United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Maspeth, NY, Employer

________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Nos. 18-1751 and 19-0792

Issued: May 6, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Paul Kalker, Esq., for the appellant1

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 September 17, 2018 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an 

August 17, 2018 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 18-1751. On January 8, 2019 appellant,

through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 7, 2018 merit decision of OWCP, to which 

the Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 19-0792. 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.

 

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

ISSUES

The issue are: (1) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of his claim should be expanded to include cervical, lumbar, thoracic conditions and 

additional right hand and shoulder conditions as causally related to his accepted employment

injuries; and (2) whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of total 

disability commencing April 18, 2018 causally related to his accepted employment-related 

injuries.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 28, 2018 appellant, then a 53-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) for injuries resulting from continued use of his right shoulder, back, 

neck, elbow, and hands while performing his repetitive work duties.3 He noted that he first became 

aware of his conditions and their relationship to his federal employment on January 29, 2018. 

Appellant stopped work on February 8, 2018 and returned to part-time, light-duty work on 

February 21, 2018. He stopped work again on April 18, 2018 and has not returned to work. On 

May 24, 2018 OWCP accepted the claim for right hand and shoulder sprains. 

OWCP subsequently received a letter dated May 2, 2018 from Dr. Barry M. Katzman, an 

attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to counsel. Dr. Katzman indicated that he first 

examined appellant on May 11, 2016. He noted a history of appellant’s accepted February 16, 

2016 and January 29, 2018 employment injuries and medical treatment. Dr. Katzman noted that 

he had reviewed appellant’s medical records. He discussed findings on physical examination and 

provided an impression of cervical disc herniations, status post left shoulder surgery, and right 

shoulder, left elbow and knee, and bilateral wrist sprains. Dr. Katzman opined that appellant’s 

conditions were causally related to the accepted February 16, 2016 and January 29, 2018 workrelated injuries. He recommended cervical surgery. 

In a report dated April 25, 2018, Dr. Tanzania Khan, a pain medicine specialist, noted a 

history that appellant sustained a traumatic back injury three months prior related to his 

performance of repetitive activity at work. She reported physical examination findings and 

provided an assessment of lumbar radiculopathy and lumbago. 

A May 10, 2018 lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan report by

Dr. Francisco A. Delara, Jr., a diagnostic radiologist, provided an impression of multilevel 

degenerative annular bulges identified at L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5 with mild-to-moderate central canal 

stenosis at L3-4 and L4-5, and narrowing of the lateral recesses at L3-4 and L4-5. Dr. Delara also 

provided an impression of small superimposed right extra foraminal disc protrusion at L2-3 that 

nearly contacts the exiting right L2 nerve root. He further provided an impression of foraminal 

narrowing at L2-3 through L4-5. 

 

3 The record indicates that appellant has a prior claim for a February 16, 2016 traumatic injury, assigned OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx484. OWCP accepted that claim for cervical and left shoulder sprains and right hand and left knee 

contusions. 
3

Dr. Khan, in a May 23, 2018 report, indicated that appellant had undergone a lumbar MRI 

scan and an electromyogram (EMG). She reexamined him and provided an assessment of lumbar 

disc displacement, spondylosis, and spinal stenosis, and lumbosacral degenerative disc disease. 

Dr. Khan reiterated her assessment of lumbar radiculopathy. She responded “yes” to the question 

of whether the diagnosed conditions were caused by appellant’s history of injury. Dr. Khan 

advised that he was totally disabled. 

OWCP, by letter dated June 7, 2018, referred appellant, together with a statement of 

accepted facts, the case record, and a set of questions, to Dr. Jeffrey Guttman, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion to determine the nature and extent of his injury-related

medical residuals and disability and to determine whether any additional conditions were causally

related to the accepted employment injuries.

