United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Corpus Christi, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1811 

Issued: May 17, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 September 13, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 24, 

2016 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the 

Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3

 The Board notes that appellant submitted new evidence following the June 24, 2016 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

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established a recurrence of disability commencing 

June 1, 2015 causally related to his accepted employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 14, 2013 appellant, then a 50-year-old city carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on May 6, 2012 he sustained a herniated disc as a result of 

driving a mail truck. He stopped work on July 26, 2012. On April 3, 2013 appellant underwent 

lumbar microdiscectomy, laminectomy, foraminotomy, and partial facetectomy at L5-S1 on the 

left. OWCP accepted his claim for herniated disc at L5-S1 without myelopathy and thoracic or 

lumbar neuritis or radiculitis. It paid wage-loss compensation commencing July 26, 2012. 

Dr. Francisco Battle, a neurosurgeon, treated appellant. In an August 12, 2013 duty 

status report (Form CA-17), he noted diagnoses of lumbago and displacement of lumbar 

intervertebral disc without myelopathy. Dr. Battle advised that appellant could return to work 

with restrictions of no lifting or carrying more than 20 pounds. He also noted that driving should 

be limited to seven hours; simple grasping for six hours; standing, walking, climbing, and fine 

manipulation for three hours; sitting, twisting, and reaching above the shoulder for two hours; 

and bending, stooping, pushing, and pulling for one hour. 

In an August 16, 2013 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Battle noted 

diagnosis of lumbar radiculopathy. He related that appellant was able to return to light-duty 

work with restrictions of no lifting over 20 pounds, no squatting, stooping, repetitive bending, 

working at heights and overhead, and needing to be able to sit, stand, and walk at will. 

Appellant was also treated by Dr. Frank Gonzales, a chiropractor. In an August 16, 2013 

Form CA-20, Dr. Gonzales indicated that appellant had a history of back pain radiating to his 

legs. He noted diagnoses of somato dysfunction of the lumbar region, displacement of lumbar 

intervertebral disc without myelopathy, and lumbosacral neuritis. 

On August 20, 2013 the employing establishment offered appellant a part-time light-duty 

position as a letter carrier. This position required that appellant work six hours per day with 

restrictions. The duties of his modified assignment included performing vehicle check, casing 

mail for one and a half hours, delivering mail for four and a quarter hours, pulling down and 

loading vehicles for 15 minutes, and performing vehicle check for 3 minutes. The physical 

requirements of his position were simple grasping for six hours, driving a vehicle for four to six 

hours, and walking and standing for three hours. 

Appellant returned to modified-duty work on August 21, 2013 working six hours a day 

pursuant to his work restrictions. OWCP paid wage-loss compensation for the additional two 

hours a day that he did not work. 

Dr. Thomas Martens, an osteopath specializing in family medicine, began to treat 

appellant on June 1, 2015. In a progress report, he noted appellant’s accepted diagnoses of 

displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy and thoracic or lumbosacral 
3

neuritis or unspecified radiculitis. Dr. Martens indicated that appellant had been working six 

hours daily with modifications since September 2, 2013. He related appellant’s complaints of 

lumbar pain radiating down his left and right leg. Dr. Martens recounted that appellant believed 

his symptoms worsened when the new postmaster required appellant to carry and dismount his 

mailbag. Upon physical examination, he observed decreased range of motion, extension, and 

flexion of the lumbar spine. Straight leg raise testing was positive on the right and negative on 

the left. Dr. Martens reported decreased extension, flexion, and effusion of the right knee. 

Examination of the right shoulder revealed decreased shoulder movement and muscle pain. 

Dr. Martens diagnosed displacement of the lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy, 

thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, right shoulder internal derangement, and right 

knee internal derangement. He recommended a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) to 

determine appellant’s return to work status. 

In a June 1, 2015 Form CA-17, Dr. Martens reported a diagnosis of displacement of 

lumbar intervertebral disc. He indicated that appellant could work part time for four hours a day 

with restrictions of lifting, carrying, simple grasping, and sitting for four hours per day, fine 

manipulation for two hours per day, and standing, walking, bending, stooping, twisting, pushing, 

pulling, and driving a vehicle for one hour per day. 

