United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.W., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Massena, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1560 

Issued: May 8, 2017 

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 July 26, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 28, 2016 nonmerit decision 

and July 6, 2016 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

 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a hearing 

before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review; and (2) whether appellant 

has met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability commencing March 19, 2016 

causally related to her December 3, 2012 employment injuries. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 Appellant timely requested an oral argument before the Board. By order dated December 22, 2016, the Board 

exercised its discretion and denied the request, finding the issues presented could be addressed based on review of 

the case record. Order Denying Oral Argument, Docket No. 16-1560 (issued December 22, 2016). 
2

On appeal, appellant contends that she is entitled to wage-loss compensation for time off 

work due to her work-related injuries. She further contends that OWCP had engaged in fraud 

and forgery in developing the evidence in her case and did not address all the relevant evidence. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 3, 2012 appellant, then a 43-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that date, she sustained left shoulder, chest, and collar bone 

injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident while performing her work duties.3 She stopped 

work on December 4, 2012. December 3, 2012 emergency room records diagnosed chest wall 

contusion and neck strain or sprain. By letter dated January 9, 2013, OWCP accepted the claim 

for contusion of the chest wall and cervical strain. 

On January 25, 2013 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for wage loss 

from January 18 to 25, 2013. The accompanying time analysis form (Form CA-7a) noted that 

appellant took five hours of leave without pay (LWOP) on January 25, 2013. 

In a February 1, 2013 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies in her claim and 

requested a rationalized medical opinion from a physician addressing how her total disability 

during the claimed period was due to the accepted employment-related conditions. 

Appellant filed several Form CA-7 claims for compensation for LWOP from January 26 

to March 8, 2013. 

In a March 19, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for the 

period January 18 to March 8, 2013. It found that the medical evidence of record failed to 

establish that she was disabled during the claimed period as a result of her accepted December 3, 

2012 employment-related injuries. 

Appellant filed additional Form CA-7 claims for compensation for LWOP from March 9 

to April 19, 2013. 

By letter dated March 26, 2013, appellant, through counsel, requested a telephone hearing 

with an OWCP hearing representative. 

In a May 13, 2013 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for the 

period March 9 to April 19, 2013. It found that the medical evidence of record failed to establish 

that she was disabled during the claimed period as a result of her accepted December 3, 2012 

work injuries. 

On May 20, 2013 counsel requested a telephone hearing, which was held with an OWCP 

hearing representative on July 19, 2013. 

 3

 The employing establishment indicated that appellant had filed a prior claim for a February 16, 2012 left 

shoulder injury under File No. xxxxxx945. It noted that OWCP denied the claim on April 13, 2012 and 

April 12, 2013. Appellant returned to full-duty work on August 16, 2012. 
3

By decision dated October 21, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

March 19 and May 13, 2013 decisions. She found that appellant had not submitted rationalized 

medical opinion evidence sufficient to establish disability from January 18 to April 19, 2013 due 

to her accepted December 3, 2012 employment-related injuries. 

In a March 14, 2016 medical report, Dr. Elemer Raffai, an orthopedic surgeon, noted a 

history of the accepted December 3, 2012 employment injuries and appellant’s medical and 

family background. He provided examination findings and assessed left shoulder impingement 

syndrome, left shoulder adhesive capsulitis, and sprain of the sternoclavicular (joint) (ligament), 

sequela. Dr. Raffai advised that appellant could not work for three weeks. 

A March 17, 2016 report signed by Brian Lecuyer, a nurse practitioner, revealed that 

appellant had subluxation of the left acromioclavicular (AC) joint, sequela and spondylosis 

without myelopathy or radiculopathy, cervical region. He found that she was totally disabled 

due to pain and difficulty using her left arm and shoulder. 

By letter dated April 7, 2016, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for subluxation of the 

left AC joint, sequela and spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy of the cervical 

region. 

