United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1542 

Issued: August 25, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 26, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 6, 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. 

ISSUE 

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

disability beginning September 2, 2011, causally related to her February 5, 1999 employment 

injury. 

 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. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case was previously before the Board.3 On February 8, 1999 appellant, then a 33-

year-old modified letter carrier,4 filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she 

injured her back on February 5, 1999 while lifting a tray of mail and then turning to resume 

racking. OWCP accepted her claim for back (lumbar) strain. On March 23, 1999 appellant 

returned to full-time, limited-duty answering telephones. Effective May 22, 1999 she resumed 

her previous modified letter carrier duties. OWCP subsequently accepted a recurrence for 

medical treatment beginning November 24, 2009.5

On September 15, 2011 appellant filed a claim (Form CA-2a) for recurrence of disability 

beginning September 2, 2011.6

 OWCP initially denied the recurrence claim by decision dated 

November 4, 2011. When the case was last on appeal, the Board affirmed OWCP’s latest merit 

decision, dated June 10, 2014, finding that appellant had not established a recurrence of 

disability beginning September 2, 2011, causally related to her February 5, 1999 employmentrelated back (lumbar) strain. Although recent medical evidence indicated that appellant was 

disabled due to lumbar radiculopathy, the evidence failed to establish that her then-current 

lumbar condition was causally related to the February 5, 1999 employment injury. There was 

also diagnostic evidence of disc bulges at L2-3 and L5-S1, but the medical evidence of record 

failed to establish causal relationship between appellant’s multi-level lumbar disc disease and her 

accepted employment injury. Accordingly, the Board found that appellant failed to establish a 

recurrence of disability on or after September 2, 2011, causally related to her February 5, 1999 

employment injury. The facts as presented in the Board’s February 13, 2015 decision are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

On February 9, 2016 counsel requested reconsideration. A January 3, 2016 lumbar 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report was received. 

Medical reports from Dr. Howard I. Baum, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, were 

also received. In medical reports dated January 20, February 23, April 14, May 28, August 13, 

December 14 and 28, 2015 and January 11 and 18, and March 3, 2016, he provided a diagnosis 

of lumbar derangement/internal derangement of the lumbar spine and indicated that appellant 

had increased lumbar pain. Dr. Baum recommended chiropractic treatment and prescribed 

medication. In his December 14, 2015 medical report, he indicated that appellant complained of 

an increased low back pain. Dr. Baum noted that she had an injury in 1999 and had flare-ups off 

and on for quite some time. He reported that appellant was working full eight-hour days with 

restrictions. Dr. Baum reported that appellant was neurologically intact. In his January 11, 2016 

report, he indicated that appellant’s January 4, 2015 lumbar MRI scan revealed disc protrusion at 

 3

 Docket No. 14-1844 (issued February 13, 2015). 

4

 Appellant had previously fractured her left ankle in the performance of duty on May 27, 1993 (File No. 

xxxxxx863). Her physical limitations included no walking or standing in excess of two hours per day. 

5

 Appellant did not stop work at the time. 

6

 OWCP also treated the claim as a new traumatic injury and assigned File No. xxxxxx169. However, it later 

determined that the case was properly considered a recurrence under OWCP File No. xxxxxx035. The two case 

records were subsequently combined under Master File No. xx-xxxx035. 
3

L2-3 with right L2 nerve compression, foraminal stenosis, L4-5 herniation encroaching on the 

L4 nerve root, L5-S1 left-sided disc herniation with left formanial stenosis, and a T11-12 disc 

protrusion and a bulge. Dr. Baum opined that appellant was disabled from work. 

In a December 18, 2015 Staten Island University Hospital medical report, Dr. Akash 

Bhatnagar, an emergency medical physician, noted appellant’s complaint of severe back pain 

which began three days prior, with intermittent back pain for about two weeks. Appellant 

indicated that her last MRI scan was in 2011 and that she was diagnosed with multiple lumbar 

disc herniations. Dr. Bhatnagar noted examination findings and found no signs of cord 

compression. He treated appellant symptomatically for sciatica. 