Dr. Martens further indicated in a June 3, 2015 letter to OWCP that he had treated 

appellant for work-related conditions to his lower back due to his repetitive work-related duties 

as a letter carrier for the past 26 years. He noted that appellant had worked modified duty since 

September 2013 and reported that recently the new postmaster required that he carry and 

dismount his mailbag. Dr. Martens related appellant’s complaints of constant lumbar pain 

radiating down both legs. He reported physical examination findings of decreased extension, 

flexion, and range of motion of the lumbar spine. Dr. Martens also noted decreased extension, 

flexion, and effusion of appellant’s right knee and decreased shoulder movement and muscle 

pain of the right shoulder. He opined that as a result of appellant’s continued repetitive duties 

and overcompensating for pain in his back, appellant’s right knee and shoulder complaints had 

worsened and had caused right knee internal derangement and right shoulder internal 

derangement. Dr. Martens explained that appellant’s right knee internal derangement and right 

shoulder internal derangement were consequential to appellant’s initial lumbar conditions. He 

requested that OWCP accept the additional diagnoses of knee internal derangement and shoulder 

internal derangement as a result of appellant’s repetitive work duties. 

Regarding appellant’s work capacity, Dr. Martens explained that the effects of 

appellant’s work injury and disability limited him from returning to work at a full-duty capacity. 

He reported that appellant’s current limitations were sitting and lifting for four hours day, 

repetitive movements of the wrist for two hours a day, walking, standing, twisting, operating a 

motor vehicle and repetitive movements of the elbows, pushing, and pulling for one hour per 

day. Dr. Martens further restricted appellant to lifting, pushing, and pulling up to 20 pounds and 

no reaching, reaching above the shoulders, squatting, kneeling, or climbing. 

On June 9, 2015 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) 

claiming additional wage loss for the period May 16 to 29, 2015. The time analysis form (Form 

CA-7a) indicated that appellant took leave on the dates claimed from May 16 through 20, 2015 

and worked six hours per day from May 21 through 29, 2015. 
4

In a June 12, 2015 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report, Dr. Anita Rich, a 

Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, noted radial tearing of the in the medial meniscus of the 

right knee, tricompartmental osteoarthritic change in the knee with areas of grade 3 to 4 chondral 

loss along the patella trochlea and medial femoral condyle with mild to moderate reactive or 

stress-related subchondral marrow edema and subchondral cystic change in the patellofemoral 

compartmental, and moderate suprapatellar effusion. 

On June 15, 2015 appellant filed another Form CA-7 alleging wage-loss compensation 

for the period May 30 to June 12, 2015. The employing establishment remarked that an 

unauthorized doctor had reduced appellant’s work hours and noted that a recurrence needed to be 

developed. Appellant continued to file Forms CA-7 claiming wage-loss compensation for four 

hours a day beginning June 12, 2015. The time analysis forms (Form CA-7a) indicated that 

beginning June 3, 2015 appellant worked four hours and claimed wage-loss compensation for the 

remaining four hours. 

By letters dated June 17 and 19, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

evidence was needed to establish that he was entitled to disability compensation beginning 

May 19, 2015 as a result of his accepted back condition. It requested that he submit a 

comprehensive medical report, which explained how his lumbar condition had worsened to the 

extent that he was no longer able to perform the duties of his position when he stopped work on 

May 19, 2015. 

Dr. Martens continued to treat appellant. In a July 1, 2015 report, he noted that appellant 

was removed from work and remained incapacitated at this time due to the severity of range of 

motion deficit. Upon examination, Dr. Martens observed decreased trapezius height of the left 

shoulder when compared to the right, edema to the anterior aspect at the deltoid and rotator cuff, 

and pain with palpation at the rotator cuff particularly supraspinatus insertion. He reported that 

Speed’s test on the left was positive with inability to externally rotate the left shoulder. 

