United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE, 

Rochester, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0894

Issued: January 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 18, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 3, 2020 

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.

 

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

acceptance of his claim should be expanded to include right carpal tunnel syndrome or other right 

wrist/hand condition sustained as a consequence of the accepted November 12, 2014 employment 

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

for the period April 3 through August 21, 2015 causally related to the accepted November 12, 2014 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board under OWCP File No. xxxxxx806.

3

 The 

facts and circumstances of the case as set forth in the Board’s prior order are incorporated herein 

by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On November 12, 2014 appellant, then a 43-year-old inspector-security/law enforcement, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on that date, he sustained a right wrist 

injury during a one-handed handgun shooting exercise while in the performance of duty. OWCP 

assigned File No. xxxxxx405 to the claim. He stopped work on the date of the claimed injury. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for scapholunate ligament tear of the right wrist. Dr. Richard J. 

Miller, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed OWCP-authorized right wrist arthrotomy 

and scapholunate ligament repair surgery on November 25, 2014. The surgery included the 

implantation of an internal fixation device in appellant’s right wrist.4 OWCP paid appellant wageloss compensation on the supplemental rolls for disability from work commencing 

December 28, 2014. Dr. Miller released appellant to light-duty work with a 5- to 10-pound limit 

on lifting, pushing, and pulling.

5

 On March 18, 2015 appellant returned to light-duty work within 

these restrictions on a full-time basis. The work was clerical in nature and he was precluded from 

participating in weapons qualification and defense tactics. Appellant stopped work again on 

March 31, 2015. 

On May 11, 2015 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) claiming that he

sustained a recurrence of disability on March 31, 2015 due to his accepted November 12, 2014

right wrist injury (OWCP File No. xxxxxx806). He noted that he commenced using sick leave on 

March 31, 2015 and that April 3, 2015 was the date his pay stopped after his recurrence of 

disability occurred. Appellant claimed disability for the period March 31 through May 11, 2015. 

Regarding how the recurrence of disability occurred, appellant indicated that he never had full 

functionality in his right wrist/hand or absence of tingling/numbness symptoms since his 

November 12, 2014 employment injury. Moreover, his right wrist lost full functionality after he 

underwent surgery on January 30, 2015 to remove an internal fixation device. Appellant reported 

 

3 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 16-1742 (issued July 21, 2017).

4 On January 30, 2015 Dr. Miller performed OWCP-authorized surgery, including removal of the internal fixation 

device which he had implanted in appellant’s right wrist on November 25, 2014.

5 The findings of March 19, 2015 x-rays of appellant’s right wrist contained an impression of interval removal of 

the two wires fixating the scapholunate and scaphocapitate joints. There had been no significant interval change in 

alignment with mild persistent widening of the scapholunate interval.
3

that, while engaging in writing and typing at work, his right fingers began to tingle for longer 

periods than usual and then went numb. On the reverse side of the form, the employing 

establishment represented that following his original injury, appellant returned to work in a lightduty job performing administrative office tasks. Appellant was not authorized to perform any law 

enforcement-related activities, and the employing establishment did not issue him any law 

enforcement gear.

OWCP developed appellant’s claimed recurrence as a new occupational disease claim

(Form CA-2) sustained prior to March 31, 2015. Appellant provided a statement in which he

indicated that he had tingling and numbness in his right wrist, which extended into his hand, since 

suffering his November 12, 2014 work injury. He also discussed the light-duty work he performed 

for the period March 18 through 31, 2015.

Appellant submitted a May 14, 2015 report from Dr. Miller who noted that appellant

reported experiencing an onset of paresthesias suggestive of carpal tunnel following his return to 

light-duty work on March 18, 2015. Dr. Miller opined that appellant was 100 percent disabled and

noted, “Return to light-duty work [March 18, 2015], with the above-noted symptoms immediately, 

thereafter, in association with his writing and clerical activities.” He recommended that appellant 

undergo electromyogram and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) testing. In another report 

dated May 14, 2015, Dr. Miller noted that appellant had been followed for a November 12, 2014 

right wrist injury with surgery performed on November 25, 2014. He indicated that appellant was 

able to return to light-duty work on March 18, 2015, subsequently developed carpal tunnel 

syndrome symptoms, and was taken off work on March 31, 2015.

The findings of June 11, 2015 EMG/NCV testing of the upper extremities revealed normal 

results. There was no electrophysiologic evidence for a right median/ulnar neuropathy or right 

cervical radiculopathy.

