United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Merrick, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0389 

Issued: May 8, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 9, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 8, 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(d), the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established that he sustained a recurrence of disability 

on March 11 and 12, 2016 causally related to accepted sacroiliitis. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on October 30, 2013 appellant, then a 45-year-old city carrier, was 

kicked in the low back by a coworker and sustained sacroiliitis.2

 Dr. Alexandre B. DeMoura, an 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 October 30, 2013 x-rays taken at a hospital emergency room were negative for acute fracture or subluxation. 
2

attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed sacroiliac joint syndrome.3

 He held 

appellant off work through December 20, 2013. Appellant participated in physical therapy. 

On December 21, 2013 appellant accepted the employing establishment’s offer of fulltime, limited-duty assignment as a modified city carrier, lifting up to 50 pounds intermittently, 

walking up to four hours, and reaching above the shoulder for up to eight hours. 

Dr. DeMoura submitted periodic reports through March 3, 2014 diagnosing sacroiliac 

joint syndrome, right-sided lumbar radiculitis, an L3 hemangioma, and a herniated L5-S1 disc. 

Appellant continued working as a modified city carrier. OWCP paid compensation for 

intermittent work absences due to medical appointments and physical therapy.4

In a January 7, 2016 report, Dr. DeMoura diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy, lumbar disc 

displacement, and myofascial pain syndrome.5

 On January 28, 2016 he diagnosed sciatica. 

In a March 10, 2016 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. DeMoura diagnosed paraspinal 

lumbar spasms. He released appellant to work on March 14, 2016. 

On March 15, 2016 appellant claimed a recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) on 

March 11 and 12, 2016 due to an increase in lumbar spasms and pain. He was working full-time 

modified duty at the time of the claimed recurrence. Appellant returned to limited-duty work on 

March 15, 2016. 

In a May 23, 2016 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the additional evidence needed to 

establish his claim, including medical evidence establishing a spontaneous worsening of the 

accepted condition, or withdrawal of his modified-duty position. It afforded him 30 days to 

submit such evidence. Appellant responded by undated letter that he did not sustain a recurrence 

of disability. He provided a June 6, 2016 duty status report (Form CA-17) from Dr. DeMoura, 

finding appellant able to work eight hours a day modified duty as of March 14, 2016. 

On June 16, 2016 appellant claimed an unspecified occupational disease (Form CA-2) 

commencing October 30, 2013. He continued to work full-time modified duty with intermittent 

absences. 

On October 25, 2016 appellant telephoned OWCP, asserting that he had not intended to 

claim a recurrence of disability or occupational disease. He acknowledged signing the forms, but 

that his supervisor submitted them. 

 

 3 November 4, 2013 lumbar x-rays showed straightening of the lumbar lordosis indicative of muscle spasm. A 

February 7, 2014 lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan showed a small L4-5 disc bulge, and a “small 

central L5-S1 disc protrusion with proximal S1 nerve encroachment.” 

4

 Dr. Debora Mottahedeh, an attending osteopath Board-certified in physiatry, administered a series of sacroiliac 

and lumbar injections from March 25, 2014 through September 29, 2015. 

 5

 A January 21, 2016 lumbar MRI scan showed a persistent L4-5 disc bulge, and a small central L5-S1 disc 

herniation without nerve root encroachment. 
3

By decision dated November 8, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disability as he had not established that the accepted sacroiliitis spontaneously worsened or that 

his modified-duty position was altered or withdrawn. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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 has resulted from a previous injury or illness without an intervening injury or 

new exposure to the work environment that caused the illness.”6 

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 

establishes that the employee 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 to 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 job requirements.7 This 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.8 An award of 

compensation may not be made on the basis of surmise, conjecture, speculation or on appellant’s 

unsupported belief of causal relation.9

ANALYSIS 

 OWCP accepted that appellant sustained sacroiliitis when kicked by a coworker. 

Appellant returned to full-time modified duty work with intermittent absences. He claimed that 

he sustained a recurrence of disability on March 11 and 12, 2014, at which time he was 

performing modified duty. Appellant asserted that the accepted sacroiliitis condition became 

painful spontaneously, such that he was disabled from his modified-duty position. He thus has 

the burden of proof to provide sufficient evidence, including rationalized medical evidence, to 

establish the causal relationship asserted.10

In support of his claim, appellant provided a March 10, 2016 duty status report (Form 

CA-17) from Dr. DeMoura, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, diagnosing 

paraspinal lumbar spasms. Dr. DeMoura held appellant off work through March 13, 2016. He 

also submitted a June 6, 2016 duty status report, finding appellant able to perform full-time 

modified duty as of March 14, 2016. However, Dr. DeMoura did not opine that the accepted 

 

 6 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.2.b 

(June 2013). See also Philip L. Barnes, 55 ECAB 426 (2004). 

7 Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); see also Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986). 

 8 Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001); see Nicolea Bruso, 33 ECAB 1138, 1140 (1982). 

 9 Patricia J. Glenn, 53 ECAB 159 (2001); Ausberto Guzman, 25 ECAB 362 (1974). 

10 Ricky S. Storms, 52 ECAB 349 (2001). 
4

sacroiliitis worsened spontaneously, such that appellant was disabled from performing his 

modified-duty position. In this absence of such rationale, his opinion is of diminished probative 

value and is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.11 Appellant did not submit 

additional medical evidence addressing his condition on March 11 and 12, 2016. 

 OWCP advised appellant by May 23, 2016 letter to submit rationalized medical evidence 

regarding whether the accepted conditions had worsened on and after March 11, 2016 as 

claimed. Appellant did not submit such evidence. The Board notes that appellant contended in 

an undated response and on October 5, 2016 that he did not intend to claim a recurrence of 

disability. Therefore, appellant did not meet his 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 appellant has not established that he sustained a recurrence of 

disability on March 11 and 12, 2016 causally related to accepted sacroiliitis. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated November 8, 2016 is affirmed. 

Issued: May 8, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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 

 11 Deborah L. Beatty, 54 ECAB 340 (2003).