Neurological examination revealed intact deep tendon reflexes bilaterally. Dr. Martens 

explained that appellant was incapacitated pending medical improvement. He reported that 

appellant’s incapacitation was fully supported by the factual clinical findings and physical 

examination. Dr. Martens indicated that appellant was currently unable to perform at the 

physical demand required for his position of rural letter carrier. He noted that appellant’s 

incapacitation from June 15 through July 10, 2015 was medically certified. 

Appellant requested, in a letter dated July 2, 2015, that Dr. Martens be authorized as his 

treating physician. He indicated that he filled out the paperwork authorizing Dr. Martens to be 

his treating physician and asked that if there was any additional paperwork to fill out to please let 

him know. In a letter dated September 21, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a change 

of physicians. 

In a July 9, 2015 Form CA-17, Dr. Martens noted appellant’s clinical finding of 

displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc. He indicated that appellant was authorized to work 

modified duty four hours per day. 

On July 13, 2015 OWCP received a handwritten letter from appellant. He explained that 

he had been on sick leave since February 28, 2015 due to a broken ankle and had returned to 
5

modified-duty work on May 21, 2015. Appellant recounted that on May 22, 2015 

Postmaster D.N. informed him that he needed a new Form CA-17 with updated restrictions and 

instructed him to deliver his entire route, including the park and loop of 2026 through 2027. 

When he asked Postmaster D.N. for a PS Form 3996 because his medical restrictions limited him 

from delivering the park and loop sections, Postmaster D.N. told him that he did not need a PS 

Form 3996 because of all the mail was loaded onto the truck parcels. Appellant reported that he 

delivered the mail as ordered, but needed help to finish the park and loop on May 22, 23, 

and 26, 2015. He asserted that on May 27, 2015 Postmaster D.N. informed him that he spoke 

with appellant’s occupational nurse and they decided that appellant no longer had work 

restrictions. Postmaster D.N. instructed appellant to load up his mail truck and deliver the mail 

without any help. Appellant continued to work without restrictions and was finally able to fill 

out a PS Form 3996 on May 29, 2015. He related that on May 30, 2015 he began to experience 

pain in the right side of his back, leg, and shoulder. Appellant alleged that Postmaster D.N. 

pushed him past his work restrictions for three days and now his medical conditions had 

worsened. He submitted a PS Form 3996 dated May 28, 2016. 

In a decision dated July 28, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation beginning May 16, 2015. It determined that the medical evidence of record failed 

to establish that his accepted lumbar condition worsened to the extent that he was no longer able 

to perform his modified-duty work. Accordingly, OWCP found that appellant failed to establish 

that his disability beginning May 16, 2013 was a result of his accepted employment conditions. 

On August 13, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. Appellant 

submitted an August 12, 2015 report by Dr. Martens. Dr. Martens recounted that appellant 

sustained a lower back condition as a result of his repetitive, work-related duties. He noted that 

he reviewed OWCP’s July 28, 2015 denial letter based on the lack of a well-reasoned medical 

opinion to support causal relationship. Dr. Martens requested that OWCP clearly review his 

previous narrative. He included an excerpt from his June 3, 2015 report where he explained that 

due to appellant overcompensating for his back pain, appellant’s right knee and shoulder had 

worsened. Upon physical examination, Dr. Martens observed decreased range of motion of the 

back and back antalgic gait. He also reported decreased flexion, extension, and effusion of the 

right knee. Dr. Martens provided a copy of section 8102 of FECA. He requested that OWCP 

review the medical evidence and reconsider acceptance of appellant’s disability compensation 

claim. Dr. Martens continued to submit Form CA-17s which indicated that appellant could work 

four hours per day. 

