United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________________________________________

K.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, HUNTINGTON 

STATION POST OFFICE,

Huntington Station, NY, Employer

________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0788

Issued: August 23, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas S. Harkins, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 26, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 9, 

2021 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to expand the acceptance 

of her claim to include additional conditions as causally related to the accepted December 10, 2019 

employmentinjury; and (2) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence 

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

of disability commencing February 24, 2020 causally related to the accepted December 10, 2019 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 11, 2019 appellant, then a 36-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 10, 2019 she sustained injuries to her low back, left 

hip, and left knee when a truck with a trailer in tow rear-ended her delivery vehicle while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on December 10, 2019.

Appellant submitted December 10, 2019 hospital emergency department aftercare 

instructions for a motor vehicle collision injury.

In a December 12, 2019 duty status report (Form CA-17) and a work slip of even date,

Dr. Igor Stiler, a Board-certified neurologist and psychiatrist, diagnosed derangement of the 

cervical and lumbar spine, left hip, and left knee. He held appellant off work through 

January 18, 2020.

In a development letter dated December 23, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

In response, appellant submitted a December 30, 2019 statement describing the 

December 10, 2019 motor vehicle accident and a December 11, 2019 municipal police report of 

the accident.

In a January 9, 2020 Form CA-17, Dr. Stiler diagnosed derangement of the neck, low back, 

left shoulder, left knee, and left hip. He held appellant off work.

By decision dated January 27, 2020, OWCP accepted that the December 10, 2019

employment incident occurred as alleged. However, it denied the claim, finding that the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed 

conditions and the accepted employment incident. 

Appellantsubmitted additional evidence. In a January 8, 2020 report, Dr. Stiler, recounted

appellant’s symptoms of neck and left knee pain. On examination, he observed tenderness to 

palpation of the bilateral trapezius muscles, tenderness to palpation and limited motion of the 

cervical spine, lumbar spine, left femoroacetabular joint, and left knee, bilaterally positive straight 

leg raising tests, positive Milgram’s and Kemp’s tests on the left, positive Fabere’s and 

McMurray’s tests, and left hip and knee flexion strength at 4+/5. Dr. Stiler diagnosed derangement 

of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, left hip, and left knee. He referred appellant for imaging studies 

to rule out herniated discs, a labral tear of the left hip, and instability of the left knee.

In a January 25, 2020 Form CA-17, Dr. Stiler noted findings on examination of decreased 

muscle strength, tenderness to palpation of the spine, and decreased range of motion. He diagnosed 

derangement of the neck, lower back, left knee, left shoulder, and left hip. Dr. Stiler answered a 

question “Yes” indicating that the history of the alleged injury presented by appellant corresponded 

with that contained on the Form CA-17. He held appellant off work.
3

On February 14, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. She submitted a February 7, 

2020 report by Dr. Stiler noting the December 10, 2019 employment incident and subsequent 

treatment. Dr. Stiler recounted that at the moment of impact, appellant had rotated her head and 

torso toward the left to check her side mirror, then the collision caused her body to “violently jerk 

forward and backwards,” resulting in a “whiplash” injury to the head, neck, and low back. He

explained that appellant’s left knee had been injured when her body weight shifted over her 

stationary lower leg and foot. Appellant’s “left hip was injured as her body weight shifted forward 

and the seat belt restrained her.” Dr. Stiler opined that the direction of the collision and appellant’s 

position in her seat resulted in the impact being primarily absorbed on the left side of her body. 

He diagnosed derangement of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, left hip, and left knee. 

OWCP continued to receive reports from Dr. Stiler dated January 25 and February 19,

2020, reiterating the findings and diagnoses noted in his February 14, 2020 report.

By decision dated April 10, 2020, OWCP vacated, in part, its January 27, 2020 decision

and accepted appellant’s claim for whiplash. By separate decision of even date, it denied 

expansion of her claim to include derangement of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, left hip, and 

left knee.

On May 6, 2020 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for intermittent 

disability from work for the period February 24 through March 6, 2020. The record indicates that 

she had returned to limited-duty work on February 24, 2020. In accompanying time analysis forms 

(Form CA-7a), the employing establishment confirmed that during the claimed period, appellant

worked from approximately two to five hours a day and utilized leave without pay (LWOP) for 

the remaining hours when there was no work available within her restrictions. 

In a development letter dated May 7, 2020, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim for wage-loss compensation for disability from work for the period February 24, 2020 

and continuing. It afforded her 30 days to respond.