Dr. Khan continued to treat appellant. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated May 23, 

2018 and an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated May 29, 2018, she noted a history 

of the accepted employment injuries. Dr. Khan diagnosed spinal stenosis at L2-3, L4-5 and

restated her diagnoses of lumbar disc displacement, lumbosacral spondylosis derangement, lumbar 

disc displacement, stenosis, degenerative disc disease, and radiculopathy. In the Form CA-17 

report, she advised that the diagnosed conditions were due to the accepted employment factors. In

the Form CA-20 report, Dr. Khan checked a box marked “yes” indicating that the diagnosed 

conditions were caused by the described employment activity. She related that appellant’s

conditions were likely related to repetitive lifting, pushing, bending, and twisting while moving 

parcels. In both reports, Dr. Khan advised that appellant was unable to work and listed his physical 

restrictions. She indicated that his disability began on January 29, 2018. In a May 29, 2018 work 

capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c), Dr. Khan indicated that appellant was unable to work due 

to pain and numbness along his lower back and leg that limited his daily functions of standing, 

sitting, walking, and lifting. 

In a thoracic spine x-ray report dated May 7, 2018, Dr. Baik H. Kang, a Board-certified 

diagnostic radiologist, noted an impression of levoscoliosis of the thoracic and lumbar spines and 

degenerative disc disease at L2, L3, L4, and osteoarthritis with muscle spasm. 

OWCP received additional reports dated May 16 and 31, 2018 from Dr. Katzman who 

diagnosed right shoulder sprain, cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, right elbow lateral 

epicondylitis, right hand strain, thoracic back pain, muscle spasm, cervical spondylosis, and right 

wrist sprain. Dr. Katzman advised that appellant was totally disabled from work and listed his 

physical restrictions. In a Form CA-17 report date May 31, 2018, he indicated that appellant’s 

thoracic back pain and muscle spasm were due to the January 29, 2018 employment injury. In a 

May 31, 2018 Form CA-20 report, Dr. Katzman placed a check in a box marked “yes” indicating 

that appellant’s diagnosed right shoulder, elbow, and hand conditions were caused by repetitive 

overhead work. He advised that appellant was totally disabled from September 18, 2018 to the 

date of his examination. In a Form OWCP-5c dated May 31, 2018, Dr. Katzman explained that 

appellant was unable to work because he was still recovering from his injuries. In a disability 

certificate dated May 31, 2018, he advised that appellant was totally incapacitated for work from 

May 26 through June 27, 2018. 
4

In a report dated May 21, 2018, Dr. Peter Perdik, a Board-certified internist, indicated that 

nerve conduction velocity (NCV) and EMG study revealed evidence of a mild peroneal motor 

peripheral neuropathy predominantly affecting the bilateral lower extremity and bilateral L4-5 

radiculopathy. In reports dated May 7, 10 and 16, 2018, he examined appellant and diagnosed 

lumbar radiculopathy on the right at L2-3 and L3-4, strain of the muscle and tendon of unspecified 

wall of the thorax, multilevel disc bulges on the right lumbar spine, and right L2 nerve 

impingement.

Dr. Narayan B. Paruchuri, a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, performed an MRI scan 

of the right shoulder on June 5, 2018. He provided an impression of intermediate grade partialthickness bursal surface tear of the posterior fibers of the supraspinatus tendon. Dr. Paruchuri also 

provided an impression of intermediate grade interstitial tear of the anterior fibers of the 

subscapularis tendon and cyst in the myotendinous junction. 

A report dated June 15, 2018 by Dr. Steven Ross, a Board-certified neurologist, was 

received. He noted a history that appellant was status post a January 29, 2018 work-related injury 

and that he sustained work-related injury in February 2016. Dr. Ross reported findings on physical 

examination and provided an impression that appellant was status post a January 29, 2018 workrelated overuse injury resulting in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar myofascial derangement with 

lumbar disc bulges, lumbar radiculopathy, and right shoulder pain. He advised that appellant was 

markedly partially disabled. 

Reports dated June 28 and 29 and July 17 and 19, 2018 were received from appellant’s 

physical therapist. 

Reports dated April 6 and June 15, 2018 by Dr. Jason M. Gallina, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted appellant’s accepted February 16, 2016 employment injury and 

discussed findings on physical and neurological examination and diagnostic testing. He provided 

an assessment of neck pain and left greater than right radiating arm pain. 

In a June 27, 2018 report, Dr. Katzman reexamined appellant and reiterated his diagnoses 

of right shoulder sprain, cervical radiculopathy, and right elbow lateral epicondylitis.