On August 26, 2015 OWCP received a letter from appellant’s counsel requesting a 

telephone hearing before an OWCP hearing representative.4

 A telephonic hearing was held on 

April 14, 2016. Appellant testified that he was working modified duty six hours per day and was 

receiving wage-loss compensation for the other two hours. He testified that on May 28, 29, and 

30 the current postmaster pushed him and gave him direct orders to work the two hours 

delivering a park and loop on his route. Appellant explained that delivering mail on the park and 

loop required walking house to house and carrying his mailbag to deliver mail. He related that 

 4

 In a letter dated August 27, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that it received his attorney’s request for a 

telephone hearing and would take no further action on his request for reconsideration. 
6

his back and bilateral knees began to hurt. Appellant reported that he sought medical treatment 

from Dr. Martens, who ordered a lower extremity MRI scan which showed that the tissues in his 

knee were injured. He noted that Dr. Martens placed him on restrictions working four hours per 

day. Appellant indicated that the employing establishment would not accommodate his new 

work restrictions so he stopped work. The hearing representative clarified that appellant was 

alleging that there was a change in his modified work assignment when Postmaster D.N. 

instructed him to work the full eight hours on May 28, 29, and 30 and to deliver mail on the park 

and loop routes. She noted that appellant was to claim an additional injury and disability due to 

these new work activities. 

Appellant provided a letter from Dr. Martens dated May 6, 2016, which was similar to his 

June 3, 2015 letter. He reported that appellant had accepted conditions of lumbar disc 

displacement and lumbosacral radiculitis and noted additional diagnoses of right knee and left 

knee internal derangement. Dr. Martens again explained that due to appellant’s continued 

repetitive duties and overcompensating for his back pain, his right and left knee worsened and 

caused the condition of bilateral knee internal derangement. He related that the effects of 

appellant’s work injury persisted and prevented him from returning to full-duty work. 

Dr. Martens indicated that appellant was capable of working modified duty of four hours per 

day. He opined that appellant’s bilateral knee internal derangement was a direct result of 

appellant’s accepted lumbar conditions. Dr. Martens explained that since appellant’s bilateral 

knee internal derangements were consequential to appellant’s original claim, OWCP should add 

these conditions as compensable injuries. 

In a May 31, 2016 letter, Dr. Martens indicated that appellant suffered from a low back 

and bilateral knee condition as a result of his repetitive work duties. He related that an 

electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) study performed on May 16, 

2016 revealed evidence supportive of chronic left and right L5 radiculopathy. Dr. Martens 

further noted that a June 12, 2015 MRI scan examination demonstrated radial tearing in the 

medial meniscus of the right knee. He provided examination findings similar to his previous 

examinations. Dr. Martens opined that due to the extent of appellant’s condition he had 

experienced “documented measurable physical disability which resulted in incapacitation from 

June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2016 and continuing.” He reported that appellant had functional 

deficits on examination, decreased muscle strength, decreased range of motion, decreased overall 

function, and significant increase of pain, which caused incapacitation for the dates listed. 

Dr. Martens explained that appellant continued to suffer from his ongoing physical disabilities 

related to the progressive degeneration of his lower back and bilateral knee that originated as a 

result of a work-related injury. He reported that, due to the residual effects of these injuries with 

activities of daily living, he experienced a period of incapacitation. Dr. Martens concluded that 

“due to the nature and severity of [appellant’s] work-related injury on May 26, 2012, the patient 

had been totally temporarily disabled and continues to require incapacitation until further 

evaluation.” He submitted the May 16, 2016 EMG/NCV testing report and resubmitted his 

previous Form CA-17s. 

Dr. Martens reiterated his examination findings and medical opinion in a June 1, 2016 

letter. He added that appellant also sustained right knee medial meniscus tear as consequence of 

his accepted low back condition. Dr. Martens recommended that appellant continue to work 
7

modified duty four hours per day. He noted that it was unknown when appellant would return to 

full duty. 

On June 10, 2016 OWCP paid additional wage-loss compensation for two hours per day 

for the period May 16 to 31, 2015. 

