United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Riverdale, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0438

Issued: May 5, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 December 19, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 16, 2019 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, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

disability, commencing November 5, 2015, causally related to her accepted employment injury.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.2 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On February 2, 2010 appellant, then a 31-year-old former part-time flexible city carrier, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging major depression, stress, anxiety, 

fatigue, crying spells and digestive problems due to factors of her federal employment. OWCP 

accepted that she sustained major depression (single episode) and a generalized anxiety disorder, 

which arose on or about November 19, 2009. It accepted that appellant had been subjected to three 

unjustified disciplinary actions that occurred on September 17, November 9, and 19, 2009. 

Appellant stopped work on November 19, 2009 and OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation for 

disability from work on the supplemental rolls commencing February 4, 2010 and on the periodic 

rolls commencing June 6, 2010. On January 23, 2012 she returned to work in a part-time, limitedduty capacity. Appellant eventually increased to a six-hour workday, but then stopped work 

entirely on June 28, 2012. OWCP paid her appropriate wage-loss compensation.

By decision dated March 5, 2014, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation

effective March 9, 2014 because she no longer had disability due to her accepted employment 

conditions as of that date. It based its termination action on a June 28, 2012 report of Dr. David W. 

Aycock, a clinical psychologist, and a June 19, 2012 report of Dr. Kenneth E. Goolsby, a Boardcertified psychiatrist and OWCP referral physician. Appellant appealed to the Board and, by 

decision dated September 12, 2014, the Board reversed the March 5, 2014 termination decision,3

finding that the reports of Dr. Aycock and Dr. Goolsby were insufficient to establish that

appellant’s accepted employment conditions no longer caused disability. OWCP resumed paying 

appellant wage-loss compensation on the periodic rolls.

On February 4, 2015 appellant returned to work in a full-time position as a billing clerk

with a private employer providing chiropractic services, and OWCP paid her compensation for 

loss of wage-earning capacity.

In a September 15, 2015 report, Dr. Aycock noted that appellant’s current diagnoses were

depressive disorder, not otherwise specified, and anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, and 

indicated that these conditions were not aggravations of any preexisting conditions. He advised

that she had been able to function appropriately in an accommodating position as a billing clerk 

for a private employer.

Appellant stopped work on November 5, 2015 and filed a claim for a recurrence of

disability (Form CA-2a) on November 9, 2015, alleging that she sustained a recurrence of 

disability on November 5, 2015, due to her accepted emotional conditions. On the Form CA-2a 

she indicated that her original injury had never resolved.

 

2 Docket No. 17-0050 (issued August 2, 2017); Docket No. 14-1161 (issued September 12, 2014).

3

Id.
3

In a November 5, 2015 report, Dr. Aycock indicated that appellant was suffering from her

accepted depression and anxiety conditions, and had been experiencing a recurrence of the

symptom complex of her original injury. He opined that her depressive and anxiety disorders were 

directly caused by “her treatment on the job” at the employing establishment. Dr. Aycock 

maintained that the return of appellant’s symptom complex could not be reasonably attributed to 

any other cause except her mistreatment by the postmaster at the employing establishment. He 

found that she was totally disabled as a result of the original injury.

In a November 25, 2015 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional factual and medical evidence in support of her recurrence of disability claim. It afforded 

her 30 days to respond.

In response to the development letter, appellant submitted a November 30, 2015 report

from Dr. Aycock who found that she sustained a totally disabling recurrence of her original 2009 

symptom pattern that was caused by the harassment from her supervisors. He noted that she

reported that she enjoyed her new job and performed it well until October 2015 when her 

depressive and anxiety symptoms returned with memories and dreams of her original employmentrelated injury. Dr. Aycock advised that appellant “began to experience the same symptoms that 

debilitated her in 2009 with no other explanation beyond a spontaneous recurrence of the injuryrelated condition.”

Appellant also submitted notes from her psychotherapy treatment sessions. In notes dated

November 2, 2015, Dr. Aycock indicated that she reported that she received a performance 

evaluation from her private employer containing a rating of three out of five in all but one area. 

He noted that appellant reported that her functioning was deteriorating and that her depression and 

anxiety were returning. Appellant worried that her disability was returning to a more intense level. 

Dr. Aycock indicated that she reported that she was not working as quickly or proficiently as her 

supervisor wanted and that she felt overwhelmed in her job each day. On November 5, 2015 he 

indicated that appellant reported that her symptoms were intensifying and he believed that she was 

now disabled from work. On November 30, 2015 Dr. Aycock noted that she reported that she was 

still struggling with intensified depressive and anxiety symptoms related to her 2009 workplace 

injury. 

