United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TRENTON 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Trenton, NJ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1165 

Issued: September 18, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Aaron B. Aumiller, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 28, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal of a November 5, 

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 to consider the merits of the case. 

On appeal counsel argues that OWCP incorrectly applied the case law and procedure 

manual in denying appellant’s claim for recurrence and requested that appellant’s claim be 

accepted or remanded for additional development. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of 

disability on December 15, 2012 causally related to his March 6, 2012 employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 6, 2012 appellant, then a 59-year-old building equipment mechanic, filed a 

traumatic injury claim, Form CA-1, alleging that on that date he strained his low back while 

securing a motor in the performance of duty. He returned to light duty on March 15, 2012. 

OWCP accepted his claim for lumbar strain on April 25, 2012. 

On July 25, 2012 appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Rikin J. Patel, an osteopath and a 

Board-certified physiatrist, reported that appellant could work with no lifting over 10 pounds, no 

work requiring repetitive or prolonged kneeling, squatting, climbing or ladders, and no repetitive 

or prolonged bending or stooping. Appellant accepted a modified-duty assignment on August 2, 

2012 building routes and building repairs for four hours which required sitting intermittently for 

two hours, walking intermittently for two hours, stooping intermittently for two hours, and 

climbing intermittently for two hours. On August 14, 2012 Dr. Patel noted that appellant 

reported that his level of work had increased with the frequent need to bend and twist which was 

aggravating his back pain. He found lumbar paraspinal muscle spasms and diagnosed chronic 

mechanical back pain with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine and chronic lumbar 

myofascial pain. Dr. Patel found that appellant could perform sedentary duty only. 

On September 7, 2012 appellant accepted a limited-duty position sitting intermittently for 

four hours, walking intermittently for two hours and standing intermittently for two hours 

building routes and performing inventory of parts. 

OWCP authorized a change of physicians and appellant sought treatment from 

Dr. Matthais H. Wiederholz, a Board-certified physiatrist, on October 15, 2012. Dr. Wiederholz 

diagnosed degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc, lumbosacral spondylosis without 

myelopathy, radicular or neuropathic pain, strain of the back, and lumbago. On December 4, 

2012 Dr. Wiederholz reviewed electrodiagnostic studies and found that appellant had right 

L5-S1 radiculopathy. He also examined a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan which 

demonstrated degenerative changes at L3-4 and L4-5 with moderate spinal stenosis. 

Dr. Wiederholz completed a note dated December 13, 2012 and reported that appellant should 

not work to pursue treatment for his employment injuries. He noted that appellant could 

hopefully return to work by the end of January 2013. 

Appellant filed claims for compensation (CA-7 forms) requesting leave without pay 

beginning December 15, 2012. 

On December 20, 2012 Dr. Wiederholz performed an epidural steroid injection at L4-5. 

He examined appellant on January 7, 2013 and found that appellant’s symptoms improved 

following the epidural steroid injection. 

In a letter dated January 22, 2013, OWCP requested that appellant submit evidence 

establishing a change in the nature and extent of his injury-related condition or a change in the 

nature and extent of his light-duty job requirements. 

Appellant filed a recurrence of disability claim (Form CA-2a) on January 23, 2013 

alleging that he stopped work on December 13, 2012 due to his March 6, 2012 employment 
3

injury. He stated that Dr. Wiederholz found he could no longer work on December 13, 2012. 

Appellant stated that he used sick leave from December 13 to 15, 2012 because he was ill due to 

a nonwork-related condition and that December 16, 2012 was the date his actual pay stopped. 

In a note dated January 23, 2013, Dr. Wiederholz reported that appellant underwent an 

additional epidural steroid injection and continued with physical therapy. He recommended that 

appellant remain out of work until February 18, 2013. Dr. Wiederholz examined appellant on 

January 30, 2013 and found that his left side pain had improved, but that appellant was 

experiencing pain down his right leg. He recommended an additional injection, physical therapy, 

and chiropractic treatment. 

In a letter dated January 22, 2013, OWCP requested additional medical evidence in 

support of appellant’s claimed recurrence of total disability. It allowed 30 days for a response. 

By decision dated February 25, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for recurrence of 

total disability, finding that he failed to submit the necessary medical opinion evidence to 

establish that his total disability, beginning on December 13, 2012, was due to his accepted 

employment injury of lumbar strain. It explained that appellant’s work stoppage was attributable 

to nonemployment-related conditions, including an upper respiratory condition. 