By decision dated June 24, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the July 28, 

2015 decision, with modification. She noted that because OWCP paid additional wage-loss 

compensation for the period May 16 to 31, 2015, the issue regarding additional wage-loss 

compensation during this period was moot. The hearing representative denied appellant’s claim 

for recurrent disability beginning June 1, 2015 because she determined that the medical evidence 

of record failed to establish that appellant’s reduced work hours were causally related to a 

worsening of his work-related conditions.5

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 he was disabled from work as a result of the accepted 

employment injury. 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.6

 Findings on 

examination and a physician’s opinion, supported by medical rationale, are needed to show how 

the injury caused the employee’s disability for his particular work.7 For each period of disability 

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

employment injury. The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for 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.8

OWCP’s implementing regulations define a recurrence of disability as an inability to 

work after an employee has returned to work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical 

condition, which resulted from a previous injury or illness without an intervening injury or new 

exposure to the work environment that caused the illness.9

 This term also means an inability to 

work when a light-duty assignment made specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical 

limitations due to his or her work-related injury or illness is withdrawn (except when such 

withdrawal occurs for reasons of misconduct, nonperformance of job duties or a reduction-inforce) or when the physical requirements of such an assignment are altered such that they exceed 

 5

 The hearing representative further noted that, to the extent that Dr. Martens opined that appellant developed 

consequential right shoulder and bilateral knee conditions due to new employment exposure, she advised appellant 

that he could file a new occupational disease claim. 

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

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

8 Amelia S. Jefferson, supra note 6. 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 
8

the employee’s physical limitations.10 Appellant has the burden of proof to establish that there 

was no medically appropriate light duty available for the claimed period.11 

When an employee who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account 

of employment-related residuals returns to a limited-duty position or the medical evidence of 

record establishes that he or she can perform the limited-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 to show that he or she cannot perform the limited-duty position. As part of 

this burden, the employee must show either a change in the nature and extent of the injuryrelated condition or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty requirements.12 This 

burden includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a qualified physician who concludes, 

on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, that the disabling condition 

is causally related to employment factors and supports that conclusion with sound medical 

reasoning.13

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a herniated disc at L5-S1 without myelopathy 

and lumbar radiculitis as a result of his duties as a city carrier. He stopped work and returned to 

modified duty work on August 21, 2013 working six hours per day. OWCP paid wage-loss 

compensation for the remaining two hours per day. Appellant filed claims for wage-loss 

compensation (Forms CA-7) commencing June 1, 2015 claiming disability compensation for the 

remaining four hours per day. OWCP denied his recurrence claim finding that he failed to 

provide sufficient medical evidence to establish that his reduced work hours were causally 

related to a worsening or change of his accepted lumbar condition. The Board finds that the 

medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant was unable to work his 

modified-duty position six hours per day beginning June 1, 2015 as a result of his accepted 

injury. 

The only medical reports addressing appellant’s claimed dates of disability are narrative 

letters and Forms CA-17 from Dr. Martens dated June 1, 2015 to June 1, 2016. In a June 1, 2015 

report and Form CA-17, he noted appellant’s accepted diagnoses of displacement of lumbar 

intervertebral disc without myelopathy and thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or unspecified 

radiculitis. Dr. Martens recounted that beginning September 2013 appellant had worked six 

hours per day with modifications. He provided physical examination findings and reported 

additional diagnoses of right shoulder internal derangement and right knee internal derangement. 

Dr. Martens authorized appellant to return to part-time modified-duty work with specified 

restrictions for four hours per day. He did not, however, provide an opinion that appellant’s 

 10 Id. 

11 J.F., 58 ECAB 124 (2006). 

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

222 (1986). 

13 Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001); see Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138 (1982). Federal (FECA) 

Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.2 (January 2013). 
9

inability to work modified duty six hours per day was causally related to his accepted lumbar 

condition or otherwise provide medical reasoning explaining why any disability was due to the 

employment injury.14 

In his July 1, 2015 report, Dr. Martens suggested that appellant’s increased disability was 

due to left shoulder complaints. The Board notes that his previous medical reports had referred 

to appellant’s right shoulder complaints. Dr. Martens’ lack of explanation makes it unclear if his 

findings regarding appellant’s right or left shoulder were the result of a preexisting 

nonoccupational condition, caused by a new injury from appellant’s limited-duty assignment, or 

due to a recurrence of disability. He failed to provide the required link relating the disability to 

appellant’s previously accepted work injuries to establish a spontaneous worsening of the 

accepted conditions.15 Dr. Martens did not provide a rationalized medical explanation as to why 

appellant’s shoulder complaints were caused by the accepted lumbar injury and caused increased 

disability after June 1, 2015. 