Dr. Guttman, in a medical report dated July 26, 2018, described a history of appellant’s 

accepted employment injuries and reviewed medical records. He discussed findings on physical 

examination and diagnosed status post cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, status post right 

shoulder, elbow, and wrist sprains. In response to OWCP’s questions, Dr. Guttman indicated that 

the accepted right hand and right shoulder sprains were resolving. He noted that there were no 

subjective complaints that did not correspond with his objective findings. Dr. Guttman further 

noted that appellant had a prior accident and injured his neck, back, left shoulder, and right hand 

and elbow. Appellant also had prior left shoulder surgery. Dr. Guttman advised that appellant’s 

other diagnosed conditions were causally related superimposed upon preexisting conditions. He 

did not suffer from any concurrent nonwork-related conditions. Dr. Guttman indicated that 

appellant’s preexisting conditions were temporarily aggravated by his employment and were 

resolving. He further indicated that appellant was temporarily moderately disabled due to his 

accepted conditions. Appellant was not currently disabled from other nonwork-related preexisting 

or subsequent conditions. Dr. Guttman advised that appellant had not reached maximum medical 
5

improvement. Appellant could return to sedentary light-duty work with restrictions, eight hours a 

day. Dr. Guttman noted that appellant’s September 29, 2016 left shoulder arthroscopy, 

debridement of the labrum and rotator cuff, bursectomy, and subacromial decompression 

sufficiently addressed an accepted work condition. He maintained that the requested cervical spine 

surgery, C5-6 and C6-7 anterior cervical discectomy, and fusion were not medically necessary. 

Dr. Guttman explained that this injury was superimposed upon a preexisting injury. He 

recommended a series of two lumbar spine epidural steroid injections. Dr. Guttman indicated that 

appellant’s prognosis was good and there were no specific problems hindering his recovery. 

OWCP, by decision dated August 17, 2018, denied the expansion of the acceptance of 

appellant’s claim to include the additional conditions. It found that the medical evidence of record 

did not contain a rationalized opinion explaining how appellant’s diagnosed conditions were 

caused or contributed to by the accepted employment conditions. 

By a second decision dated August 17, 2018, OWCP expanded the acceptance of 

appellant’s claim to include left shoulder, elbow, and wrist sprains, right wrist sprain, and right 

and left shoulder derangement. 

Appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) on September 7, 2018 alleging that he 

continued to experience symptoms of his January 29, 2018 work-related conditions on April 18, 

2018, the date he stopped work. In support of his claim, he submitted reports from Dr. Ross. In a 

Form CA-20 report dated April 17, 2018, Dr. Ross again related a history of the January 29, 2018

employment injury. He diagnosed right shoulder derangement and reiterated his diagnoses of

cervical/thoracic/lumbar spine myofascial derangement. Dr. Ross placed a check in a box marked 

“yes” indicating that the diagnosed conditions were caused or aggravated by the described 

employment activity. He explained that repetitive use of both shoulders and overhead work caused 

the diagnosed conditions. Dr. Ross advised that appellant was totally disabled commencing 

April 18, 2018. In a Form CA-17 report dated April 17, 2018, he again opined that appellant’s 

cervical/thoracic/lumbar spine and right shoulder derangement were due to his accepted 

January 29, 2018 employment injury. Dr. Ross indicated that appellant was unable to work. In a 

Form OWCP-5c dated April 17, 2018, he restated his cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine and right 

shoulder diagnoses and opinion on appellant’s disability status. Dr. Ross also listed appellant’s

physical restrictions. 

Appellant submitted a report dated April 18, 2018 from Dr. Katzman, who again diagnosed 

right shoulder sprain, cervical radiculopathy, right elbow lateral epicondylitis, and right hand 

strain. Dr. Katzman also reiterated his opinion on causal relationship. He advised that appellant’s

complaints were causally related to the January 29, 2018 employment injury superimposed on his

previous right shoulder injury.

In subsequently received reports dated August 1 and September 12, 2018, Dr. Katzman 

continued to diagnose right shoulder sprain, cervical radiculopathy, right elbow lateral 

epicondylitis, and right hand strain. 