In a May 8, 2020 Form CA-17, Dr. Stiler found appellant able to perform limited-duty

work for four hours a day.3

On May 11, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for intermittent disability from work for the 

period March 7 through April 7, 2020. In accompanying Forms CA-7a, the employing 

establishment confirmed that during the claimed period, she worked for approximately two to six 

hours a day and utilized LWOP for the remaining hours when there was no work available within 

her restrictions.

On May 12, 2020 OWCP received reports by Dr. Stiler dated December 12, 2019 and 

January 8, 2020. Dr. Stiler diagnosed derangement of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, left hip, 

and left knee.

3 A May 8, 2020 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the cervical spine demonstrated a right paracentral 

broad-based disc herniations at C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6 causing spinal stenosis and foraminal narrowing with abutment 

of the bilateral exiting C5 nerve roots, a right-sided paracentral broad-based disc herniation at C6-7 indenting the 

thecal sac, mild spinal canal narrowing throughout due to congenitally shortened pedicles and straightening of the 

lordosis. 
4

In a May 29, 2020 report, Dr. Stiler diagnosed a whiplash injury to the cervical spine. He

opined that appellant had been totally disabled from work from January 25 through February 22, 

2020 and partially disabled from work as of February 23, 2020.

In a June 9, 2020 report, Dr. Stiler recounted appellant’s continuing neck, left shoulder, 

low back, and left knee pain. On examination, he observed limited range of cervical and lumbar 

motion with paraspinal spasm and tenderness, and positive straight leg raising, Milgram’s, and 

Kemp’s tests on the left. Dr. Stiler diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, herniated lumbar disc, labral 

tear of the left hip, and meniscal tear of the left knee. He submitted periodic progress notes through 

July 6, 2020.

In reports dated June 24 through August 31, 2020, Dr. Joseph Gregorace, Board-certified 

in physiatry and pain management, recounted the December 10, 2019 employment injury and 

summarized her subsequent treatment. On examination, he observed limited range of motion of 

the cervical spine, left shoulder, lumbar spine, and left knee, positive Neer and Yocum tests of the 

left shoulder, lumbar paraspinal spasms, medial joint line tenderness in the left knee, and a positive 

McMurray’s test of the left knee. Dr. Gregorace diagnosed cervical spine strain/sprain, herniated 

discs from C3-4 through C6-7, left shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis, rule out rotator cuff tear, lumbar 

spine pain with spasms, herniated discs at L3-4 and L5-S1, and a left knee medial meniscal sprain. 

He found appellant totally disabled from work.4

On September 11, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 10, 2020 

expansion decision.

In reports dated September 15 through December 2, 2020, Dr. Aron Rovner, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, recounted appellant’s history of injury and treatment. On 

examination, he observed limited range of lumbar and left knee motion, positive straight leg raising 

test, clicking with extension of the left knee, left knee effusion, and a positive McMurray’s sign 

on the left. Dr. Rovner diagnosed lumbar/cervical spine pain, multilevel lumbar disc bulges with 

radiculopathy, left knee pain, and left shoulder pain, status post December 10, 2019 employment 

injury. He opined that the diagnosed conditions were “directly causally related to the accident 

within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.” Dr. Rovner recommended intra-articular

injections and left knee arthroscopy.

In a report dated September 21, 2020, Dr. Gregorace diagnosed cervical spine strain/sprain, 

left shoulder strain, lumbar spine strain/sprain, and left knee meniscal tear. He held appellant off 

work.

On November 3, 2020 OWCP received June 24 and July 27, 2020 work slips by

Dr. Gregorace holding appellant off work. 

4 An August 11, 2020 MRI scan of the lumbar spine demonstrated a bulging disc at L2-3 without stenosis, bulging 

disc at L3-4 with bilateral foraminal encroachment and impingement of the left L3 nerve root, bulging disc at L4-5 

with bilateral foraminal encroachment and mild bilateral foraminal stenosis, central disc herniation at L5-S1 with right 

paracentral annular tear impinging the thecal sac and S1 nerve roots, and mild bilateral foraminal stenosis at L5 -S1. 

An August 11, 2020 MRI scan of the left knee demonstrated a tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, tears 

of the anterior and posterior horns of the lateral meniscus, medial and lateral retinacular sprains, joint effusion, and a 

trace Baker’s cyst. 
5

In reports dated August 10, September 10, and November 4, 2020, Dr. Stiler diagnosed

cervical radiculopathy, derangement of the lumbar spine, labral tear of the left hip, and meniscal 

tear of the left knee.

By decision dated December 10, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.

From December 11, 2020 through January 14, 2021, OWCP received reports dated 

October 9 through December 10, 2020, wherein Dr. Stiler diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, 

derangement of the lumbar spine, labral tear of the left hip, and meniscal tear of the left knee. 