A March 14, 2016 disability certificate contained an unknown signature and noted 

diagnoses of cervical sprain and chest contusion. Appellant was unable to work through 

April 15, 2016. 

In a March 17, 2016 disability certificate, Dr. Jason Arora, a physiatrist, diagnosed left 

shoulder pain and cervical radiculopathy. He recommended that appellant be off work through 

April 17, 2016. In an April 12, 2016 disability certificate, Dr. Arora reiterated his diagnoses and 

recommended that appellant be off work through May 12, 2016. 

On March 29, 2016 Dr. Kejian Tang, a neurologist, noted appellant’s history of injury 

and medical background. He provided examination findings and assessed a cervical sprain. 

Dr. Tang found no evidence of cervical radiculopathy. 

In an April 4, 2016 operative report, Dr. Thierry Bonnabesse, Board-certified in pain 

medicine and physiatry, diagnosed left posterior shoulder/trapezius pain. He noted that a left 

suprascapular nerve block was given. On April 12, 2016 Dr. Bonnabesse examined appellant 

and assessed radiculopathy, cervical region and left shoulder pain. He advised that she was 100 

percent temporarily disabled as a result of difficulty with pain and ability to use her left arm 

shoulder. 

In an April 14, 2016 left shoulder magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report, 

Dr. Mordechai Rehany, a Board-certified radiologist, provided an impression of tendinopathy of 

supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons with an intrasubstance longitudinal tear of the 

supraspinatus. There was no sign of a full-thickness tear. Dr. Rehany also found an intact 

biceps, no evidence of a labral tear, and hypertrophic changes at the AC joint without significant 

indentation on the muscle belly of the supraspinatus. 
4

In an April 12, 2016 appeal request form, appellant requested both a telephone hearing 

and a review of the written record by an OWCP hearing representative with regard to OWCP’s 

May 13, 2013 decision. She questioned why both of her claims for compensation had been 

combined by OWCP. 

On April 20, 2016 Dr. Raffai examined appellant and reviewed Dr. Rehany’s April 14, 

2016 left shoulder MRI scan findings. He provided an impression of left shoulder impingement 

syndrome and recommended arthroscopy. On April 28, 2016 Dr. Arora diagnosed cervical 

discogenic pain and restated his prior diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. He noted that a 

cervical epidural steroid injection was given at C7-T1. 

By letter dated May 11, 2016, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left shoulder 

impingement syndrome and authorized left shoulder arthroscopic surgery.4

 

A disability certificate dated May 18, 2016 contained the same unknown signature as the 

March 14, 2016 and indicated that appellant was unable to work from May 21 to June 21, 2016. 

Appellant filed a recurrence claim (Form CA-2a) dated May 17, 2016, and received on 

May 31, 2016, alleging that on March 19, 2016 she sustained a recurrence of disability of the 

December 3, 2012 employment injuries. She noted that she was currently working part time. 

Appellant claimed that no light-duty work was available. She reported that following the 

original injury she first returned to full-time regular-duty work on May 11, 2013. On the claim 

form, the employing establishment indicated that, after the original injury, it had not made any 

accommodations or adjustments in appellant’s regular duties due to injury-related limitations. 

Appellant submitted a May 18, 2016 laboratory report from Alice Hyde Medical Center. 

In a May 18, 2016 chest x-ray report, Dr. Rehany found no abnormality. 

On June 2, 2016 OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to establish her 

recurrence claim. This included a narrative medical report from her physician describing the 

objective medical findings that formed the basis of her renewed disability for work. 

In a May 9, 2016 report, Dr. Bonnabesse noted findings on physical examination and 

reiterated his prior assessment of left shoulder pain and cervical radiculopathy. He also 

reiterated his prior opinion that appellant was totally disabled due to pain. 

In a May 18, 2016 report, Dr. Raffai noted findings on examination and provided an 

impression of chronic shoulder pain. He reiterated his prior impression of left shoulder 

impingement and placed appellant off work as no light-duty work was available. 