By development letter dated October 30, 2018, OWCP advised appellant of the 

deficiencies of his recurrence claim by explaining the type of factual and medical evidence

required and provided a questionnaire for his completion. It afforded him 30 days to respond.
6

On November 21, 2018 appellant responded to OWCP’s questionnaire. He noted that he 

experienced a spontaneous change for the worse in his symptoms and nature and extent of his 

work-related condition without an intervening cause. Appellant related that he continued to 

experience symptoms of his work-related medical condition which resulted in work restrictions. 

He maintained that his claim was not for a new occupational disease or traumatic injury due to his 

worsening work-related condition without an intervening cause. Appellant further maintained that 

he had continuing symptoms of his original injury from the time of this injury through the date of 

his alleged recurrence. He indicated that he had not sustained any other injuries or illnesses on or 

off work since his original injury. Appellant also had no hobbies and/or activities that may have 

affected his work-related condition. 

By decision dated December 7, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disability, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a material 

change or worsening of his accepted conditions without an intervening cause. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Where an employee claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was due

to an employment injury, he or she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is

causally related to the employment injury.4

Causal relationship is a medical issue that must be established by rationalized medical

opinion evidence.5 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be

one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors

identified by the claimant.6 The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its

probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale

expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of his claim should be expanded to include cervical, lumbar, thoracic conditions and 

additional right hand and shoulder conditions as causally related to his accepted employment 

injuries.

 

4

Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004).

5 Elizabeth H. Kramm (Leonard O. Kramm), 57 ECAB 117 (2005).

6 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

7 Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001) (medical reports not containing rationale on causal relationship are 

entitled to little probative value); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001).
7

In a May 2, 2018 report, appellant’s physician, Dr. Katzman, noted a history of appellant’s 

accepted employment injuries and his prior accepted February 16, 2016 employment injuries. He 

provided examination findings and an impression of cervical disc herniations, status post left 

shoulder surgery, and right shoulder, left elbow and knee, and bilateral wrist sprains. Dr. Katzman 

opined that the diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted February 16, 2016 and 

January 2018 work-related injuries. He recommended cervical surgery. Other reports from

Dr. Katzman dated May 16 and 31, 2018 diagnosed cervical and lumbar radiculopathy, right elbow 

lateral epicondylitis, right hand strain, thoracic back pain, muscle spasm, cervical spondylosis, and 

right wrist sprain. In a May 31, 2018 narrative report, he opined that the diagnosed conditions 

were due to the accepted January 29, 2018 employment injury. The Board finds that, although

Dr. Katzman supported causal relationship in his May 2 and 31, 2018 reports, he did not provide 

medical rationale explaining the causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and

recommended surgery to the accepted work injuries.8 In a May 31, 2018 Form CA-20 report,

Dr. Katzman checked a box marked “yes” indicating that appellant’s diagnosed conditions were 

caused by the accepted employment injuries. He advised that appellant was totally disabled from 

September 18, 2018 to the date of his examination. The Board has held that a report that addresses 

causal relationship with an affirmative checkmark, without medical rationale explaining how the 

employment injuries caused or aggravated the diagnosed condition, is of diminished probative 

value and insufficient to establish causal relationship.9 Dr. Katzman failed to offer medical 

rationale explaining how appellant’s diagnosed cervical, lumbar right elbow, hand, and wrist, 

thoracic back conditions and disability were caused or aggravated by the accepted employment 

factors. In his remaining reports, he addressed appellant’s right shoulder and elbow and cervical 

conditions and medical treatment, but failed to offer an opinion stating that the diagnosed

conditions and disability were caused or contributed to by the accepted employment injuries.10 

Thus, this evidence is therefore insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.11

In her April 25, 2018 report, Dr. Khan diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and lumbago, but 

failed to provide an opinion finding that the diagnosed conditions were caused or contributed to 

by the accepted employment injuries. As there is no opinion on causal relationship, this report is

of no probative value.12 Other reports from Dr. Khan dated May 23 and 29, 2018 diagnosed spinal 

stenosis at L2-3 and L4-5, lumbar disc displacement, lumbosacral spondylosis derangement, 

lumbar disc displacement, stenosis, degenerative disc disease and lumbar radiculopathy. In a 