Counsel requested an oral hearing from OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review on 

March 7, 2013. In a note dated March 11, 2013, Dr. Wiederholz noted that appellant had 

recently returned to work and that his back pain symptoms had increased. He diagnosed 

degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc, lumbar spondylosis without myelopathy, neuritis, 

radicular and neuropathic pain, strain of the back and lumbago. On April 15, 2013 

Dr. Wiederholz noted that appellant continued to have back pain with occasional radiation down 

the right leg. He opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement with regard 

to his back strain. 

Appellant testified at the oral hearing on June 24, 2013 regarding his treatment with 

Dr. Wiederholz. He stated that the employing establishment did not have enough sedentary work 

for him to do and that he was using leave to make up his hours. Appellant stated that he was 

harassed at work in December 2012 and was not allowed to sit. He alleged that he was sent 

home after only 15 to 30 minutes of work. Appellant stated, “Things were getting really crazy 

there and I was under a lot of stress and I also told Dr. Wiederholz about the stress and about all 

the nonsense and all that and I felt like I needed to be out of work completely.” He stated that 

before December 13, 2012 he was using a combination of sick and annual leave as well as 

requesting compensation for leave without pay from OWCP. Appellant also testified that 

beginning December 13, 2012 he stopped work due to an upper respiratory condition that lasted 

about three days and that December 13, 2012 was not the commencement date of his recurrence 

of total disability as he was already using leave for this illness. 

Following the oral hearing, the employing establishment submitted notes from 

Dr. Wiederholz releasing appellant to return to work at light-duty status on February 25, 2013. 

Dr. Wiederholz then released appellant to return to full duty on February 26, 2013. In a report 

dated July 18, 2013, he noted that appellant had a flare-up of back pain after a return to full duty. 
4

On July 29, 2013 Dr. Wiederholz found that appellant had to stop work requiring further 

treatment. 

By decision dated August 15, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

February 25, 2013 decision, finding that appellant had not submitted sufficient medical evidence 

to establish a recurrence of disability causally related to the accepted March 6, 2012 injury. 

In a report dated March 24, 2014, Dr. Wiederholz described appellant’s March 6, 2012 

employment injury and listed appellant’s diagnoses including lumbar facet syndrome, sacroiliitis, 

degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc, lumbosacral spondylosis without myelopathy, 

neuritis, radicular and neuropathic pain, strain of the back, lumbago, and light-headedness. He 

performed lumbar medial branch blocks on April 16, 2014 which he found had resulted in 

temporary relief of appellant’s pain in a report dated April 23, 2014. Dr. Wiederholz performed 

an additional lumbar medial branch block on June 4, 2014. On June 16, 2014 he noted that 

appellant’s back pain returned to baseline following the June 4, 2014 injection. 

Counsel requested reconsideration on August 14, 2014 and submitted additional medical 

evidence. In a report dated July 25, 2014, Dr. Wiederholz described appellant’s employment 

injury and noted that appellant felt something pop in his back while installing a motor. He noted 

that Dr. Patel diagnosed lumbar strain. Dr. Wiederholz noted that appellant underwent a lumbar 

MRI scan on April 20, 2012 which demonstrated moderate broad-based disc bulges and facet 

hypertrophy with mild-to-moderate bilateral foraminal stenosis at L3-4 and L4-5 with moderate 

central canal stenosis at L4-5. He diagnosed displacement of the lumbar intervertebral disc, 

lumbar radiculopathy, degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc and lumbar spondylosis without 

myelopathy. Dr. Wiederholz opined that the work injury directly caused appellant’s back pain. 

He reported that electrodiagnostic testing confirmed right L5-S1 radiculopathy, and opined that 

this condition should have been accepted as employment related. Dr. Wiederholz stated that, as 

appellant had 60 percent improvement in his pain with the December 20, 2012 L4-5 epidural 

steroid injection, this indicated that the disc bulge was the source of appellant’s pain. He opined 

that appellant’s March 6, 2012 employment injury resulted in two level disc herniations and 

radiculopathy rather than a lumbar strain. Dr. Wiederholz based his opinion on the 

electrodiagnostic testing and the lumbar MRI scan. He alleged that appellant sustained an 

aggravation of his condition on July 18, 2013.2

By decision dated November 5, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its August 15, 2013 

decision finding that appellant had not submitted the necessary medical opinion evidence to 

establish a recurrence of disability causally related to his accepted employment injury of lumbar 

strain. 

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

 2

 Appellant filed a separate traumatic injury claim for an injury on July 18, 2013. 
5

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.3 

 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 

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 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.4 Furthermore, appellant has the burden 

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

relationship between his recurrence of disability and his March 6, 2012 employment injury.5

 

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.6

 Neither the fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship. 