In an undated attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Tang noted a history of the 

December 3, 2012 work injuries. He reiterated his prior diagnosis of cervical strain and 

indicated that the diagnosed condition was not caused or aggravated by an employment activity. 

Dr. Tang advised that appellant could resume light work as of March 29, 2016. In a duty status 

 4

 The record does not indicate that appellant underwent the authorized left shoulder surgery. 
5

report (Form CA-17) dated March 29, 2016, he restated his cervical strain diagnosis and 

indicated that appellant could perform her regular full-time work duties. 

By letter dated June 9, 2016, appellant contended that she was first taken off work on 

March 14, 2016. She noted her left shoulder and neck flare-ups and medical treatment. 

Appellant also noted that she performed light-duty work on her own. In a June 10, 2016 letter, 

she maintained that she was advised not to file her Form CA-2a and CA-7 forms for the period 

March 5 to April 1, 2016 until March 19, 2016 because she did not know to file the claims. She 

used sick leave and vacation time when her physician placed her off work on March 14, 2016. 

In a June 14, 2016 letter, the employing establishment challenged appellant’s recurrence 

claim, contending that it could not offer her light-duty work without any restrictions from her 

physician. It questioned the date of the alleged recurrence of disability as appellant claimed that 

it occurred on March 19, 2016, but her first medical documentation indicated that she was 

disabled from March 17 to April 17, 2016. The employing establishment asserted that she did 

not submit sufficient medical evidence. 

In disability certificates dated March 17 and May 12, 2016, Mr. Lecuyer reiterated his 

prior diagnoses. He recommended that appellant should be released from work from March 17 

to April 17, 2016 and May 12 to June 12, 2016, respectively. 

An undated Form CA-20 contained an unknown signature and noted a history of the 

accepted December 3, 2012 employment injuries. The report provided the diagnoses of 

subluxation of the left AC joint, sequela and left shoulder pain. A box was marked “yes” 

indicating that the diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by an employment activity. 

Appellant was advised that she could return to light work with restrictions. 

In a June 23, 2016 report, Dr. Dragos Macelaru, an orthopedic surgeon, noted a history of 

the December 3, 2012 work injuries and provided examination findings. He assessed left 

shoulder pain and left shoulder adhesive capsulitis, and recommended surgery. 

By decision dated June 28, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a hearing. It 

determined that she was not entitled to an oral hearing or a review of the written record as a 

matter of right as she had previously requested a hearing on the same issue, for which a decision 

was issued on October 21, 2013. OWCP exercised its discretion and denied appellant’s request 

for a hearing as it found that the issue in the case could be addressed equally well on 

reconsideration by submitting new evidence which established that she was entitled to wage-loss 

compensation for the period January 18 to April 19, 2013.5

In a July 6, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability. 

It found that the medical evidence of record did not contain a rationalized opinion from a 

physician to establish that she was disabled commencing March 19, 2016 due to a material 

change/worsening of her accepted work-related conditions. 

 5

 OWCP inadvertently stated that the claimed period of total disability was from March 9 to April 19, 2013 rather 

than January 18 to April 19, 2013 as the October 21, 2013 decision affirmed the denial of wage-loss compensation 

for the latter period. 
6

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

Any claimant dissatisfied with an OWCP decision shall be afforded an opportunity for 

either an oral hearing or a review of the written record.6

 A request for a hearing or review of the 

written record must be submitted, in writing, within 30 days of the date of the decision for which 

a hearing is sought.7

 If the request is not made within 30 days, a claimant is not entitled to a 

hearing or a review of the written record as a matter of right. OWCP regulations further provide 

that the claimant must have not previously submitted a reconsideration request (whether or not it 

was granted) on the same decision.8

 Although a claimant who has previously sought 

reconsideration is not, as a matter of right, entitled to a hearing or review of the written record, 

the Branch of Hearings and Review may exercise its discretion to either grant or deny a hearing 

following reconsideration.9

 Similarly, the Branch of Hearings and Review may exercise its 

discretion to conduct a hearing or review the written record where a claimant requests a second 

hearing or review on the written record on the same issue.10

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the underlying issue of whether 

appellant has established entitlement to wage-loss compensation for the period January 18 to 

April 19, 2013. The Board’s jurisdiction is limited to determining whether OWCP properly 

denied her request for a hearing. 