In reports dated December 14 and 16, 2020, Dr. Gregorace diagnosed left C5 

radiculopathy, herniated discs from C3-4 through C6-7, status-post cervical epidural steroid 

injection, partial left rotator cuff tear, herniated discs at L3-4 and L5-S1, left L5 radiculopathy, 

and left medial meniscus tear. He noted work restrictions.

By decision dated March 25, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for recurrence of 

disability commencing February 24, 2020.

Appellant submitted additional evidence. In January 14 and February 17, 2021 reports,

Dr. Stiler diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, derangement of the lumbar spine, labral tear of the left 

hip, and meniscal tear of the left knee.5

On May 11, 2021 OWCP received reports dated December 10, 2019 by Dr. Lauren H. 

Patti, Board-certified in emergency medicine. Dr. Patti recounted the work-related motor vehicle 

accident that had occurred three hours previously. On examination, she noted left lower extremity 

pain with full range of motion and no muscle tenderness. Dr. Patti obtained x-rays of the left knee 

and hip, which demonstrated no bone, joint, or soft tissue abnormalities. She diagnosed left knee 

contusion and left hip strain.

On August 11, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. Counsel 

contended that new medical evidence established that OWCP should expand the acceptance of his 

claim to include additional conditions, and that appellant had been totally disabled for work 

commencing February 24, 2020 due to sequelae of the accepted December 10, 2019 employment 

injury.

Appellant submitted an April 19, 2021 report by Dr. Stiler. Dr. Stiler noted that the impact 

of the vehicle striking appellant’s truck caused her to jerk forward and strike her left knee against 

a tray at the front of the truck cabin. He diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, herniated lumbar disc, 

left medial meniscal tear, and partial left rotator cuff tear causally related to the December 10, 

2019 employment injury. Dr. Stiler explained that the forces of the accident put pressure on the 

fibrous exterior of the spinal discs, allowing the nucleus pulposus to protrude, which resulted in 

pain, spasms, and radiculopathy. He also opined that the impact of the accident caused appellant’s 

left femur to shift over the tibia, which was stable as her foot had been planted on the floor, 

resulting in a left meniscal tear. Additionally, Dr. Stiler explained that when appellant’s vehicle 

was impacted, her unrestrained left shoulder jerked forward, resulting in a rotator cuff tear due to 

sudden shifting of the joint. 

5 Appellant separated from the employing establishment, effective April 9, 2021.
6

In a June 8, 2021 report, Dr. Gregorace examined appellant and observed spasm and 

tenderness to palpation of the cervical and lumbar paraspinal musculature, tenderness to 

posterolateral palpation of the left shoulder, tenderness along the medial joint line of the left knee, 

tenderness at the left MCL with valgus strain, limited motion of the cervical spine, lumbar spine, 

left shoulder, and left knee, and positive Yocum’s and Lachman’s tests on the left. He diagnosed

post-traumatic cervical spine strain/sprain with spasms, post-traumatic cervical disc herniations at 

C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6 causing spinal canal stenosis and foraminal narrowing, traumatic left C5 

radiculopathy, post-traumatic lumbar strain/sprain with spasms, post-traumatic L3-4 disc 

herniation with impingement upon the L3 root with biforaminal encroachment, post-traumatic 

L5-S1 disc herniation with annular tear impinging on the thecal sac and S1 nerve roots with 

foraminal stenosis, traumatic left L5 radiculopathy, post-traumatic L2-3 disc bulge, post-traumatic 

L4-5 disc bulge with bilateral foraminal encroachment and foraminal stenosis, post-traumatic left 

shoulder strain, post-traumatic left rotator cuff tendinosis/tendinopathy with partial thickness 

bursal surface tear, and post-traumatic left medial and lateral meniscus tears with MCL sprain.

Dr. Gregorace opined that the December 10, 2019 employment injury caused significant injuries 

to the cervical and lumbar spine, left shoulder, and left knee. He explained that the sudden forceful 

impact caused by the accident “exerted tremendous pressure to the structural integrity of the 

nucleus pulposus, annulus fibrosis and facet joints of the cervical and lumbar spine,” resulting in 

C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6 disc herniations with spinal stenosis and foraminal narrowing, L3-4 and L5-

S1 disc herniations, and disc bulges at L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5. Dr. Gregorace opined that the 

cervical spine conditions explained appellant’s ongoing neck and lumbar pain with left-sided 

radiculopathy. He noted that the neck, back, left shoulder, and left knee traumas resulted in posttraumatic sprain/ strain syndromes with myofascial derangements and inflammation, leading to

scar tissue formation and restricted joint motion.

