United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, THE WOODLANDS 

METRO STATION OFFICE, 

The Woodlands, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0828

Issued: January 6, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 February 21, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 27, 2019 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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.3

1 By decision dated February 26, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its March 28, 2019 decisions, regarding the 

same issue currently on appeal. However, appellant filed the current appeal to the Board on February 21, 2020, prior 

to the issuance of the February 26, 2021 decision. As OWCP issued its February 26, 2021 decision during the 

pendency of this appeal, that decision is null and void as the Board and OWCP may not simultaneously have 

jurisdiction over the same issue. See L.F., Docket No. 19-1275 (issued October 29, 2020); Terry L. Smith, 51 ECAB 

182 (1999); Russell E. Lerman, 43 ECAB 770 (1992); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990).

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the August 27, 2019 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record 

that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the 

Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this 

additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

ISSUE

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

disability commencing November 30, 2018 causally related to her accepted December 4, 2012 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 3, 2013 appellant, then a 56-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on December 4, 2012 she sprained her back in a motor vehicle accident 

(MVA) while in the performance of duty. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx693

and accepted it for thoracic sprain, lumbar sprain, neck sprain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical 

disc displacement. On April 14, 2016 appellant underwent an OWCP-authorized anterior 

discectomy and fusion at C6-7. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation on the supplemental 

rolls from April 15 through September 17, 2016 and on the periodic rolls from September 18, 2016 

to December 9, 2017.4 

Appellant accepted a modified position with the employing establishment performing 

sedentary duty for eight hours per day. She returned to work on January 19, 2018 and stopped 

work on February 5, 2018. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental 

rolls from February 5 through March 16, 2018.5 Appellant accepted a March 16, 2018 job offer 

performing sedentary duties using a telephone and computer for eight hours per day. The duties 

included lifting a telephone weighing up to two pounds intermittently and walking and standing 

for one hour per day. Appellant claimed disability for four hours per day, commencing June 20, 

2018, based on her doctor’s restrictions. OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation on the 

supplemental rolls from June 20 through November 29, 2018.

Appellant subsequently filed claims for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability 

commencing November 30, 2018. 

In a report dated December 10, 2018, Dr. Robert Lowry, a physiatrist, noted that appellant 

related that her supervisor had insisted that she work eight rather than four hours per day. He 

discussed the history of her employment-related motor vehicle accident and April 2016 cervical 

spinal fusion. Dr. Lowry indicated that appellant was currently answering telephones at work. He 

advised that he had placed her on four hours per day sedentary work. Dr. Lowry concluded that 

she was unable to return to her usual employment.

In a report dated January 24, 2019, Dr. John W. Ellis, Board-certified in family practice, 

reviewed appellant’s history of employment injuries on March 17, 1997 and December 4, 2012. 

He opined that the “accepted thoracic and lumbar conditions with surgery have resulted in bilateral 

spinal nerve root radiculopathy down both lower extremities.” Dr. Ellis further found that 

appellant had developed bilateral medial and lateral epicondylitis with cubital tunnel syndrome 

and bilateral wrist tendinitis with carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of her employment duties and 

4 OWCP previously accepted that appellant sustained a neck sprain and displacement of a cervical intervertebral 

disc without myelopathy on March 17, 1997, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx544. Appellant underwent a 

discectomy at C6-7 and fusion at C5-6 on June27, 2007. OWCP has administratively combined OWCP File Nos. 

xxxxxx693 and xxxxxx544, with the latter serving as the master file.

5 OWCP paid her for total disability during this period as no work was available within her restrictions.
3

neck injury. He recommended either that OWCP expand the acceptance of her claim to include 

the additional diagnosed conditions or that she file a new occupational disease claim for injuries 

to her elbows and wrists. Dr. Ellis advised that appellant’s neck and spinal nerve injury was a 

“double crush syndrome wherein even a little bit of impingement of the ulnar nerve at the elbow 

or median nerve at the wrist will cause both the spinal nerve impingement in the upper and lower 

extremities and ulnar nerve and medial nerve impingement.” He opined that she “may not be able 

to continue working even four hours per day,” but that he would leave her restrictions to her 

attending physician. Dr. Ellis found that appellant was partially disabled. 

On January 28, 2019 Dr. Lowry advised that the employing establishment had not offered 

appellant a “true sedentary job” as recommended by the second opinion examiners. He noted that

Dr. Ellis had found that she was unable to work at this time. In a duty status report (Form CA-17)

of even date, Dr. Lowry determined that appellant could work four hours per day with restrictions.