Appellant submitted a December 1, 2015 statement in which she indicated that there were 

no recent events occurring at her private employer that caused her to stop working on

November 5, 2015. She maintained that she stopped work due to suffering a recurrence of her 

2009 symptoms of depression and job-related stress caused by the employing establishment. 

Appellant indicated that she enjoyed working for her private employer and asserted that her

accepted depression and anxiety conditions had never resolved. 

In a January 20, 2016 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not

met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability commencing November 5, 2015 due

to her accepted emotional conditions. It determined that Dr. Aycock’s reports did not contain

sufficient medical rationale to establish such a recurrence of disability. OWCP noted that the 

medical evidence of record, including treatment notes from November 2015, supported that there 

were intervening causes that contributed to appellant’s inability to continue working at her 

employer, such that there was no spontaneous recurrence of the accepted work-related condition. 
4

Appellant disagreed with the January 20, 2016 decision and, on February 10, 2016, she 

requested a review of the written record by a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review.

In a February 1, 2016 report, Dr. Aycock opined that appellant’s condition exactly

corresponded with the definition of a recurrence of disability, namely a spontaneous change in the 

medical condition, which resulted from a previous injury or occupational illness without an

intervening injury or new exposure to factors causing the original illness. He noted that the 

recurrence of her accepted conditions was not a result of her experiences at her private employer

and indicated that her experiences at the clinic were “uniformly positive.”

By decision dated July 26, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s

January 20, 2016 decision, finding that Dr. Aycock failed to adequately explain why appellant’s

current symptoms were completely a result of her 2009 injury, rather than being related to a new

intervening exposure in her private employment.

Appellant appealed to the Board and, by decision dated August 2, 2017,4the Board 

affirmed OWCP’s July 26, 2016 decision. 

On October 17, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration of the denial of her recurrence of 

disability claim. She submitted a March 1, 2018 statement in which she argued that new evidence 

from Dr. Aycock addressed the perceived deficiencies of his earlier reports. 

Appellant submitted an October 10, 2017 letter from Dr. Aycock who advised that she was 

suffering from the accepted conditions of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder. Dr. Aycock

indicated that the letter was written to cure the deficiencies that were previously found in 

appellant’s case. He noted that her accepted work injuries were caused by unjustified disciplinary 

actions while she was employed as a letter carrier for the employing establishment, actions which 

were well documented in appellant’s original complaint. Dr. Aycock indicated that appellant

actually enjoyed her employment experiences at her private employer. He maintained that she was 

treated well by her employer, got along well with coworkers, and was given work that she could 

accomplish appropriately. Dr. Aycock indicated that appellant reported no difficulties with her

employment at her private employer. He advised that, in November 2015, her anxiety and 

depressive symptom complex intensified as a result of her personal perceptions of not being 

adequate to fulfill her job duties. Dr. Aycock asserted that these feelings were not precipitated by 

any behaviors of appellant’s private employer’s staff and he noted that she had been evaluated 

positively by her supervisors there. He opined that the feelings of inadequacy and the 

intensification of her depression and anxiety were directly related to a recurrence of the mindset 

she experienced while at the employing establishment. Dr. Aycock indicated that appellant’s selfassessment reflected the negativity she underwent when she was injured at the employing 

establishment, i.e., the injury that was accepted by OWCP. He maintained that she could not shake 

these perceptions or the anxious and depressive conditions they spawned and, therefore, she was 

reinjured and could not sustain her job with private employer. 

 

4 Supra note 2.
5

By decision dated June 28, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision, finding 

that appellant had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish a recurrence of disability, 

commencing November 5, 2015, causally related to her accepted emotional conditions. It 

determined that the evidence submitted on reconsideration was not sufficient to modify the prior 

denials of her claim “because the evidence on file does not support your recurrence of disability 

beginning [November 5, 2015] was directly related to the original accepted work injury.” OWCP 

noted, “[t]here were new intervening factors that had an impact on your emotional condition that 

contributed to your disability.”

On July 29, 2009 appellant requested reconsideration of the June 28, 2019 decision and 

submitted a July 22, 2019 statement, in which she argued that her disability beginning 

November 5, 2015 was entirely related to a spontaneous recurrence of the emotional conditions 

she suffered at the employing establishment in 2009.

