United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ASBURY PARK POST 

OFFICE, Asbury Park, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1238

Issued: May 9, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 August 11, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 9, 2021 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.

ISSUES

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

acceptance of his claim should be expanded to include an additional condition causally related to 

his accepted December 9, 2019 employment injury; and (2) whether he has met his burden of proof 

1 The Board notes that,following the March 9, 2021 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

to establish a recurrence of disability commencing May 26, 2020 causally related to his accepted 

December 9, 2019 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 10, 2019 appellant, then a 30-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 9, 2019 he bruised his left knee and hip when 

he fell down stairs while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on December 10, 2019. 

Appellant performed light-duty work from December 10 through 17, 2019 and returned to fullduty work on December 18, 2019. On June 19, 2020 OWCP accepted the claim for resolved 

contusions of the left knee and hip.

In a note dated December 16, 2019, Dr. Nikolai LaGoduke, an internist, reported his 

findings regarding appellant’s work-related left hip and knee injuries on December 9, 2019. He

found that his gait and stance, and range of motion and strength in his left hip and knee were all 

normal. Dr. LaGoduke reported that appellant’s left knee and hip contusions had resolved. He

released him to return to full-duty work.

On June 17, 2020 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) alleging that on 

May 23, 2020 he sustained a recurrence of his diagnosed conditions and on May 26, 2020 he 

stopped work due to these conditions. He noted that he performed modified duties for one week 

following his December 9, 2019 employment injury.

In a June 19, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his 

claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish his claim

and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded him 30 days to respond.

On June 1 and 15, 2020 Dr. Keiron Greaves, a pain medicine physician, examined 

appellant due to back pain. He noted that appellant had fallen downstairs at work injuring his left 

knee and hip. Dr. Greaves reported that appellant was experiencing back and leg pain such that 

he was unable to walk. He diagnosed acute left-sided low back pain with left-sided sciatica. 

Dr. Greaves found that appellant was totally disabled from work.

In July 9 and 13, 2020 notes, Dr. Praveen Yalamanchili, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, described appellant’s history of injury and diagnosed lumbar disc herniation with 

radiculopathy based on a June 23, 2020 lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. He 

opined that his condition and symptoms originated from the December 9, 2019 employment injury

and found that he was totally disabled from work.

On July 13, 2020 appellant completed OWCP’s development questionnaire and indicated 

that, after he returned to work, he continued to experience left hip and leg pain. He asserted that 

on May 23, 2020 the pain worsened and on May 24, 2020 he could not move. Appellant recounted 

that he continued to walk 18 to 20 miles a day delivering mail until the pain in his left hip and leg 

became intolerable.

By decision dated August 13, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim, finding

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a recurrence of disability,

commencing May 26, 2020, causally related to his accepted employment injury. It noted that his 
3

physicians had not explained how he sustained a herniated disc due to the December 9, 2019 

employment injury.

On November 17 and December 4, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested 

reconsideration and asserted that the acceptance of his claim should be expanded to include lumbar 

spine conditions.

In reports dated October 8, 23, and 24, 2020, Dr. David Estin, a Board-certified 

neurosurgeon, noted appellant’s history of a fall downstairs in December 2019 while in the 

performance of duty and the accepted left knee and hip contusions. He described his employment 

duties after the accepted injury and noted that his back symptoms progressively worsened. 

Dr. Estin reviewed appellant’s lumbar MRI scan and noted that he exhibited atrophy of his left 

thigh and calf. He diagnosed a large disc herniation at L5-S1 on the left. Dr. Estin noted that 

appellant was well until his employment-related fall and opined that this caused a herniated disc 

at L5-S1. He recommended surgery and found that he was totally disabled.

By decision dated March 9, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.

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.3

To establish causal relationship between the condition, as well as any attendant disability 

claimed and the employment event or incident, the employee must submit rationalized medical 

opinion evidence based on a complete factual and medical background, supporting such a causal 

relationship.4 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.5 The weight of medical evidence is 

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.6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

should be expanded to include an additional condition causally related to his accepted employment 

injury.