In a report dated June 15, 2015, Dr. Miller noted that appellant was seen in follow-up 

regarding “difficult issues that continue with regard to his right wrist, concerns about carpal tunnel 

syndrome, this following his [scapholunate ligament] surgery and capsulodesis [on November 25, 

2014] and work-related injury [on November 12, 2014].” Dr. Miller further noted that appellant 

complained of right hand dysesthesias which seemed to be in the median nerve distribution, 

sparing the little finger. He opined that appellant’s dysesthesias were likely related to carpal tunnel 

compressive neuropathy, but noted that the EMG/NCV testing showed normal findings. Dr. Miller

released appellant to light duty with work limitations of no lifting, pushing, or pulling over 5 to 10 

pounds.

In a July 29, 2015 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

evidence in support of his claim, including a physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation as to how the reported employment factors caused or aggravated a medical condition. 

It provided a questionnaire for his completion which posed questions regarding his work duties, 

symptoms, and medical treatment. On July 29, 2015 OWCP also requested additional information 

from the employing establishment. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond. 

In response, appellant submitted an undated statement in which he explained that his 

modified assignment consisted of desk duty and that he was in charge of processing all police 
4

evidence that was seized during multiple arrests made from November 2014 through March 2015. 

Appellant reported experiencing tingling and numbness in his right hand after making evidence 

entries.

Appellant also submitted a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work 

for the period April 3 through July 24, 2015 due to his accepted November 12, 2014 employment 

injury.

In an undated letter, an area commander for the employing establishment indicated that, 

during March 2015, appellant performed administrative duties of a clerical nature, including 

addressing inventory for the employing establishment’s field office, contacting security vendors 

in order to obtain quotes for security equipment repairs/upgrades, and conducting inspections. The 

area commander noted that he was aware that appellant had complained about right wrist pain to 

a coworker.

Appellant submitted an April 2, 2015 note in which Dr. Miller noted that it was his medical 

opinion that appellant should remain out of work until seen again in six weeks.

In a report dated August 10, 2015, Dr. Miller discussed the findings of his August 7, 2015 

examination and indicated that right carpal tunnel syndrome “consequent to the original injury” of

November 12, 2014 remained his working diagnosis. He acknowledged that there were no positive 

findings on EMG/NCV testing and indicated that therefore the diagnosis of right carpal tunnel 

syndrome was not assessed as confirmed. Dr. Miller further noted, “Nevertheless, I feel strongly 

that these symptoms (numbness and associated discomfort which occur intermittently) are 

consequent to the initial injury of [November 12, 2014], and ultimately secondary to the surgery 

of [November 25, 2014]. I would not consider this to be a ‘new injury.’” He indicated that

appellant could not lift, push, or pull more than five pounds.

By decision dated September 1, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that he had 

not met his burden of proof to establish a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the 

accepted factors of his federal employment. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not 

been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On September 28, 2015 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before 

a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. During the hearing held on May 18, 

2016, appellant testified that he experienced continuous right wrist symptoms, including tingling 

and numbness extending into his right fingers, since his November 12, 2014 employment injury. 

Counsel asserted that appellant was really arguing that he sustained a recurrence of disability due 

to his November 12, 2014 employment injury in that he suffered worsening symptoms from the 

November 12, 2014 injury and the OWCP-authorized November 25, 2014 and January 30, 2015 

surgeries. He also asserted that appellant sustained right carpal tunnel syndrome as a consequence 

of the November 12, 2014 employment injury. Counsel indicated that appellant was not claiming 

a new occupational injury as he only worked for a short period in a light-duty job in March 2015. 

He further argued that OWCP File No. xxxxxx806 should be administratively combined with 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx405.
5

By decision dated August 2, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

September 1, 2015 decision, finding that appellant had not met his burden of proof to establish an 

employment-related occupational disease. The hearing representative also made a determination 

that appellant had not sustained a recurrence of disability on or after April 3, 2015 due to his 

November 12, 2014 work injury.

Appellant, through counsel, appealed the August 2, 2016 decision to the Board and, by 

order dated July 21, 2017,6the Board set aside the August 2, 2016 decision and remanded the case 

to OWCP. With respect to the issue of a recurrence of disability due to the November 12, 2014 

work injury, the Board found that the record in OWCP File No. xxxxxx806 lacked relevant 

information from OWCP File No. xxxxxx405. Consequently, the Board found that these files 

should be administratively combined. On remand, OWCP administratively combined OWCP File 

Nos. xxxxxx806 and xxxxxx405, designating the latter as the master file.