By decision dated September 16, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the June 28, 2019 

decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

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

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

environment.5 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.6

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 

injury, and supports that conclusion with medical reasoning.7 Where no such rationale is present, 

the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.8

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 

 

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see J.D., Docket No. 18-1533 (issued February 27, 2019).

6

Id.

7

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

8 H.T., Docket No. 17-0209 (issued February 8, 2018).
6

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.9 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.10

ANALYSIS

The Board preliminarily notes that it is unnecessary to consider the evidence appellant 

submitted prior to the issuance of OWCP’s July 26, 2016 decision, which was considered by the 

Board in its August 2, 2017 decision. Findings made in prior Board decisions are res judicata

absent further merit review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA.11 The Board finds that 

appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability, commencing 

November 5, 2015, causally related to her accepted employment injury.

Appellant submitted an October 10, 2017 letter from Dr. Aycock who advised that she was 

suffering from the accepted conditions of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder, which were 

caused by unjustified disciplinary actions while she was employed as a letter carrier for the 

employing establishment. Dr. Aycock indicated that she actually enjoyed her private employment 

experiences. He maintained that appellant was treated well by her private employer, got along 

well with coworkers, and was given work that she could accomplish appropriately. Dr. Aycock

indicated that she reported no difficulties with her private. He advised that, in November 2015, 

appellant’s anxiety and depressive symptom complex intensified as a result of her personal 

perceptions of not being adequate to fulfill her job duties. Dr. Aycock asserted that these feelings 

were not precipitated by any behaviors of her private employer’s Clinic staff and he noted that she 

had been evaluated positively by her supervisors there. He opined that the feelings of inadequacy 

and the intensification of her depression and anxiety were directly related to a recurrence of the 

mindset she experienced while at the employing establishment. Dr. Aycock indicated that 

appellant’s self-assessment reflected the negativity she underwent when she was injured at the 

employing establishment. He maintained that she could not shake these perceptions or the anxious 

and depressive conditions they spawned and, therefore, she was reinjured and could not sustain 

her job with her private employer. 

The Board finds that Dr. Aycock’s October 10, 2017 report is of limited probative value 

with respect to appellant’s recurrence of disability claim because he failed to provide a rationalized 

medical opinion explaining his conclusion that appellant’s claimed recurrence of disability 

beginning November 5, 2015 was due to her accepted emotional conditions, major depression 

(single episode) and generalized anxiety disorder. 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/level of disability has an employment-related cause.12 Dr. Aycock 

 

9 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).

10 C.B., Docket No. 19-0464 (issued May 22, 2020); see R.N., Docket No. 19-1685 (issued February 26, 2020).

11 C.M., Docket No. 19-1211 (issued August 5, 2020).

12 See T.T., Docket No. 18-1054 (issued April 8, 2020); Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).
7

did not describe appellant’s accepted depression and anxiety conditions in any detail or explain 

the medical process through which they could have caused disability on or after 

November 5, 2015. He did not sufficiently describe the basis for the recurrence of her accepted 

employment conditions. Dr. Aycock only generally noted, without elaboration that appellant was 

subjected to unjustified disciplinary actions while she was employed as a letter carrier for the 

employing establishment. 

In OWCP’s regulations, a recurrence of disability is defined, in part, as 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.13 Dr. Aycock did not adequately describe 

appellant’s work circumstances during her private employment or otherwise sufficiently explain 

why appellant’s emotional condition commencing in November 2015 was not related to her private 

work or other nonwork-related causes. Importantly, he did not discuss his own psychotherapy 

notes from November 2015 in which appellant reported events suggesting she might have reacted 

to factors associated with her work at her private employer. In this regard, Dr. Aycock’s 

October 10, 2017 report is of limited probative value regarding appellant’s recurrence of disability 

claim because it is not based on a complete and accurate factual and medical history. The Board 

has held that a report on a medical question is of limited probative value if it is not based on a 

complete and accurate factual and medical history.14

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence establishing a recurrence of disability, 

commencing November 5, 2015, causally related to her accepted emotional conditions, the Board 

finds that she has not met her burden of proof.

On appeal, appellant alleges that OWCP misinterpreted the evidence of record, including

Dr. Aycock’s various reports. As explained above, Dr. Aycock’s reports did not provide sufficient 

medical rationale to support recurrence, therefore, appellant has not met her 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 met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of 

disability, commencing November 5, 2015, causally related to her accepted employment injury.

 

13 See supra note 6.

14 See supra note 8. See also M.W., Docket No. 20-0881 (issued January 13, 2021).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 16, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 5, 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