By decisions dated March 19 and May 13, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claims for 

compensation for LWOP for the period January 18 to April 19, 2013. In an October 21, 2013 

decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the denial of her claims. 

On April 12, 2016 appellant requested both a telephone hearing and a review of the 

written from OWCP’s May 13, 2013 decision. By decision dated June 28, 2016, OWCP 

determined that appellant was not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right as she had previously 

requested and received a hearing by a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review. The Board concludes that appellant was not entitled to a hearing as a matter of right as 

she had previously requested and received a hearing by an OWCP hearing representative.11

The Board further finds that OWCP properly exercised its discretion in denying 

appellant’s request for another hearing by determining that the issue in the case could be 

addressed equally well by requesting reconsideration and submitting new evidence relevant to 

 6

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 10.615. 

7 Id. at 10.616(a). 

8 Id.

9 D.E., 59 ECAB 438 (2008); Hubert Jones, Jr., 57 ECAB 467 (2006). 

10 Supra note 7. 

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.616(a). See also D.E., supra note 9. 
7

the issue at hand.12 The Board has held that the only limitation on OWCP’s discretionary 

authority is reasonableness. An abuse of discretion is generally shown through proof of manifest 

error, a clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or actions taken which are contrary to logic 

and probable deduction from established facts.13 There is no evidence that OWCP abused its 

discretion in denying appellant’s request for a hearing under these circumstances.14 Accordingly, 

the Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s April 12, 2016 request for a hearing. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

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.”15 An individual person who claims a recurrence of disability due to an 

accepted employment-related injury has the burden of establishing by the weight of the 

substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that the disability for which he or she claims 

compensation is causally related to the accepted injury. This burden of proof requires that an 

employee furnish 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 

the employment injury and supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning.16 Where no 

such rationale is present, medical evidence is of diminished probative value.17

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained contusion of the chest wall, cervical strain, 

subluxation of the left AC joint, sequela, spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, 

cervical region, and left shoulder impingement on December 3, 2012 in the performance of duty. 

She stopped work on December 4, 2012 and returned to full-time regular-duty work on 

May 11, 2013. Subsequently, appellant claimed a recurrence of total disability beginning 

March 19, 2016. 

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

of disability. There is no rationalized medical opinion of record which sufficiently relates her 

current disability and medical conditions to the December 3, 2012 accepted conditions. 

OWCP received several reports from Dr. Raffai. On March 14, 2016 Dr. Raffai found 

that appellant could not work for three weeks. He noted a history of the work injuries, provided 

findings, and diagnosed left shoulder impingement syndrome, left shoulder adhesive capsulitis, 

 12 Hubert Jones, Jr., supra note 9; Sandra F. Powell, 45 ECAB 877 (1994). 

13 See M.C., Docket No. 09-2314 (issued August 20, 2010); Claudia Vazquez, 52 ECAB 496 (2001). 

14 See L.O., Docket No. 15-1346 (issued November 17, 2015). 

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); R.S., 58 ECAB 362 (2007). 