May 23, 2018 Form CA-17, she opined that those diagnosed conditions were due to the accepted 

January 2018 employment injury. In both reports, Dr. Khan found that appellant was totally 

disabled from work. The Board finds that she did not provide medical rationale explaining the 

causal relationship between his diagnosed conditions and attendant disability and the accepted 

 

8 S.S., Docket No. 17-1256 (issued December 13, 2018).

9 See S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019).

10 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

11 See Y.C., Docket No. 17-1938 (issued January 7, 2019).

12 Supra note 10.
8

work injuries.13 Dr. Khan’s opinion, in a May 29, 2018 Form CA-20 report, that appellant’s 

diagnosed conditions were “likely” related to his repetitive work activity is speculative in nature 

and thus insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.14 Thus, this evidence is insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof.15

Dr. Gallina’s April 6 and June 15, 2018 reports found that appellant had neck pain and left 

greater than the right radiating arm pain. Pain is a description of a symptom rather than a clear 

diagnosis of a medical condition.16 Moreover, Dr. Gallina did not provide an opinion on causal 

relationship.17 The Board finds that his report is insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of 

proof.

The reports from appellant’s physical therapist have no probative medical value in 

establishing appellant’s claim as physical therapists are not considered physicians as defined under 

FECA.18 As such, this evidence is also insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Appellant also submitted diagnostic reports from Drs. Kang, DeLara, Perdik, and 

Paruchuri. However, the Board has held that diagnostic studies lack probative value as they do 

not provide an opinion on causal relationship between the accepted employment factors and a 

diagnosed condition.19

On appeal, counsel contends that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to expand 

the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include his diagnosed cervical, thoracic, lumbar, conditions 

and additional right and left shoulder, and left knee conditions. For the foregoing reasons, the 

Board finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant sustained 

additional conditions causally related to the accepted employment injuries.

 

13 S.S., supra note 8.

14 B.M., Docket No. 17-1079 (issued June 4, 2018).

15 See Y.C., supra note 11.

16 B.H., Docket No. 18-1219 (issued January 25, 2019); C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010); Robert

Broome, 55 ECAB 339 (2004) (the Board has consistently held that pain is a symptom rather than a compensable

medical diagnosis).

17 Supra note 12.

18 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) provides that a physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by state law. 

See 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); S.A., Docket No. 16-1128 (issued November 24, 2017); M.M., Docket No. 16-1617 (issued 

January 24, 2017); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as nurses, physician 

assistants and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA). See also Gloria J. 

McPherson, 51 ECAB 441 (2000); Charley V.B. Harley, 2 ECAB 208, 211 (1949) (a medical issue such as causal 

relationship can only be resolved through the submission of probative medical evidence from a physician).

19 See E.V., Docket No. 18-1617 (issued February 26, 2019); R.G., Docket No. 18-1045 (issued February 1, 2019).
9

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 10.5(x) of OWCP’s regulations provides that 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. The term also means an 

inability to work that takes place 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-in-force), or when the physical requirements of such an assignment are altered so that 

they exceed his or her established physical limitations.20

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 of 

proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantive evidence, a recurrence

of total disability and to show that he or she cannot perform such light-duty work. As part of this 

burden, the employee must show a change in the nature and extent of the light-duty job 

requirements.21

Causal relationship is a medical issue that must be established by rationalized medical

opinion evidence.22 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a

physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the

claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors. The opinion of the

physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be

one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors

identified by the claimant.23 The weight of medical evidence is determined by its reliability, its

probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis manifested, and the medical rationale

expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.24

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

total disability commencing April 18, 2018 causally related to his accepted employment-related 

injuries.

 

20 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see Theresa L. Andrews, 55 ECAB 719 (2004).

21 Richard E. Konnen, 47 ECAB 388 (1996); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222, 227 (1986).

22 Supra note 5.

23 Supra note 6.

24 Supra note 7.
10

Appellant has not alleged a change in the nature and extent of his light-duty job 

requirements. Therefore, he must thus provide medical evidence establishing that he was disabled 

due to a worsening of his accepted work-related conditions.25 The Board finds that appellant did 

not submit medical evidence to support that he was disabled due to a worsening of his accepted 

work-related conditions commencing April 18, 2018.