In a February 18, 2019 report, Dr. Lowry diagnosed cervical disc displacement, cervical 

radiculopathy, neck sprain, lumbar sprain, and thoracic sprain. He advised that he agreed with

Dr. Ellis that she should be off duty “as it is just too taxing to be at work each day for so long given 

her total spine problems.” In a Form CA-17 of even date, Dr. Lowry found that appellant was 

totally disabled from work.

In a development letter dated February 26, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the 

definition of a recurrence of disability and requested additional factual and medical evidence, 

including a report from her physician explaining how her accepted condition worsened such that 

she was unable to work. It afforded her 30 days to submit the requested information. No response 

was received within the time allotted.

By decisions dated March 28, 2019, OWCP found that appellant had not established a 

recurrence of disability causally related to her accepted December 4, 2012 employment injury.

In a report dated April 1, 2019, Dr. Lowry indicated that he had reviewed letters from 

OWCP advising that it required further evidence in support of appellant’s claim. He related that 

he was “at a loss as to what they would be looking for from a medical standpoint.” Dr. Lowry 

recommended that appellant attempt to obtain specifics of what OWCP needed and noted that 

conditions related to her injury “negatively affected her such that she can no longer work.” In a 

CA-17 of even date, he found that she was totally disabled.

On April 18, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted a report dated 

April 15, 2019 from Dr. Lowry. Dr. Lowry discussed appellant’s history of an employmentrelated motor vehicle accident and cervical surgeries in June 2007 and April 2016 and her current 

complaints of significant neck pain and spasms of the lumbar and cervical spine. He advised that 

appellant’s injuries had “spontaneous returned without intervening cause while working 

administrative duties answering [a] [tele]phone. [Appellant] has been removed from duty due to 

the previously injuries spontaneous return.” On examination Dr. Lowry found tenderness and 

reduced motion of the neck and muscle spasms of the paraspinal muscles. He reviewed the reports 

of record, noting that electrodiagnostic studies of the upper extremities performed on October 28, 

2016 showed evidence of C6 radiculopathy. Dr. Lowry diagnosed cervical, lumbar, and thoracic 

sprains, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical disc displacement. He opined that appellant’s lumbar, 

thoracic, and cervical problems had reoccurred and were “related to her original injury from when 

she was on route and was struck from behind by another vehicle on December 4, 2012.”
4

Dr. Lowry noted that she was “unable to move her neck much at all.” He found that she was 

currently unable to return to work. Dr. Lowry indicated that she had worked full time until 

June 2018, when her hours were reduced to part time, and that he believed she could not do well 

even at four hours. Dr. Lowry advised that he had agreed with Dr. Ellis that appellant should be 

off work. He attributed her pain to her accepted employment injury.

On a May 21, 2019 Form CA-17, Dr. Lowry indicated that appellant was disabled from 

work.

6

By decision dated August 27, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its March 28, 2019 

decisions.

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.7 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.8 Absent a change 

or withdrawal of a light-duty assignment, a recurrence of disability following a return to light duty 

may be established by showing a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related condition 

such that the employee could no longer perform the light-duty assignment.9

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.10

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 

6 Appellant continued to receive treatment from Dr. Alcaraz and from Dr.Zaid Malik, who specializes in pain 

medicine. 

7

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

8

Id.

9

See M.F., Docket No. 20-0136 (issued August5, 2021); G.L., Docket No. 16-1542 (issued August 25, 2017); 

Theresa L. Andrews, 55 ECAB 719, 722 (2004). See also Albert C. Brown, 52 ECAB 152 (2000); Mary A. Howard, 

45 ECAB 646 (1994); Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986).

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.2 (June 2013); F.C., Docket 

No. 18-0334 (issued December 4, 2018).
5

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.11 Where no such rationale is present, 

the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.12 

ANALYSIS

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

disability, commencing November 30, 2018, causally related to her accepted December 4, 2012 

employment injury. 

Appellant has not alleged that the employing establishment withdrew her limited -duty 

position, but instead attributed her recurrence of disability to a change in the nature and extent of 

her employment-related conditions.

On April 15, 2019 Dr. Lowry reviewed appellant’s history of a MVA at work and her prior 

cervical surgeries. He discussed her complaints of neck pain and lumbar and cervical spasms. 

Dr. Lowry indicated that the employing establishment had transferred her to another facility and 

reduced her work hours to four hours per day. He diagnosed sprains of the cervical, lumbar, and 

thoracic spine, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical disc displacement. Dr. Lowry advised that 

appellant’s condition had spontaneously reoccurred while she performed administrative duties at 

work such that she was disabled from employment. He attributed her current lumbar, thoracic, 

and cervical problems to her December 4, 2012 employment injury. Dr. Lowry found that 

appellant was totally disabled from employment given her spinal condition. He did not, however, 

sufficiently explain why she became disabled on or after November 30, 2018 such that she was 

unable to perform her sedentary employment duties due to a worsening or her condition.13 A mere

conclusion without the necessary rationale is insufficient to meet a claimant’s burden of proof.14 

On December 10, 2018 Dr. Lowry reviewed appellant’s history of an employment-related 

MVA and 2016 cervical spinal fusion. He noted that she answered telephones at work. Dr. Lowry 

indicated that he had found that appellant could only perform four hours per day of sedentary work. 