16 S.S., 59 ECAB 315 (2008). 

17 See Ronald C. Hand, 49 ECAB 113 (1997). 
8

and sequela of sternoclavicular sprain. On May 18, 2016 Dr. Raffai examined appellant and 

diagnosed left shoulder impingement and chronic shoulder pain. He placed her off work because 

no light-duty work was available. While Dr. Raffai found that appellant was totally disabled 

from work, he did not specifically address the cause of the disability or explain how the 

disability was work related. Medical evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value.18 Further, OWCP has not 

accepted the currently diagnosed conditions of left shoulder adhesive capsulitis and 

sternoclavicular sprain as causally related to the December 3, 2012 work injuries. For conditions 

not accepted by OWCP as being employment related, it is the employee’s burden of proof to 

provide rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish causal relationship.19 None of the 

reports from Dr. Raffai contain medical rationale explaining how the additional diagnosed 

conditions had been caused or aggravated by the accepted December 3, 2012 employment 

injuries. Dr. Raffai’s remaining report dated April 20, 2016 did not address whether appellant 

had any employment-related disability commencing March 19, 2016. 

Similarly, the reports of Drs. Arora and Bonnabesse are of diminished probative value. 

In disability certificates dated March 17 and April 12, 2016, Dr. Arora found that appellant could 

not work from March 17 to May 12, 2016. He diagnosed left shoulder pain and cervical 

radiculopathy. In reports dated April 12 and May 9, 2016, Dr. Bonnabesse found that appellant 

was temporarily totally disabled due to difficulty with pain and inability to use her left arm 

shoulder. He diagnosed cervical radiculopathy and left shoulder pain. Neither physician offered 

a medical opinion addressing whether appellant’s disability was due to the accepted December 3, 

2012 work injuries as cervical radiculopathy has not been accepted as employment related by 

OWCP.20 Moreover, neither Dr. Arora nor Dr. Bonnabesse provided a medical opinion that the 

additional diagnosed cervical condition was causally related to the accepted employment 

injuries. The remaining reports from these physicians are similarly insufficient to establish 

appellant’s recurrence claim. These reports provided diagnoses and addressed her medical 

treatment, but neither physician provided an opinion stating that the diagnosed conditions and 

medical treatment were caused by the accepted work injuries. 

The remaining reports and diagnostic test results are insufficient to establish appellant’s 

recurrence claim. These reports are of limited probative value as none of the physicians 

provided an opinion addressing whether appellant’s diagnosed conditions and disability were 

caused by the accepted employment injuries.21

Appellant also submitted evidence from a nurse practitioner. The Board has held that 

documents signed by a nurse practitioner are not considered probative medical evidence as a 

 18 C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); J.F., Docket No. 09-1061 (issued November 17, 2009); A.D.,

58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

19 G.A., Docket No. 09-2153 (issued June 10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Alice J. Tysinger,

51 ECAB 638 (2000). 

20 See id.

21 See supra note 18. 
9

nurse practitioner is not considered a physician as defined under FECA.22 Similarly, appellant 

submitted disability certificates and a Form CA-20 report with unknown signatures which are not 

considered probative medical evidence. The Board has held that unsigned reports or ones that 

bear illegible signatures cannot be considered as probative medical evidence because they lack 

proper identification.23

The Board finds that appellant failed to establish a recurrence of disability commencing 

March 19, 2016. Consequently, appellant failed to meet her burden of proof. 

On appeal, appellant argues the merits of her claim, contending that she is entitled to 

wage-loss compensation for time off from work due to her work-related injuries. She further 

contends that OWCP had engaged in fraud and forgery in developing the evidence in her case 

and did not address all the relevant evidence. However, as explained above appellant failed to 

meet her burden of proof. 

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 OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The Board further finds that 

appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability commencing 

March 19, 2016 causally related to her December 3, 2012 employment injuries. 

 22 L.D., 59 ECAB 648 (2008); Paul Foster, 56 ECAB 208 (2004); see David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316 (2006) 

(lay individuals such as physician assistants, nurses and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical 

opinion under FECA); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (this subsection defines a physician as surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, 

clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as 

defined by State law). 

23 See J.P., Docket No. 16-0501 (issued July 11, 2016). 
10

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 6 and June 28, 2016 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: May 8, 2017 

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