In an April 17, 2018 Form CA-20 report, Dr. Ross placed a check in a box marked “yes”

indicating that appellant’s diagnosed conditions of right shoulder derangement, 

cervical/thoracic/lumbar spine myofascial derangement were caused or aggravated by his accepted 

employment injuries. He explained that repetitive use of both shoulders and overhead work caused 

the diagnosed conditions. Dr. Ross found that appellant was totally disabled commencing 

April 18, 2018. OWCP only accepted right shoulder derangement. It has not accepted the other 

diagnosed conditions. Dr. Ross did not adequately explain how appellant’s disability on or after 

April 18, 2018 was due to a worsening of his accepted work-related right shoulder condition.26 

Moreover, he did not explain how appellant’s other diagnosed conditions were due to a worsening 

of his accepted work-related conditions. Without such an explanation, this report of Dr. Ross is 

insufficient to establish a recurrence of disability. In a Form CA-17 report and Form OWCP-5c 

report dated April 17, 2018, Dr. Ross again reiterated his opinion that appellant’s 

cervical/thoracic/lumbar spine and right shoulder derangement were due to his accepted 

employment injuries. He also reiterated his opinion that appellant was totally disabled from work.

Dr. Ross did not specifically explain whether appellant sustained a recurrence of disability causally

related to the accepted employment conditions or otherwise provide medical reasoning explaining 

why any current condition or disability beginning April 18, 2018 was due to the accepted 

employment injuries.27 For the reasons stated, his reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s 

burden of proof. 

Dr. Katzman’s April 18, August 1 and September 12, 2018 reports diagnosed right 

shoulder sprain, cervical radiculopathy, right elbow lateral epicondylitis, and right hand strain. He 

opined that the diagnosed conditions were causally related to the January 29, 2018 employment 

injury superimposed on his previous right shoulder injury. However, Dr. Katzman did not 

specifically explain whether appellant sustained a recurrence of disability causally related to the 

accepted employment conditions or otherwise provide medical reasoning explaining why any 

current condition or disability beginning April 18, 2018 was due to the accepted employment 

injuries.28 Thus, his reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Khan’s May 29, 2018 Form OWCP-5c report found that appellant was totally disabled 

from work due to his back and leg pain and numbness. As noted, pain is a description of a symptom 

rather than a clear diagnosis of a medical condition.29 Moreover, Dr. Khan did not provide an 

 

25 Jackie D. West, 54 ECAB 158 (2002); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986).

26 A.P., Docket No. 15-1513 (issued March 2, 2016).

27 D.H., Docket No. 18-0129 (issued July 23, 2018).

28 Id.

29 Supra note 15.
11

opinion as to whether appellant’s disability was due to a worsening of his accepted employmentrelated conditions.30

 Likewise, his May 31, 2018 disability certificate did not offer an opinion as 

to whether appellant’s disability from work from May 26 through June 27, 2018 was causally 

related to a worsening of his accepted employment-related conditions.31 Thus, the Board finds 

that his reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s burden of proof. 

As noted, appellant must submit rationalized medical evidence supporting causal 

relationship between the disabling conditions and the accepted injuries. Furthermore, the medical 

evidence must directly address the dates of disability for work for which compensation is 

claimed.32 None of the medical evidence of record provided a discussion of how appellant’s 

accepted conditions caused total disability during the period in question, or supported a finding 

that his newly diagnosed conditions were causally related to the accepted injury.33 Appellant 

therefore did not meet his burden of proof.34

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 met his burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of his claim should be expanded to include cervical, lumbar, thoracic conditions and 

additional right hand and shoulder conditions as causally related to his accepted employment 

injuries. The Board further finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a 

recurrence of total disability, commencing April 18, 2018, causally related to his accepted 

employment-related injuries.

 

30 L.B., supra note 10.

31 Id.

32 C.S., Docket No. 08-2218 (issued August 7, 2009); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

33 See C.Y., Docket No. 17-0605 (issued January 11, 2018); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon

Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

34 Supra note 27.
12

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 7 and August 17, 2018 decisions of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: May 6, 2019

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