As of his August 13, 2015 report, Dr. Martens seemingly attributed appellant’s inability 

to work modified duty to both appellant’s accepted lumbar condition and to a bilateral knee 

condition. In a May 6, 2016 letter to OWCP, he explained that due to appellant’s continued 

repetitive work duties and overcompensating for his back pain, appellant’s bilateral knees 

worsened and caused bilateral knee derangement. Dr. Martens opined that appellant’s bilateral 

knee condition was a direct result of his accepted lumbar conditions. He reported that the effects 

of appellant’s work injury persisted and prevented him from returning to full duty. Dr. Martens 

noted that appellant was capable of working modified duty for four hours per day. In a May 31, 

2016 letter, he reported that appellant experienced “documented measurable physical disability 

which resulted in incapacitation from June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2016 and continuing.” 

Dr. Martens explained that appellant still suffered from the progressive degeneration of his lower 

back and bilateral knee conditions that originated as a result of a work-related injury. 

The Board finds that Dr. Martens did not provide a rationalized medical opinion 

substantiating that appellant’s accepted lumbar conditions worsened, causing total disability. To 

the extent that Dr. Martens attributes appellant’s bilateral knee condition to his accepted lumbar 

condition, it is noted that 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, not OWCP’s burden to disprove such a relationship.16 The Board finds, 

however, that Dr. Martens did not provide any explanation based on objective medical findings 

and rationale, demonstrating how appellant’s bilateral knee condition, and any resultant 

disability, resulted from his accepted lumbar condition.17 The Board has found that medical 

evidence that offers a conclusion, but does not offer any rationalized medical explanation is of 

 14 See William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004) (the Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for 

disability in the absence of medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of claimed disability). 

15 See L.N., Docket No. 16-566 (issued October 18, 2016). 

16 G.A., Docket 09-2153 (issued June 10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Alice J. Tysinger, 51 

ECAB 638 (2000). 

17 See J.C., Docket No. 15-1780 (issued March 17, 2016). 
10

limited probative value.18 Accordingly, appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof to 

establish a bilateral knee condition as a result of his accepted lumbar condition, and therefore, 

was unable to work his modified-duty position. 

Other medical evidence provided by appellant either predates the claimed period of 

disability beginning June 1, 2015 or does not specifically address how there was a spontaneous 

change or worsening of appellant’s accepted lumbar condition which caused a recurrence of 

disability beginning June 1, 2015.19 For these reasons, the Board finds that appellant did not 

meet his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability beginning June 1, 2015. 

To the extent that appellant is alleging a worsening of his accepted conditions due to the 

Postmaster’s assignment of additional duties on May 22, 2015, this would constitute a new injury 

rather than a spontaneous recurrence of disability. A recurrence of disability does not include 

disability resulting from exposure to new work factors. Moreover, any disability resulting from a 

condition aggravated by employment duties would be considered a new injury rather than a 

recurrence of disability.20

On appeal counsel alleges that the claim should have been more fully developed, the 

claimant described a classic recurrence, and the decision is contrary to fact and law. As 

explained above, however, the Board finds that the evidence of record failed to establish that his 

accepted lumbar condition changed or worsened to the extent that he was no longer able to work 

his modified-duty position beginning June 1, 2015. The medical evidence is insufficient to 

establish a causal relationship between appellant’s alleged recurrence of disability and his 

accepted lumbar condition or to warrant any further development. 

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 a recurrence of disability commencing 

June 1, 2015 causally related to his accepted employment injury. 

 18 T.M., Docket No. 08-975 (February 6, 2009); S.E., Docket No. 08-2214 (issued May 6, 2009). 

19 K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386 (1997). 

20 D.D., Docket No. 16-0701 (issued July 18, 2016). 
11

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 24, 2016 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 17, 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