The term disability is defined as the incapacity because of an employment injury to earn 

the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury, i.e., a physical impairment 

resulting in loss of wage-earning capacity.7 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to 

be disabled for employment and the duration of that disability are medical issues which must be 

proved by a preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial medical evidence.8 Findings 

on examination are generally needed to support a physician’s opinion that an employee is 

disabled for work. When a physician’s statements regarding an employee’s ability to work 

consist only of repetition of the employee’s complaints that he or she felt too much pain to work, 

without objective findings of disability being shown, the physician has not presented a medical 

opinion on the issue of disability or a basis for payment of compensation.9

 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 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 

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

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

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

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); see, e.g., Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999) (where appellant had an injury but no 

loss of wage-earning capacity). 

8 See Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001). 

9 Id.
6

would essentially allow employees to self-certify their disability and entitlement to 

compensation.10 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof in establishing that he 

sustained a recurrence of total disability on December 15, 201211 due to his accepted March 6, 

2012 employment injury of lumbar strain. The record establishes that appellant returned to a 

sedentary-duty position within the restrictions provided by Dr. Patel on September 7, 2012. 

Appellant continued to work in this position until December 15, 2012 when he stopped work as 

directed by Dr. Wiederholz, alleging a recurrence of disability due to his accepted March 6, 2012 

work-related back strain. Appellant has alleged a change in the nature and extent of his injuryrelated condition rather than a change in his light-duty job requirements in his attempt to 

establish a recurrence of total disability after returning to light-duty work. 

Dr. Wiederholz, first examined appellant on October 15, 2012, noted his history of injury 

and diagnosed degeneration of lumbar intervertebral disc, lumbosacral spondylosis without 

myelopathy, radicular or neuropathic pain, strain of back and lumbago. He reviewed 

electrodiagnostic studies and found that appellant had right L5-S1 radiculopathy. In a note dated 

December 13, 2012, Dr. Wiederholz stated that appellant should not work to pursue treatment for 

his employment injuries. This note is not sufficiently detailed and well-reasoned to establish 

appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability due to a change in the nature and extent of his 

injury-related condition. Dr. Wiederholz merely indicated that appellant required medical 

treatment for his back conditions. Without any explanation of why appellant could no longer 

perform the sedentary position outlined by Dr. Patel and held since September 2012, this report 

is not sufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

The Board also notes that at the oral hearing appellant testified that Dr. Wiederholz 

removed him from duty as appellant felt that he needed to be out of work. As noted above, 

employees are not allowed to self-certify their disability and entitlement to compensation. 

Furthermore, without findings shown on examination to support his opinion that appellant was 

disabled from work, Dr. Wiederholz has not presented a medical opinion on the issue of 

disability and cannot establish appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability due to a change in 

the nature and extent of his accepted injury-related condition. 

 In his July 25, 2014 report, Dr. Wiederholz stated that appellant’s claim should be 

expanded to include the additional conditions of herniated disc and lumbar radiculopathy. He 

described appellant’s employment injury and noted that Dr. Patel diagnosed lumbar strain. 

Dr. Wiederholz opined that the lumbar MRI scan on April 20, 2012 demonstrated bulging discs 

at L3-4 and L4-5 which were due to appellant’s lifting incident. He stated that electrodiagnostic 

testing confirmed right L5-S1 radiculopathy, and opined that this condition should have been 

 10 Id.

11 As noted above, appellant testified at the oral hearing that he stopped work on December 13, 2012 due to an 

upper respiratory condition for which he used sick leave. He clarified that he did not claim compensation due to his 

March 6, 2012 employment injury until December 15, 2012 after Dr. Wiederholz directed him to do so. 
7

accepted as employment related. Dr. Wiederholz opined that appellant’s March 6, 2012 

employment incident resulted in two level disc herniations and radiculopathy rather than a 

lumbar strain. While his report is based on a proper factual background and includes a review of 

the medical testing upon which he based his opinion, he did not offer sufficient medical 

reasoning to establish that additional back injuries resulted from appellant’s accepted 

employment incident. Dr. Wiederholz did not explain how the lifting incident resulted in the 

diagnosed conditions. Instead he merely opined that this incident was sufficient to cause 

appellant’s back pain. 

 The Board finds that the medical evidence is not sufficiently detailed and well-reasoned 

to establish that appellant sustained a change in the nature and extent of his injury-related back 

condition on December 15, 2012 resulting in a period of total disability. 

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 has not established that he sustained a recurrence of total 

disability on December 15, 2012 due to his accepted employment-related back injury. 
8

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT November 5, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 18, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board