In a December 23, 2015 letter, Dr. Baum7

 indicated that appellant was originally injured 

at work on February 5, 1999 while lifting a tray of mail and, when she turned to go back to 

racking mail, she felt pain in her back and shoulders. He noted that her injuries were 

characterized as a back strain and that she returned to work in a limited-duty position, for eight 

hours a day, on February 5, 1999. Dr. Baum indicated that appellant’s job required repetitive 

bending and lifting of mail trays, which resulted in overuse of her back muscles each workday. 

He further indicated that there was wear and tear on the muscles, ligaments, and joints of 

appellant’s low back, which resulted in a chronic degenerative condition in the lumbar spine over 

a period of years. Dr. Baum noted that on September 2, 2011 appellant awoke with back pain 

upon movement, which traveled down her legs and up her back. He opined that this was a 

recurrence and spontaneous worsening of the February 5, 1999 employment injury that resulted 

in a chronic degenerative lumbar spine condition due to the repetitive stress of bending and 

lifting of mail trays which resulted in overuse of her low back muscles, ligaments, and spine each 

workday. Dr. Baum opined that appellant’s recurrence of September 2, 2011 was causally 

related to the work injury of February 5, 1999. He also noted that her neurologist reported that 

the August 8, 2010 electromyography (EMG) revealed left L5-S1 radiculopathy and peroneal 

neuropathy and that the September 7, 2011 lumbar spine MRI scan showed multiple disc bulges 

at L2-3 with degenerative changes at L2-3. 

By decision dated May 6, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision denying 

appellant’s claimed recurrence of disability beginning September 2, 2011. It found that the 

medical evidence of record did not establish a basis for appellant’s claimed recurrence of 

September 2, 2011. OWCP further found that there was no medical explanation which bridged 

the gap of time with treatment and the cause and effect relationship between her original 

February 5, 1999 work injury and the claimed September 2, 2011 recurrence. 

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 resulted from a previous 

injury or illness, without an intervening injury or new exposure to the work environment that 

caused the illness.8 Recurrence of disability also means an inability to work that takes place 

 7

 Dr. Baum indicated that this letter was an addendum to his September 13, 2012 report, where he previously 

diagnosed L2-3 and L5-S1 disc bulges and left-sided L5-S1 radiculopathy. 

8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x). 
4

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 or when the physical 

requirements of such an assignment are altered so that they exceed his or her established physical 

limitations.9

 Generally, a withdrawal of a light-duty assignment would constitute a recurrence of 

disability where the evidence established continuing injury-related disability for regular duty.10 

A recurrence of disability does not apply when a light-duty assignment is withdrawn for reasons 

of misconduct, nonperformance of job duties, or other downsizing or where a loss of wageearning capacity determination is in place.11 

Absent a change or withdrawal of a light-duty assignment, a recurrence of disability 

following a return to light-duty may be established by showing a change in the nature and extent 

of the injury-related condition such that the employee could no longer perform the light-duty 

assignment.12

Where an employee claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employmentrelated injury, he or she has the burden of proof to establish that the recurrence is causally related 

to the original injury.13 This burden includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a 

qualified physician who concludes that the condition is causally related to the employment 

injury.14 The physician’s opinion must be based on a complete and accurate factual and medical 

history and it must be supported by sound medical reasoning.15

ANALYSIS 

The Board has reviewed the medical evidence of record and finds no reasoned opinion to 

support that appellant sustained a spontaneous change in her medical condition on or about 

September 2, 2011 that was causally related to her February 5, 1999 work injury. 

Appellant submitted multiple medical reports from Dr. Baum dated January 2015 through 

early 2016. Dr. Baum diagnosed lumbar derangement/internal derangement of the lumbar spine 

and indicated that appellant had an increase in pain in her lumbar spine. He recommended 

chiropractic treatment and prescribed medication. In his December 14, 2015 report, Dr. Baum 

indicated that appellant had a recurrence of low back pain. He noted that she had been injured in 

1999 and had subsequent flare-ups off and on. While Dr. Baum mentioned a recurrence, he did 

not indicate whether the residuals were supported by objective data, whether the conditions had 

worsened, and whether they prevented appellant from working on or after September 2, 2011. 