He, however, failed to provide any rationale for his opinion or reference the duties required by 

appellant’s modified position that were outside of her restrictions. As noted, the Board has held 

that a report is of limited probative value if it does not contain medical rationale explaining a causal 

relationship between the claimed disability and the accepted employment-related injury.15 

Consequently, Dr. Lowry’s opinion is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

On January 24, 2019 Dr. Ellis discussed appellant’s history of injuries at work on 

March 17, 1997 and December 4, 2012. He found that she had developed bilateral medial and 

lateral epicondylitis, bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome, bilateral wrist tendinitis, and bilateral 

11 L.O., Docket No. 19-0953 (issued October 7, 2019); J.D., Docket No. 18-0616 (issued January 11, 2019).

12 M.G., Docket No. 19-0610 (issued September 23, 2019); G.G., Docket No. 18-1788 (issued March 26, 2019).

13 See A.D., Docket No. 20-0962 (issued April13, 2021); T.G., Docket No. 20-0032 (issued November 10, 2020).

14 B.L., Docket No. 20-1685 (issued May 25, 2021).

15 See S.P., Docket No. 19-0573 (issued May 6, 20201); 
6

carpal tunnel syndrome due to her employment duties and the injury to her neck. Dr. Ellis opined 

that OWCP should expand acceptance of her claim to include additional conditions or that 

appellant should file a new occupational disease claim. He indicated that she had sustained double 

crush syndrome due to the injury to her neck and spine and found that she might not be able to 

continue working four hours per day. Dr. Ellis advised that appellant’s attending physician should 

provide her work restrictions. He opined that she was partially disabled. While he generally 

indicated that she might not be able to continue working part time, Dr. Ellis did not specifically 

address the issue of disability, instead noting that her attending physician would address work 

restrictions. As Dr. Ellis failed to directly address the dates of disability from work for which 

compensation is claimed, his report is insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.16

In a January 28, 2019 report, Dr. Lowry maintained that the job provided by the employing 

establishment was not sedentary. He indicated that Dr. Ellis had found that appellant was unable 

to work. In a CA-17 form of even date, Dr. Lowry found that she was disabled from work. He 

did not, however, explain what duties appellant performed that were not sedentary or provide any 

rationale for his disability determination. A medical opinion not fortified by medical rationale is 

of diminished probative value.17 Consequently, Dr. Lowry’s report is insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof.

On February 18, 2019 Dr. Lowry diagnosed cervical disc displacement, cervical 

radiculopathy, neck sprain, lumbar sprain, and thoracic sprain. He indicated that he agreed with

Dr. Ellis that appellant should not work given the problems with her spine. In an April 1, 2019 

report, Dr. Lowry advised that he was unclear what OWCP needed to support appellant’s claim. 

He asserted that her conditions had adversely affected her to the extent that she was unable to 

work. Again, however, Dr. Lowry did not explain why she was unable to perform the duties of 

her modified employment commencing November 30, 2018. As discussed, medical reports 

without adequate rationale are of diminished probative value and insufficient to meet appellant’s 

burden of proof.18 For this reason, Dr. Lowry’s reports are insufficient to establish that appellant 

sustained a recurrence of disability. 

Appellant submitted pain management reports from Dr. Alcarez and Dr. Malik; however, 

these reports failed to address causation or disability from employment. Medical evidence that 

does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship.19

Appellant further submitted CA-17 form reports from Dr. Lowry. These reports, however, 

are merely form reports and do not contain an opinion on whether the accepted employment injury 

caused disability from employment; consequently, they are of no probative value on the issue of 

causal relationship.20

16 See L.V., Docket No. 19-1725 (issued April5, 2021); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 ECAB 126 (2005).

17 See B.T., Docket No. 19-1505 (issued April2, 2021); T.L., Docket No. 18-0536 (issued November 27, 2018).

18 See E.H., Docket No. 19-1352 (issued December 18, 2019); E.C., Docket No. 17-1645 (issued June11, 2018).

19 K.F., Docket No.19-1846 (issued November 3, 2020); L.O., supra note 11; L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued 

August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

20 L.S., Docket No. 20-0570 (issued December 15, 2020).
7

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing 

disability from work commencing November 30, 2018, the Board finds that she 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 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 30, 2018, causally related to her accepted December 4, 2012 

employment injury. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 27, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 6, 2022

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