By decision dated November 16, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim as he did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish a diagnosed condition causally 

related to the accepted factors of federal employment. On November 22, 2017 appellant, through 

counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings 

and Review. During the hearing held on April 12, 2018, counsel again argued that appellant 

sustained a recurrence of disability due to his November 12, 2014 employment injury and also 

sustained the condition of right carpal tunnel syndrome as a consequence of the same injury.

By decision dated May 18, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

November 16, 2017 decision as modified to reflect that appellant’s claim actually was a claim for 

recurrence of disability due to the accepted November 12, 2014 employment injury, rather than a 

claim for a new occupational injury. The hearing representative found that additional development 

of appellant’s claim was necessary and directed OWCP to issue separate decisions upon return of 

the case record, including a decision considering whether appellant sustained right carpal tunnel 

syndrome or other right hand/wrist condition as a consequence of the accepted November 12, 2014 

employment injury (including the associated surgeries), a decision considering whether appellant 

sustained a recurrence of disability commencing April 3, 2015 due to the accepted November 12, 

2014 employment injury (including the associated surgeries), and a decision considering whether 

appellant’s claims for compensation covering the period April 3 through August 21, 2015 should 

be paid.

By decision dated October 3, 2019, OWCP denied the expansion of the acceptance of

appellant’s claim to include the additional conditions of right carpal tunnel syndrome or other right 

wrist/hand conditions as a consequence of his accepted November 12, 2014 employment injury. 

It explained that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish causal relationship.

 

6 Supra note 3.
6

By separate decision dated October 3, 2019, OWCP determined that appellant had not met 

his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability for the period April 3 through August 21, 

2015 due to his accepted November 12, 2014 employment injury.7 It explained that the medical 

evidence did not establish that appellant was disabled due to a material change or worsening of his

employment-related conditions.

On October 10, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. During the hearing held on January 9, 

2020, appellant discussed additional details of his return to work in March 2015. Counsel asserted 

that appellant was improperly forced to file a claim for a new occupational injury when he actually 

was claiming injury as a consequence of the November 12, 2014 employment injury.

After the hearing, appellant submitted a January 24, 2020 report from Dr. Miller who 

provided a timeline regarding the development of appellant’s medical condition and the course of 

his medical treatment. Dr. Miller provided an excerpt from his April 10, 2015 report in which he 

discussed appellant’s right carpal tunnel symptoms.

By decision dated March 3, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the two 

October 3, 2019 decisions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

When 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.8

The claimant bears the burden of proof to establish a claim for a consequential injury.9 As 

part of this burden, he or she must present rationalized medical opinion evidence, based on a 

complete factual and medical background, establishing causal relationship. The opinion must be 

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

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

employment injury.10

 

7 OWCP also issued another October 3, 2019 decision finding that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to 

establish a recurrence of disability due to his accepted November 12, 2014 employment injury. However, it did not 

provide appeal rights with this decision and the subject matter of the decision is essentially the same as the abovedescribed October 3, 2019 decision denying a recurrence of disability for the period April 3 through August 21, 2015.

8

J.R., Docket No. 20-0292 (issued June 26, 2020); W.L., Docket No. 17-1965 (issued September 12, 2018); V.B., 

Docket No. 12-0599 (issued October 2, 2012); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200, 204 (2004). 

9 V.K., Docket No. 19-0422 (issued June 10, 2020); A.H., Docket No. 18-1632 (issued June 1, 2020); I.S., Docket 

No. 19-1461 (issued April 30, 2020).

10 K.W., Docket No. 18-0991 (issued December 11, 2018).
7

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical evidence.11 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition 

manifests itself during a period of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was 

caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents, is sufficient to establish causal 

relationship.12

In discussing the range of compensable consequences, once the primary injury is causally 

connected with the employment, the question is whether compensability should be extended to a 

subsequent injury or aggravation related in some way to the primary injury.13 The basic rule is 

that, a subsequent injury, whether an aggravation of the original injury or a new and distinct injury, 

is compensable if it is the direct and natural result of a compensable primary injury.14 When an 

injury arises in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from that injury 

likewise arises out of the employment, unless it is the result of an independent intervening cause 

attributable to the claimant’s own conduct.15

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 right carpal tunnel syndrome or other right 

wrist/hand conditions sustained as a consequence of the accepted November 12, 2014 employment 

injury.

