracture. She 

explained that because of these chronic conditions, which caused constant lower back and leg 

pain, appellant was unable to sit for more than a couple of hours, to stand for more than 30 

minutes, and to walk for more than a few blocks. Dr. Shu reported that this made it impossible 

for appellant to do full duty as a city letter carrier. Examination of appellant’s low back revealed 

tenderness over her paraspinal muscles in the lower lumbar area, sacroiliac joints, and in her 

groin. Dr. Shu observed that range of motion was decreased to approximately 75 degrees due to 

pain. She explained that appellant’s conditions were chronic despite treatments such as physical 

therapy, pain medications, and injections and would continue to limit appellant’s ability to do 

full work as a city letter carrier ever in the future. 

By decision dated January 22, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

April 25, 2014 denial decision, finding that appellant had failed to establish a recurrence of 

disability. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA bears the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the evidence. For each period of disability 

claimed, the employee must establish that she was disabled for work as a result of the accepted 

employment injury.6 

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. This term also means an inability to work that takes place when a light-

 6 Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 
6

duty assignment made specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to his 

or her work-related injury or illness is withdrawn or when the physical requirements of such an 

assignment are altered so that they exceed his or her established physical limitations.7 Appellant 

has the burden of establishing by the weight of the substantial, reliable and probative evidence, a 

causal relationship between her recurrence of disability commencing April 2012 and her 

accepted employment injury.8

 This burden includes the necessity of furnishing 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 employment factors and supports that 

conclusion with sound medical reasoning.9

Whether a particular injury causes an employee to become disabled for work and the 

duration of that disability are medical issues that must be proved by a preponderance of reliable, 

probative, and substantial medical opinion evidence.10 Findings on examination and a 

physician’s opinion, supported by medical rationale, are needed to show how the injury caused 

the employee disability for her particular work.11 For each period of disability claimed, the 

employee must establish that she was disabled for work as a result of the accepted employment 

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

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

claimed. To do so would essentially allow an employee to self-certify his or her disability and 

entitlement to compensation.12

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on April 16, 2013 appellant sustained a lumbar sprain and right hip 

contusion as a result of falling down at work. Appellant continued to work modified duty. She 

stopped work on November 16, 2013 and returned to work on November 20, 2013. Appellant 

requested disability compensation for that period alleging that she was sent home because 

management did not accommodate her restrictions. She further claimed a recurrence of 

disability as of February 15, 2014 and continuing. 

The Board finds that appellant failed to establish that she was unable to work from 

November 16 to 20, 2013 due to her April 16, 2013 work injury. The only medical evidence of 

record that addresses this time period is a November 15, 2013 report by Dr. Shu, who noted that 

appellant should work with restrictions of no lifting greater than 10 pounds, no repetitive 

bending or stooping, and no driving more than 10 miles. She noted that these restrictions were 

due to appellant’s hip pain. Dr. Shu did not provide any objective evidence that these restrictions 

were necessary due to appellant’s accepted April 16, 2013 employment injury. Work restrictions 

 7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

8 Dominic M. Descaled, 37 ECAB 369, 372 (1986); Bobby Melton, 33 ECAB 1305, 1308-09 (1982). 

9 See Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138, 1140 (1982). 

10 Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004). 

11 Dean E. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989). 

12 Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 10. 
7

must be based upon objective evidence, not subjective complaints.13 While the employing 

establishment was unable to offer appellant work within these restrictions, she did not establish 

that these restrictions were required due to the April 16, 2013 employment injury. The Board 

also notes that Dr. Shu did not report that appellant was totally disabled from work, but rather 

that she required work restrictions. Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has not 

established disability from November 16 to 20, 2013 as a result of her original April 16, 2013 

employment injury. 

Appellant also alleged that she was disabled from work beginning February 15, 2014 

because her hip condition had worsened to the extent that she was no longer able to work 

modified duty. The Board finds that she has failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to 

establish disability as a result of the original April 16, 2013 accepted employment injury. 

Appellant submitted various medical reports dated January 23 to April 3, 2014 from 

Dr. Shu, which noted the April 16, 2013 work injury. Dr. Shu reviewed appellant’s history of 

chronic back pain, provided findings on examination, and reported that appellant could not stand 

for long periods of time and could not bend or lift due to pain. In a January 23, 2014 report, she 

concluded that appellant was unable to work from January 23 to February 28, 2014. In reports 

dated August 29 to November 29, 2014, Dr. Shu noted appellant’s diagnoses of low back and 

right hip pain and opined that appellant remained unable to work. On December 3, 2014 she 

reported that appellant had received treatment for diagnoses of chronic low back pain, herniated 

disc, degenerative spondylosis, bilateral hip arthritis, sacroiliac joint pain, trochanteric bursitis, 

and history of vertebral fracture. Dr. Shu explained that because of these chronic conditions, 

which caused constant lower back and leg pain, appellant was unable to sit for more than a 

couple of hours, to stand for more than 30 minutes, and to walk for more than a few blocks. She 

reported that this made it impossible for appellant to do full duty as a city letter carrier. 

The Board notes that Dr. Shu provided an accurate history and findings on examination. 

Dr. Shu noted that appellant had received treatment for various conditions including low back 

pain, herniated disc, degenerative spondylosis, bilateral hip arthritis, sacroiliac joint pain, 

trochanteric bursitis, and history of vertebral fracture. She explained that due to appellant’s 

restrictions she was unable to work as a city letter carrier. The Board notes that Dr. Shu 

attributed appellant’s disability to various conditions, but not to the specified accepted conditions 

from the April 16, 2013 employment injury. The Board has found that, when a claimant stops 

work for reasons unrelated to the accepted employment injury, there is no disability within the 

meaning of FECA.14 As well, Dr. Shu failed to explain how appellant’s disability from work 

commencing February 15, 2014 was causally related to her April 16, 2013 injury. On the other 

hand, she attributed appellant’s disability to various back and hip conditions. The issue of 

whether a claimant’s disability is related to an accepted condition is a medical question which 

must be established by a physician, who on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and 

medical history, concludes that the disability is causally related to his or her employment injury 

 13 See B.A., Docket No. 13-1257 (issued November 7, 2013). 

14 A.M., Docket No. 09-1895 (issued April 23, 2010). 
8

and supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.15 As these reports fail to meet that 

standard, they are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

On appeal, appellant alleges that she sustained a serious amount of back disability for 

many years, which was exacerbated by her April 16, 2013 work injury. She asserts that her 

doctor clearly documented her current injury, its mechanism of injury as arising from her fall at 

work, and her current disabling diagnoses. As noted above, however, Dr. Shu’s reports fail to 

adequately explain how appellant was disabled from November 16 to 20, 2013 and beginning 

February 15, 2014 as a result of the accepted April 16, 2013 employment injury. 

Further, the Board finds that appellant’s light-duty position was not withdrawn due to her 

work-related condition; rather it was additional nonwork related restrictions which required the 

position to be withdrawn.16 

Therefore, the Board finds that appellant has failed to establish a recurrence of disability 

from November 16 to 20, 2013 and from February 15, 2014 and continuing causally related to 

the original April 16, 2013 employment injury.

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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 a recurrence of disability from 

November 16 to 20, 2013 and from February 15, 2014 and continuing as a result of her April 16, 

2013 employment injury. 

 15 V.L., Docket No. 12-1444 (issued November 27, 2012); see also R.D., Docket No. 11-1551 (issued 

August 8, 2012). 

16 Supra note 7. 
9

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 22, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 2, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board