United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GHENT POST 

OFFICE, Ghent, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0082

Issued: October 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 25, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from June 11 and 

August 5, 2020 merit decisions 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish recurrences of

disability commencing April 1 and May 13, 2019 causally related to the accepted June 2, 2014 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 2, 2014 appellant, then a 45-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 2, 2014 his left knee gave out as he stepped out of his long life 

vehicle (LLV) onto a slopped shoulder. He stopped work on June 3, 2014. On July 9, 2014 OWCP 

accepted appellant’s claim for a closed fracture of the left femoral condyle. It paid him intermittent 

disability on the supplemental rolls beginning July 18, 2014 through January 10, 2015 and on the 

periodic rolls from September 21 through October 18, 2014. On November 13, 2014 he accepted 

a light-duty assignment as a modified rural carrier. 

In an April 8, 2019 statement, appellant alleged that in March 2019 he began to experience 

soreness in his left knee. He indicated that his pain had worsened and contended that, because 

there was no specific event that caused the recent increase in pain, he believed that his 2014 knee 

repair following his 2014 employment injury had worn out. 

On April 11, 2019 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) alleging a 

recurrence of disability from work commencing April 1, 2019. He explained that he had been on 

light-duty assignment and had gradually worked his way back to full duty. Over the past few 

weeks, appellant indicated that his left knee had become sore. He again contended that he had not 

done anything to cause the increase in pain and that it was caused by wear and tear of his previous 

June 2, 2014 employment injury. Appellant also noted that, in between the time of his original 

injury and the time he returned to work, he had experienced back problems that caused him to miss 

work, as well as having had surgery on “both carpal tunnels.”

3

 He stopped work on April 10, 2019. 

Appellant returned to work on April 12, 2019.

In an April 22, 2019 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

his recurrence claim and informed him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed. It 

provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

requested evidence. 

Appellant submitted an April 10, 2019 medical report in which Dr. Gorczynski noted his 

previous treatment of appellant in relation to his June 2, 2014 left knee employment injury. He

informed him that he had experienced no new traumas to his knee and that his pain began in 

March 2019. Dr. Gorczynski reviewed an x-ray scan of the left knee, which found no evidence of 

a fracture and minimal degenerative changes and diagnosed left knee pain and effusion, left knee. 

3 Appellant has a previously accepted July 1, 2003 traumatic injury claim for a cervical strain/sprain under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx868. He also has a previously accepted January 6, 2005 traumatic injury claim for a cervical 

sprain/strain, a lumbosacral sprain/strain, a contusion of the right shoulder and a contusion of the right elbowunder 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx045. Appellant’s claims have not been administratively combined.
3

In an April 19, 2019 diagnostic report, Dr. Michael Cooley, a Board-certified radiologist, 

conducted a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s left knee, finding a nearly 

detached chondral flap from the weight bearing surface of the medial femoral condyle, a 

degenerated and torn posterior horn and posterior root of the medial meniscus and irregular fullthickness cartilage loss along the far medial aspect of the medial tibial plateau. 

In a May 13, 2019 medical report, Dr. Gorczynski noted that appellant had returned to 

work and that the pain in his left knee had worsened. Upon review of the April 19, 2019 MRI 

scan, he discussed treatment options for appellant’s left knee osteoarthritis. Dr. Gorczynski

advised that appellant undergo left knee replacement surgery to treat his condition. In a medical 

note of even date, he found that he was unable to work due to his April 1, 2019 left knee injury. 

In a May 14, 2019 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant asserted that 

on April 1, 2019 he noticed significant pain in his left knee every time he got out of his LLV. 

Since that day, it had been difficult for him to tolerate his knee pain while walking on uneven 

ground and on stairs to the point where it had worsened and his physician suggested he undergo 

knee replacement surgery. Appellant indicated that he had undergone annual physical 

examinations over the past five years and had no knee issues until April 1, 2019. 

