United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Jamaica, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1488 

Issued: November 18, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On July 11, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal of a March 16, 2016 merit decision and a 

May 23, 2016 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs1 (OWCP). 

The Board docketed the appeal as 16-1488. 

The Board has duly reviewed the record and finds that the case is not in posture for 

decision. By decision dated June 8, 2006, OWCP found that the modified letter carrier position 

appellant had accepted on March 11, 2006 fairly and reasonably represented his wage-earning 

capacity in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 8115. It found appellant had no loss of wage-earning 

capacity. 

Appellant filed a recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) on January 8, 2016 alleging he 

sustained a recurrence of total disability as of January 4, 2016 due to his August 6, 2005 

employment injury. By decision dated March 16, 2016, OWCP denied the claim for a recurrence 

of disability finding that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that appellant had 

established an employment-related recurrence of disability. It did not acknowledge that it had 

issued a June 8, 2006 wage-earning capacity determination. 

 1

 The May 23, 2016 decision denied appellant’s April 26, 2016 request for a review of the written record as 

untimely. 
2

Once a wage-earning capacity determination is made, it remains in place until it is 

modified.2

 A modification of such determination is not warranted unless there is a material 

change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition, the employee has been retrained 

or otherwise vocationally rehabilitated, or the original determination was, in fact, erroneous.3

 

The burden of proof is on the party attempting to show a modification of the wage-earning 

capacity determination.4

Appellant’s submission of a recurrence claim on January 8, 2016 for a recurrence of 

disability on January 4, 2016 should be regarded as a request for modification of the wageearning capacity determination. The Board has held that, when a wage-earning capacity 

determination has been issued and appellant submits evidence with respect to disability for work, 

OWCP must evaluate the evidence to determine if modification of wage-earning capacity is 

warranted.5

 OWCP procedures specifically provide that if a formal wage-earning capacity 

decision has been issued, and the claim is for recurrent disability, it should be processed in 

accordance with procedures for modifying a formal wage-earning capacity decision.6

 In this 

case, in its March 16, 2016 decision, OWCP adjudicated the claim as a recurrence of disability 

without any reference to the wage-earning capacity determination. 

The Board finds that OWCP should have determined whether appellant had established 

that the wage-earning capacity determination should be modified.7

 The Board will therefore 

remand the case to OWCP for proper adjudication, to be followed by an appropriate merit 

decision to preserve appellant’s appeal rights.8

 

 

 2 See G.L., Docket No. 15-1487 (issued October 13, 2015); P.Y., Docket No. 09-2293 (issued September 1, 2010). 

3 Sue A. Sedgwick, 45 ECAB 211 (1993). 

4 Id.

5 Katherine T. Kreger, 55 ECAB 633 (2004); Sharon C. Clement, 55 ECAB 552 (2004). 

6

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.12 (February 2013). 

7 L.J., Docket No. 13-1261 (issued November 4, 2013); F.B., Docket No. 09-99 (issued July 21, 2010). See also 

M.D., Docket No. 12-1317 (issued December 21, 2012). 

8

 In view of the Board’s findings, it will not address the May 23, 2016 decision denying the request for a review 

of the written record. 
3

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

Compensation Programs dated March 16, 2016 is set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for 

further action consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: November 18, 2016 

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