In support of his consequential injury claim, appellant submitted an August 10, 2015 report 

from Dr. Miller who indicated that right carpal tunnel syndrome “consequent to the original injury” 

of November 12, 2014 remained his working diagnosis. He acknowledged that there were no 

positive findings on EMG/NCV testing and indicated that therefore the diagnosis of carpal tunnel 

syndrome was not assessed as confirmed. Dr. Miller further noted, “Nevertheless, I feel strongly 

that these symptoms (numbness and associated discomfort which occur intermittently) are 

consequent to the initial injury of [November 12, 2014], and ultimately secondary to the surgery 

of [November 25, 2014]. I would not consider this to be a ‘new injury.’” 

The Board finds that, although Dr. Miller opined in his August 10, 2015 report that 

appellant’s right wrist/hand symptoms were related to his accepted November 12, 2014 

employment injury, his opinion is of limited probative value in establishing a specific diagnosed 

condition as a consequential employment injury because he did not provide adequate medical 

rationale in support of his opinion on causal relationship. Dr. Miller did not describe the medical 

process through which appellant’s symptoms were related to the November 12, 2014 employment 

injury which was only accepted for scapholunate ligament tear of the right wrist. He implicated 

 

11 G.R., Docket No. 18-0735 (issued November 15, 2018).

12 Id.

13 K.S., Docket No. 17-1583 (issued May 10, 2018).

14 Id.

15 A.M., Docket No. 18-0685 (issued October 26, 2018); Mary Poller, 55 ECAB 483, 487 (2004).
8

the OWCP-authorized right wrist arthrotomy and scapholunate ligament repair surgery which he 

performed on November 25, 2014 as causing a consequential injury, but he did not provide a 

description of how this surgery could have caused such injury. For example, Dr. Miller did not 

identify diagnostic testing results or other findings which would have shown that complications 

from the November 25, 2014 surgery caused a consequential injury. The Board has held that a 

report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain adequate 

medical rationale explaining how a given medical condition/period of disability has an 

employment-related cause.16 

The Board finds that Dr. Miller’s August 10, 2015 report is of limited probative value in 

establishing a specific diagnosed condition sustain as a consequence of the accepted November 12, 

2014 employment injury for the further reason that he provided an equivocal opinion regarding 

the diagnosis of appellant’s right wrist/hand condition. Dr. Miller noted that his working diagnosis 

of right carpal tunnel syndrome could not be confirmed because there were no positive findings 

on EMG/NCV testing. The Board has held that an opinion which is equivocal in nature is of limited 

probative value regarding the issue of causal relationship.17 For the above-described reasons,

Dr. Miller’s August 10, 2015 report is insufficient to establish appellant’s consequential injury 

claim.18

Appellant submitted a May 14, 2015 report from Dr. Miller who noted that appellant 

reported experiencing an onset of paresthesias suggestive of carpal tunnel following his return to 

light-duty work on March 18, 2015. Dr. Miller further noted, “Return to light-duty work 

[March 18, 2015], with the above-noted symptoms immediately, thereafter, in association with his 

writing and clerical activities.” In another report dated May 14, 2015, he indicated that appellant 

was able to return to light-duty work on March 18, 2015 and that he subsequently developed carpal 

tunnel syndrome symptoms. The Board finds, however, that Dr. Miller’s May 14, 2015 reports 

are of no probative value regarding appellant’s claim for a right wrist/hand condition sustained as 

a consequence of his accepted November 12, 2014 injury because Dr. Miller did not provide an 

opinion in these reports that appellant sustained such an injury. The Board has held that medical 

evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.19 Therefore, these reports are insufficient to 

establish appellant’s consequential injury claim.

Appellant also submitted a June 15, 2015 report of Dr. Miller which is of no probative value 

regarding appellant’s consequential injury claim because it does not provide an opinion that appellant 

sustained an injury as a consequence of his November 12, 2014 employment injury.20 In this report,

 

16 See T.T., Docket No. 18-1054 (issued April 8, 2020); Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

17 See E.B., Docket No. 18-1060 (issued November 1, 2018); Leonard J. O’Keefe, 14 ECAB 42, 48 (1962).

18 In a January 24, 2020 report, Dr. Miller provided an excerpt from his August 10, 2015 report in which he 

discussed appellant’s right carpal tunnel symptoms. However, he did not provide additional explanation of the opinion 

contained in the August 10, 2015 report regarding the cause of the symptoms.

19 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).

20 See id.
9

Dr. Miller noted that appellant was seen in follow-up regarding concerns about carpal tunnel 

syndrome that followed his November 12, 2014 injury and November 25, 2014 surgery. He

indicated that appellant’s dysesthesias were likely related to carpal tunnel compressive neuropathy, 

but noted that the EMG/NCV testing showed normal findings. While Dr. Miller delineated the 

timing of appellant’s right wrist/hand symptoms, he did not provide an opinion on their cause. 