By decision dated June 24, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disability commencing April 1, 2019, finding that he had not established that he was disabled 

from work due to a material change or worsening of his accepted condition. It noted that he had 

not provided a report from his treating physician that explained how his condition spontaneously 

worsened on April 1, 2019 and rendered him disabled from work on April 10, 2019. 

On May 22, 2020 Form CA-2a appellant alleged a recurrence of disability from work 

commencing May 13, 2019. Appellant reported that he had been unable to deliver packages for 

the past six months and that he had experienced limited strength, stability, and motion, as well as 

pain and swelling, in his left knee. He stopped work on May 13, 2019.

On June 1, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s 

June 24, 2019 decision. 

In support of his request for reconsideration, appellant submitted a January 27, 2020 returnto-work certificate from Dr. Gorczynski who released appellant to return to work full duty on 

February 3, 2020. 

In a February 2, 2020 narrative medical report, Dr. Gorczynski reviewed the history of 

appellant’s June 2, 2014 left knee employment injury and his subsequent medical treatment, 

includingthe August 18, 2014 left knee arthroscopic procedure performed by Dr. DiGiovanni. He 

noted that appellant followed up on April 10, 2019 where he denied any new left knee injury, but 

noted an increase in pain. On evaluation Dr. Gorczynski observed moderate left knee effusion, 

medial joint line tenderness and a positive medial McMurray test. On review of April 19, 2019 

MRI scans of his left knee, he recommended that appellant undergo knee replacement surgery and 

held him off of work on 100 percent temporary disability. Dr. Gorczynski performed total left 

knee replacement surgery on October 1, 2019. On January 27, 2020 appellant reported minimal 

pain after completing physical therapy and was cleared by Dr. Gorczynski to attempt to return to 
4

work at regular duty. Based on a review of his medical records, Dr. Gorczynski opined that it was 

clear that his June 2, 2014 employment injury was the proximate cause of subchondral fracture 

and overlying articular damage that required him to undergo surgery on August 18, 2014. He 

explained that the injury resulted in post-traumatic arthritis and that, although he recovered from 

his initial injury, appellant’s subsequent clinical deterioration and eventual need for a total left 

knee replacement was an expected consequence of the damage that originally occurred on 

June 2, 2014. Dr. Gorczynski concluded that appellant was unable to work from May 13, 2019 to 

January 27, 2020 as a direct result of his June 2, 2014 left knee injury. 

In a June 8, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his 

claim for a recurrence of disability commencing May 13, 2019. It advised him of the type of 

factual and medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

By decision dated June 11, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its June 24, 2019 decision 

denying appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability commencing April 1, 2019. 

In a June 25, 2020 response to OWCP’s June 8, 2020 development letter, appellant asserted 

that he had experienced an increase in symptoms related to his accepted injury that prevented him 

from performing his employment duties. He contended that the medical evidence of record would 

explain that his disability was related to his June 2, 2014 employment injury. 

By decision dated August 5, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disability, commencing May 13, 2019, finding that he had not established that he was disabled 

from work due to a material change or worsening of his accepted condition. It explained that he 

had not provided a report from his treating physician that explained how his condition 

spontaneously worsened and rendered him disabled from work beginning May 13, 2019. 

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 has resulted from a previous 

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

the illness.4 This 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 the established physical 

limitations.5

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 establish that he or she can perform the limited-duty position, the employee has the burden 

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); S.W., Docket No. 18-1489 (issued June 25, 2019).

5

Id.
5

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. 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.6 This burden 

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

basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, that for each period of disability 

claimed, the disabling condition is causally related to the employment injury, and supports that 

conclusion with medical reasoning. When no such rationale is present, the medical evidence is of 

diminished probative value.7

For each period of disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish 

that he or she was disabled from work as a result of the accepted employment injury. 8 The Board 

will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of medical evidence 

directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so 

would essentially allow an employee to self-certify their disability and entitlement to 

compensation.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish recurrences of 

disability from work commencing April 1 and May 13, 2019 causally related to the accepted 

June 2, 2014 employment injury.