By decision dated November 9, 2021, OWCP denied modification.

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.6

To establish causal relationship, the employee must submit rationalized medical opinion 

evidence.7 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported 

by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.8 The weight of medical evidence is 

6

J.R., Docket No. 21-0790 (issued June 21, 2022); J.R., Docket No. 20-0292 (issued June26, 2020); W.L., Docket 

No. 17-1965 (issued September 12, 2018); V.B., Docket No. 12-0599 (issued October 2, 2012); JajaK. Asaramo, 55

ECAB 200, 204 (2004). 

7 R.H., Docket No. 21-0493 (issued March 4, 2022); E.W., Docket No. 20-0338 (issued October 9, 2020).

8 D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued February 18, 2020); T.K., Docket No. 18-1239 (issued May 29, 2019); I.J., 59 

ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).
7

determined by its reliability, its probative value, its convincing quality, the care of analysis 

manifested, and the medical rationale expressed in support of the physician’s opinion.9

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish expansion of the 

acceptance of the claim to include a contusion of the left knee causally related to the accepted 

December 10, 2019 employment injury. 

On December 10, 2019 Dr. Patti examined appellant due to the employment-related motor 

vehicle accident the same day of injury and diagnosed a left knee contusion. The Board thus finds 

that the evidence of record establishes that the accepted December 10, 2019 employment injury 

resulted in a visible injury of left knee contusion.

10

 The case will, therefore, be remanded to OWCP 

for payment of medical expenses for appellant’s diagnosed condition and any attendant 

disability.11

The Board further finds that this case is not in posture for decision regarding whether there 

are additional conditions causally related to the accepted December 10, 2019 employment injury.

In his April 19, 2021 report, Dr. Stiler diagnosed cervical radiculopathy, herniated lumbar

disc, left medial meniscal tear, and partial left rotator cuff tear. He opined that these findings were 

causally related to appellant’s December 10, 2019 employment injury, as the extreme forces of the 

vehicular impact put pressure on the exterior of the spinal discs, allowing protrusion of the nucleus 

pulposus. Additionally, Dr. Stiler attributed the left meniscal tear to the left femur shifting 

suddenly over the stabilized tibia, and the left rotator cuff tear to appellant’s unrestrained shoulder 

suddenly jerking forward at impact.

In a June 8, 2021 narrative report, Dr. Gregorace diagnosed cervical spine strain/sprain, 

cervical disc herniations at C3-4, C4-5, and C5-6 with spinal canal stenosis and foraminal 

narrowing, traumatic left C5 radiculopathy, lumbar strain/sprain, L3-4 disc herniation with L3 

nerve root impingement, L5-S1 disc herniation with annular tear and S1 nerve root impingement, 

left L5 radiculopathy, L2-3 disc bulge, L4-5 disc bulge with bilateral foraminal encroachment and 

foraminal stenosis, left shoulder strain, left rotator cuff tendinosis/tendinopathy with partial 

thickness bursal surface tear, and left medial and lateral meniscus tears with MCL sprain. He

characterized these findings as post-traumatic, causally related to appellant’s December 10, 2019 

employment injury, as the sudden forces of the motor vehicle accident exerted extreme pressure 

on the nucleus pulposus, annulus fibrosis, and facet joints of the spinal discs, causing C3-4, C4-5, 

9 R.H., supra note 7; C.L., Docket No. 20-0213 (issued September 15, 2021); J.L., Docket No. 20-0717 (issued 

October 15, 2020); James Mack, 43 ECAB 321 (1991).

10 See N.B., Docket No. 20-0794 (issued July 29, 2022) (the Board accepted a visible injury of right shoulder 

contusion as causally related to the accepted employment incident); B.W.,Docket No. 22-0134 (issued May 24, 2022) 

(the Board accepted a visible injury of lower back/buttocks contusion as causally related to the accepted employment 

incident); S.K., Docket No. 18-1411 (issued July 22, 2020) (the Board accepted visible injuries including bruises as 

causally related to the accepted employment incident).

11 See N.B., id.; W.R., Docket No. 20-1101 (issued January 26, 2021); A.J., Docket No. 20-0484 (issued 

September 2, 2020).
8

C5-6, L3-4, and L5-S1 disc herniations, L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5 disc bulges, and left-sided cervical 

and lumbar radiculopathy. Dr. Gregorace explained that the traumatic neck, back, left shoulder, 

and left knee injuries also caused post-traumatic sprain/strain syndromes, myofascial derangement, 

inflammation, scar tissue formation, and restricted joint motion. 