3

S.B., Docket No. 19-0634 (issued September 19, 2019).

4 T.K., Docket No. 18-1239 (issued May 29, 2019).

5 R.P., Docket No. 18-1591 (issued May 8, 2019).

6

Id.
4

In his July 9 and 13, 2020 reports, Dr. Yalamanchili diagnosed lumbar disc herniation with 

radiculopathy. He attributed the disc herniation to appellant’s December 9, 2019 employment 

injury. These reports, however, fail to provide rationale explaining causal relationship between 

appellant’s lumbar disc herniation and the December 9, 2019 accepted employment injury or as a 

consequence of the accepted left hip and knee contusions. Dr. Yalamanchili’s opinion is,

therefore, of limited probative value and insufficient to establish expansion of the claim. 7

Dr. Estin, in reports dated October 8, 23, and 24, 2020, noted the accepted December 9, 

2019 employment injury and described appellant’s employment duties following the accepted 

injury. He diagnosed a large disc herniation at L5-S1 on the left. Dr. Estin noted that he was well 

until his employment-related fall and opined that, therefore, this fall caused his back condition. 

The Board has held that the fact that a condition manifests itself during a period of employment is 

insufficient to establish causal relationship. Temporal relationship alone will not suffice.8

Dr. Greaves examined appellant due to back pain on June 1 and 15, 2020 and provided an 

accurate history of injury. He diagnosed acute left-sided low back pain with left-sided sciatica. 

Dr. Greaves offered no opinion on causal relationship. The Board has held that medical evidence 

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

value on the issue of causal relationship.9

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish expansion of the acceptance 

of the claim to include an additional condition causally related to his accepted December 9, 2019 

employment injury, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

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

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

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

environment.10 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.11

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 

7 M.M., Docket No. 20-1557 (issued November 3, 2021). 

8 Z.S., Docket No. 19-1010 (issued October 1, 2020); S.S., Docket No. 19-0675 (issued August 22, 2019); M.H.,

Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019);DanielO. Vasquez, 57 ECAB 559 (2006).

9

See H.T., Docket No. 20-1238 (issued July 12, 2021); D.W., Docket No. 18-1139 (issued May 21, 2019); L.B.,

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K.,Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); M.M., supra note 7; J.D.,Docket No. 18-1533 (issued February 27, 2019).

11 Id.
5

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.12

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 employment 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. 13 Where 

no such rationale is present, the medical evidence is of diminished probative value. 14

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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

disability, commencing May 26, 2020, causally related to his accepted December 9, 2019 

employment injury.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted June 1 and 15, 2020 notes from Dr. Greaves, 

diagnosing acute left-sided low back pain with left-sided sciatica and finding that appellant was 

totally disabled. Similarly, in July 9 and 13, 2020 notes, Dr. Yalamanchili diagnosed lumbar disc 

herniation with radiculopathy and found that he was totally disabled. In reports dated October 8, 

23 and 24, 2020, Dr. Estin noted the accepted December 9, 2019 employment injury and diagnosed 

a large disc herniation at L5-S1 on the left finding that appellant was totally disabled from work.

Drs. Greaves, Yalamanchili, and Estin attributed appellant’s disability from work on and 

after May 26, 2020 to conditions of the lumbar spine, including a herniated disc, a condition not 

accepted as employment related. None of the medical evidence of record attributes his disability 

for work to his accepted left hip and knee contusions. Therefore, the reports of Drs. Greaves, 

Yalamanchili, and Estin are of no probative value in establishing a recurrence of disability as they 

do not contain an opinion that appellant was disabled from work commencing May 26, 2020 

causally related to his accepted employment injuries.15

As the medical evidence of record does not contain a medical opinion establishing causal 

relationship between appellant’s claimed recurrence of disability and the accepted December 9, 

2019 employment injuries, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof.

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

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

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

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

15 Supra note 15.
6

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

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

acceptance of his claim should be expanded to include an additional condition causally related to 

his accepted December 9, 2019 employment injury. The Board further finds that he has not met 

his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability commencing May 26, 2020 causally 

related to his accepted December 9, 2019 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 9, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 9, 2022

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