He also did not provide a detailed description or medical findings of the status of her conditions 

 9 Id.

10 Id.; Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.6a(4) (June 2013). 

11 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.5(x), 10.104(c), and 10.509; see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. at Chapter 2.1500.2b. 

12 Theresa L. Andrews, 55 ECAB 719, 722 (2004). 

13 20 C.F.R. § 10.104(b); see Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. at Chapter 2.1500.5 and 2.1500.6. 

14 See S.S., 59 ECAB 315, 318-19 (2008). 

15 Id. at 319. 
5

before and after such recurrence, and failed to mention or refer to the claimed recurrence of 

September 2, 2011. Thus, his December 14, 2015 medical report is insufficient to establish 

appellant’s recurrence claim.16

In his December 23, 2015 letter, Dr. Baum noted appellant’s original work injury of 

February 5, 1999 and explained that because her job required repetitive bending and lifting of 

mail trays, an overuse injury of the back muscles occurred, which resulted in degenerative 

conditions in the lumbar spine over the years. He briefly noted the September 2, 2011 event and 

opined that it was a recurrence causally related to the February 5, 1999 work injury. Dr. Baum 

explained that appellant had a spontaneous worsening due to repetitive bending and lifting of 

mail trays, which resulted in overuse of her low back. However, he failed to bridge the gap of 

time of almost 11 years from the original work injury to the claimed recurrence and provide a 

well-reasoned explanation as to why and how appellant’s current lumbar conditions were solely 

the result of her February 5, 1999 work injury and not any nonindustrial pathology. Dr. Baum 

did not address the fact that appellant had indicated, in her September 15, 2011 Form CA-2a, that 

she awoke in pain on September 2, 2011 and went to the hospital the next day as the pain 

worsened. Furthermore, while Dr. Baum appears to attribute appellant’s degenerative lumbar 

spine conditions to her work activities, OWCP has only accepted a back strain in this case. 

Appellant has the burden of proof to establish causal relationship between any additional 

conditions not accepted by OWCP and the February 5, 1999 employment injury.17 Accordingly,

the Board finds that Dr. Baum’s opinion is of diminished probative value. 

Dr. Bhatnagar, in his hospital report of December 18, 2015, treated appellant for sciatica. 

However he provided no opinion on the cause of her condition and also failed to address the 

claimed recurrence of disability beginning September 2, 2011.18 The Board has found that 

medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition 

is of limited probative value on the issue of causal relationship.19 Therefore, this report fails to 

establish causal relationship and appellant’s recurrence claim. 

In summary, the medical evidence of record is unsupported by rationalized medical 

evidence which demonstrates that the claimed recurrence was caused, precipitated, accelerated or 

aggravated by the accepted injury or which explains the nature of the relationship between 

appellant’s current conditions and her accepted work injury.20 

On appeal counsel contends that Dr. Baum’s December 23, 2015 report established the 

factual and medical basis of her recurrence claim. However, for the reasons set forth above, 

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

51 ECAB 638 (2000). 

17 Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006); Kimper Lee, 45 ECAB 565 (1994); Thomas D. Petrylak, 39 ECAB 

276 (1987). 

18 See Mary E. Marshall, 56 ECAB 420 (2005). 

19 R.E., Docket No. 10-679 (issued November 16, 2010); K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007). 

20 A.M., Docket No. 09-1895 (issued April 23, 2010) (when a claimant stops work for reasons unrelated to the 

accepted employment injury, there is no disability within the meaning of FECA). 
6

appellant has not established either the claimed recurrence or that her current lumbar conditions 

are due to her accepted work injury. 

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 failed to establish a recurrence of disability on or after 

September 2, 2011, causally related to her February 5, 1999 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 6, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: August 25, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board