United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Laguna Hills, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1362 

Issued: October 17, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Sally LaMacchia, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 28, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 16, 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 has established an employment-related disability for the 

period November 20, 2009 to February 25, 2010 and the period commencing March 13, 2010. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 20, 2001 appellant, then a 59-year-old distribution clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging a back injury on that date while unloading mail from a truck. 

OWCP accepted the claim for a lumbar sprain. Appellant returned to work in a light-duty 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

position. He continued to receive some treatment for a lumbar condition. In a report dated 

May 18, 2006, Dr. Archie Mays, an orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed cervical and lumbar 

sprain/strain, with upper and lower extremity radiculopathy. 

On November 9, 2009 appellant submitted an October 27, 2009 letter from the employing 

establishment advising appellant that following the guidelines of the National Reassessment 

Process (NRP), no light duty was available. He filed a Form CA-2a claim for a recurrence of 

disability commencing October 27, 2009.2

 Appellant submitted a duty status report (Form 

CA-17) dated October 15, 2009 from Dr. Mays indicating that appellant was disabled for work. 

In a November 18, 2009 Form CA-17, Dr. Mays diagnosed a bilateral upper extremity 

strain/sprain and checked a box “yes” that appellant was able to perform regular work. By Form 

CA-17 dated December 17, 2009, Dr. Mays indicated that appellant could work with lifting 

restrictions of 10 to 15 pounds, with no bending, pulling or pushing. He diagnosed cervical and 

lumbar sprain/strains. 

By decision dated December 9, 2009, OWCP accepted a recurrence of disability on 

October 15, 2009. Appellant filed CA-7 claims for compensation commencing November 20, 

2009 through April 23, 2010. The record indicates that appellant was paid compensation from 

October 15 to November 17, 2009, and February 27 to March 12, 2010. There is no indication 

OWCP issued a final decision denying any period of claimed compensation. 

In a letter dated January 28, 2013, appellant, through his representative, requested 

reconsideration. He referred to a claim for carpal tunnel syndrome as well as the current file, and 

argued that he was entitled to compensation as of April 22, 2009. Appellant noted that he was 

sent home in 2009 pursuant to NRP. 

By letter dated April 8, 2014, OWCP advised appellant to submit additional evidence 

with respect to claims for compensation commencing November 20, 2009. In a decision dated 

May 16, 2014, appellant denied claims for compensation from November 20, 2009 to 

February 25, 2010, and from March 13, 2010 and continuing. With respect to the period 

November 20, 2009 to February 25, 2010, OWCP stated that the employing establishment “did 

not certify the CA-7a form for this period because you were released to full duty as of 

November 18, 2009. Second, there was no contemporaneous evidence from your agency 

certifying that work was not made available to you due to your work restrictions related to the 

February 10, 2001 work injury.” As to the period commencing March 13, 2010, OWCP found 

there was no narrative medical report showing disability related to the employment injury. It did 

not discuss any specific medical evidence of record. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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 of 

record establishes that he or she can perform the light-duty position, the employee has the burden 

 2

 The Board notes that appellant had filed a claim for a finger injury on March 17, 2008 that was accepted for 

trigger finger of the right ring finger. As the Board noted in that claim, appellant underwent surgery on August 19, 

2009 that included a trigger finger release and carpal tunnel release. Docket No. 14-880 (issued June 24, 2014). 
3

to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence a recurrence of total 

disability and show that he or she cannot perform such light duty. As part of this burden, the 

employee must show either a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition or a 

change in the nature and extent of the light-duty requirements.3

 To establish a change in the 

nature and extent of the injury-related condition, there must be probative medical evidence of 

record. The evidence must include a medical opinion, based on a complete and accurate factual 

and medical history, and supported by sound medical reasoning, that the disabling condition is 

causally related to employment factors.4

 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, OWCP issued a May 16, 2014 decision with respect to claims for 

compensation from November 20, 2009 to February 25, 2010 and continuing from 

March 13, 2010. The Board finds that OWCP did not make adequate findings and issues remain 

that require clarification. 

The record indicates that appellant’s light-duty job was withdrawn pursuant to NRP as of 

October 27, 2009. OWCP does not discuss that in its May 16, 2014 decision. There appear to be 

other claims that were filed prior to October 27, 2009,5

 and it is not clear what evidence from 

these claims may be relevant to the issue. For example, as the Board noted in an appeal 

regarding the March 17, 2008 claim for a finger injury, appellant had undergone surgery on 

August 19, 2009. If OWCP has determined that there were no residuals of the accepted lumbar 

injury and the light-duty job appellant was performing as of October 27, 2009 had no 

relationship with the February 20, 2001 employment injury, then they must make such a finding 

and address the relevant evidence on the issue. In the May 16, 2014 decision, OWCP does not 

refer to any specific medical reports of record or discuss other claims. 

If the light-duty job was related to the February 20, 2001 employment injury, and was 

withdrawn pursuant to NRP, then OWCP should follow the guidelines under FECA Bulletin No. 

09-05, which was issued on August 18, 2009. The Board has consistently held that, when a 

light-duty job is withdrawn due to NRP and a claim for a recurrence of disability is filed, OWCP 

should follow the provisions of FECA Bulletin No. 09-05.6

 This bulletin provides guidelines 

regarding the development of the medical evidence on the issue. 

The case will accordingly be remanded to OWCP for further findings and discussion of 

the evidence. After such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it should issue an 

appropriate decision. 

 3 Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); Mary A. Howard, 45 ECAB 646 (1994); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 

222 (1986). 

4 Maurissa Mack, 50 ECAB 498 (1999). 

5

 There was an accepted finger injury based on a March 2008 claim. According to the case record, there were 

five other claims filed from May 2002 to February 2009. 

6 See C.R., Docket No. 12-1757 (issued April 2, 2013). 
4

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds the case is not in posture for decision as OWCP did not properly address 

the issues raised. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated May 16, 2014 is set aside and the case remanded for further 

action consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: October 17, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board