Therefore, this report also is insufficient to establish appellant’s consequential injury claim.

For these reasons, 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 right carpal tunnel syndrome or 

other right wrist/hand condition sustained as a consequence of the accepted November 12, 2014 

employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

A recurrence of disability means an inability to work after an employee has returned to 

work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition which resulted from a previous 

compensable injury or illness and without an intervening injury or new exposure in the work 

environment.21 This term also means an inability to work because a light-duty assignment made 

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations, and which is necessary because 

of a work-related injury or illness, is withdrawn or altered so that the assignment exceeds the 

employee’s physical limitations. A recurrence does not occur when such withdrawal occurs for 

reasons of misconduct, nonperformance of job duties, or a reduction-in-force.22

OWCP’s procedures provide that a recurrence of disability includes a work stoppage 

caused by a spontaneous material change in the medical condition demonstrated by objective 

findings. That change must result from a previous injury or occupational illness rather than an 

intervening injury or new exposure to factors causing the original illness. It does not include a 

condition that results from a new injury, even if it involves the same part of the body previously 

injured.23

An employee who claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employment-related 

injury has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the substantial, reliable, and probative 

evidence that the disability for which he or she claims compensation is causally related to the 

accepted injury. This burden of proof requires that a claimant furnish medical evidence from a 

physician who, on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, concludes that, 

for each period of disability claimed, the disabling condition is causally related to the employment 

 

21 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see J.D., Docket No. 18-1533 (issued February 27, 2019).

22 Id.

23 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.2b (June 2013); L.B., Docket 

No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018).
10

injury, and supports that conclusion with medical reasoning.24 Where no such rationale is present, 

the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.25

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 

of proof 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 limited-duty work.26 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 limited-duty job requirements.27

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

disability for the period April 3 through August 21, 2015 causally related to the accepted 

November 12, 2014 employment injury.

Appellant submitted an April 2, 2015 note in which Dr. Miller noted that it was his medical 

opinion that appellant should remain out of work until seen again in six weeks. However, this 

report is of no probative value regarding appellant’s claim for recurrence of disability for the period 

April 3 through August 21, 2015 because Dr. Miller did not relate the identified period of disability 

to the accepted November 12, 2014 employment injury or any other employment-related cause. 

The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an 

employee’s disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.28 Therefore, this 

note is insufficient to establish appellant’s recurrence of disability claim.

Appellant also submitted a May 14, 2015 report in which Dr. Miller noted appellant’s right 

wrist/hand symptoms and indicated that he was 100 percent disabled. In another May 14, 2015

report, he indicated that appellant was able to return to light-duty work on March 18, 2015, 

subsequently developed carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms, and was taken off work on 

March 31, 2015. In a June 15, 2015 report, Dr. Miller opined that appellant’s reported 

dysesthesias were likely related to carpal tunnel neuropathy, and he released appellant to light duty 

with work limitations of no lifting, pushing, or pulling over 5 to 10 pounds. In a report dated 

August 10, 2015, he indicated that appellant could not lift, push, or pull more than five pounds. 

The Board finds that these reports also are of no probative value regarding appellant’s claim for 

an employment-related recurrence of disability during the period April 3 through August 21, 2015 

 

24 J.D., Docket No. 18-0616 (issued January 11, 2019); see C.C., Docket No. 18-0719 (issued November 9, 2018).

25 H.T., Docket No. 17-0209 (issued February 8, 2018).

26 See D.W., Docket No. 19-1584 (issued July 9, 2020); S.D., Docket No. 19-0955 (issued February 3, 2020); 

Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986).

27 Id.

28 See D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
11

because they do not provide an opinion that the periods of total or partial disability identified in 

the reports were due to the accepted November 12, 2014 employment injury.29

For these reasons, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish 

a recurrence of disability for the period April 3 through August 21, 2015 causally related to the 

accepted November 12, 2014 employment 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 has not met his burden of proof to establish that the 

acceptance of his claim should be expanded to include right carpal tunnel syndrome or other right 

wrist/hand condition sustained as a consequence of the accepted November 12, 2014 employment 

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

recurrence of disability for the period April 3 through August 21, 2015 causally related to the 

accepted November 12, 2014 employment injury.

 

29 See id. In a January 24, 2020 report, Dr. Miller provided a timeline regarding the development of appellant’s 

medical condition, but he did not provide an opinion on disability. 
12

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 3, 2020 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board