It is well established that, proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.12 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done.13

The Board finds that, while the reports of Drs. Stiler and Gregorace are insufficiently 

rationalized to establish causal relationship, they are sufficient to require further development of 

the medical evidence regarding expansion of the acceptance of the claim to include additional 

conditions.14 On remand, OWCP shall refer appellant, a statement of accepted facts, and the 

medical record to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine for an evaluation and a wellrationalized opinion as to whether the additional diagnosed conditions are causally related to the 

accepted December 10, 2019 employment injury. If the physician opines that the additional 

diagnosed conditions are not causally related to the employment injury, he or she must explain, 

with rationale, how or why their opinion differs from that of Dr. Stiler and Dr. Gregorace. 

Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a 

de novo decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

An employee seeking benefits under FECA15 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury. 16 Under FECA, the term 

disability means incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages that the employee 

was receiving at the time of injury.17 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.18 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to become disabled from 

12 See id. See also A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018); Jimmy A. Hammons, 51 ECAB 219, 

223 (1999).

13 B.C., Docket No. 15-1853 (issued January 19, 2016); E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February19, 2010);

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

14 J.R., Docket No. 21-0790 (issued June 21, 2022); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); D.S., 

Docket No. 17-1359 (issued May 3, 2019); X.V., Docket No. 18-1360 (issued April12, 2019); C.M., Docket No. 

17-1977 (issued January 29, 2019); William J. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1223 (1983).

15 Supra note 2.

16 See D.S.,Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020);F.H.,Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August23, 2019);

C.R.,Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989.

17 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); J.S., Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January 24, 2020).

18 T.W., Docket No. 19-1286 (issued January 13, 2020).
9

work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be proven by a preponderance 

of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.19

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 that had resulted from a previous 

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

the illness. The term also means an inability to work when a light-duty assignment made 

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to the work-related injury or 

illness is withdrawn (except when such withdrawal occurs for reasons of misconduct, 

nonperformance of job duties or a reduction-in-force), or when the physical requirements of such 

an assignment are altered so that they exceed his or her established physical limitations.20

When an employee, who is disabled from the job he or she held when injured on account 

of employment-related residuals, returns to a light-duty position or the medical evidence 

establishes that light duty can be performed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish by 

the weight of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence of total disability. As part 

of this burden of proof, the employee must show either a change in the nature and extent of the 

injury-related condition, or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty requirements.21

An employee who claims a recurrence of disability resulting from an accepted employment 

injury has the burden of proof to establish that the disability is related to the accepted injury. This 

burden requires furnishing medical evidence from a physician who, on the basis of a complete and 

accurate factual and medical history, concludes that the disabling condition is causally related to 

the employment injury and supports that conclusion with sound medical reasoning. 22

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

On May 6, 2020 appellant filed a claim for intermittent disability from work during the 

period February 24 through March 6, 2020. She filed a second claim on May 11, 2020 for 

intermittent disability from work for the period March 7 through April 7, 2020. On Forms CA-7a 

attached to both claims, appellant indicated that for intermittent periods beginning February 24, 

2020 she was sent home because no work was available within her restrictions. As noted above, 

a recurrence of disability can be established when a light-duty assignment made specifically to 

accommodate an employee’s physical limitations, and which is necessary because of a workrelated injury or illness, is withdrawn or altered so that the assignment exceeds the employee’s 

physical limitations.23 As appellant alleged that the employing establishment was unable to 

19 S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April 11, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

20 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see D.T., Docket No. 19-1064 (issued February 20, 2020).

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

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

22 Id.

23 Supra note 19.
10

accommodate her work restrictions, OWCP should have requested that the employing 

establishment confirm or deny the correctness of her assertion in a statement from a knowledgeable 

supervisor.24

As noted above, it is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in 

nature and while appellant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.25 It has an obligation to see that justice is done.26 

Thus, the Board will remand the case to OWCP to obtain a statement from a knowledgeable 

supervisor as to appellant’s allegation that the employing establishment was unable to 

accommodate her work restrictions. Following any necessary further development, OWCP shall 

issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has established a visible injury of left knee contusion. The 

Board further finds that this case is not in posture for decision regarding expansion of the 

acceptance of the claim to include additional conditions causally related to the accepted 

December 10, 2019 employment injury. The Board also finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision regarding whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of 

disability commencing February 24, 2020 causally related to the accepted December 10, 2019 

employment injury.

24 See J.A., Docket No. 20-0726 (issued January 26, 2022); T.R., Docket No. 19-1611(issued October 26, 2020);

see also P.H., Docket No. 20-0039 (issued April 23, 2020).

25 Supra note 12.

26 Supra note 13.
11

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 9, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed in part and set aside in part. The case is remanded 

for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: August 23, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board