In support of his recurrence claims, appellant submitted a February 2, 2020 narrative 

medical report in which Dr. Gorczynski reviewed the history of appellant’s treatment for his 

June 2, 2014 left knee employment injury and his subsequent August 18, 2014 surgical procedure 

to treat his diagnosed closed fracture of the femoral condyle, left. Dr. Gorczynski noted that 

appellant returned to his office on April 10, 2019 where he complained of an increase of his left 

knee pain and denied any new traumatic injury to his knee. He observed moderate left knee 

effusion, medial joint line tenderness and a positive medial McMurray and subsequently performed 

a total left knee replacement surgical procedure on October 1, 2019 to treat appellant’s left knee 

condition. Based on a review of appellant’s medical records, Dr. Gorczynski opined that it was 

clear that his June 2, 2014 employment injury was the proximate cause of subchondral fracture 

and overlying articular damage that required him to undergo surgery on August 18, 2014. He 

explained that the injury resulted in post-traumatic arthritis and that, although he recovered from 

his initial injury, appellant’s subsequent clinical deterioration and eventual need for a total left 

knee replacement was an expected consequence of the damage that originally occurred on 

June 2, 2014. Dr. Gorczynski concluded that appellant’s inability to work from May 13, 2019 to 

January 27, 2020 was a direct result of his June 2, 2014 left knee injury.

6 H.T., Docket No. 17-0209 (issued February 8, 2019); RonaldA. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001).

7 E.M., Docket No. 19-0251 (issued May 16, 2019); MaryA. Ceglia, Docket No. 04-0113 (issued July 22, 2004).

8

See B.D., Docket No. 18-0426 (issued July 17, 2019); Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005).

9

Id., Fereideoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
6

Although he provided an opinion regarding disability, Dr. Gorczynski’s report is 

insufficiently rationalized to establish causal relationship between appellant’s periods of disability 

and his accepted June 2, 2014 left knee injury. He did not provide an explanation, supported by 

objective medical evidence that appellant’s accepted condition had suddenly worsened to the 

extent that he could no longer perform the duties of his position. 10 The Board has held that a report 

is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale 

explaining how a given medical condition/disability was related to employment factors. 11 As such,

Dr. Gorczynski’s February 2, 2020 narrative medical report is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

recurrence claims.

Appellant also provided medical reports dated April 10 and May 13, 2019 in which

Dr. Gorczynski noted that, despite not experiencing any new traumas to his left knee, appellant 

experienced an increase in left knee pain on April 1 and May 13, 2019, respectively. In his 

May 13, 2019 medical report, Dr. Gorczynski indicated that appellant’s left knee continued to 

worsen and found that appellant would be unable to work due to his April 1, 2019 left knee injury. 

As previously noted, a medical report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if 

it does not contain medical rationale explaining how a given medical condition/disability was 

related to employment factors.12 Further, 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.13 Therefore, these reports are also insufficient to establish appellant’s 

recurrence of disability claims.

Appellant also submitted an April 19, 2019 diagnostic report in which Dr. Cooley 

performed an MRI scan of his left knee. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic studies, 

standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not address 

whether the accepted employment injuries resulted in appellant’s period of disability on specific 

dates.14

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence establishing recurrences of disability 

commencing April 1 and May 13, 2019, causally related to his accepted employment injury, the 

Board finds that he has not met 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.

10 R.L., Docket No. 19-0444 (issued July 29, 2019); J.L.,Docket No. 15-1951 (issued May 16, 2016).

11 See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) (finding that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale describing the relation between work factors and 

a diagnosed condition/disability). See also J.M., Docket No. 16-0306 (issued May 5, 2016).

12 Id.

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

14 O.C., Docket No. 20-0514 (issued October 8, 2020); R.J.,Docket No. 19-0179 (issued May 26, 2020).
7

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish recurrences of 

disability from work commencing April 1 and May 13, 2019 causally related to the accepted 

June 2, 2014 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 11 and August 5, 2020 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: October 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board