United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, DUNWOODY POST 

OFFICE, Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0187

Issued: June 15, 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 November 16, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 28, 2021 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.2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the October 28, 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

ISSUE

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

disability commencing December 5, 2020 causally related to her accepted August 6, 2016 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 8, 2016 appellant, then a 51-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on August 6, 2016 she hit her right leg/knee on a gear shift when exiting 

her mail truck while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for right knee 

contusion and tear of medial meniscus, right knee under the current OWCP File No. xxxxxx655. 

Appellant stopped work on December 30, 2016. On April 19, 2017 she underwent an 

OWCP-approved right knee arthroscopy with chondroplasty medial femoral condyle. OWCP paid 

appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls as of January 2, 2017 and on the 

periodic rolls as of April 2, 2017. Appellant returned to full-duty work on July 1, 2017.3 

On July 24, 2021 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) alleging that her 

accepted knee conditions have worsened since she returned to work as a result of work duties 

which include climbing steps, lifting heavy packages, walking, standing, and getting in and out of 

the mail truck. The employing establishment indicated that she stopped work after the claimed 

recurrence on December 5, 2020. 

In a December 7, 2020 medical report, Dr. Jesse E. Seidman, an attending Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, provided an assessment of pain in right knee and pain in left knee. For the 

right knee examination, he reported significant guarding to even light touch anywhere over the 

right knee with no physical findings of swelling, warmth, erythema, or crepitus. Dr. Seidman 

further noted that appellant’s right knee was grossly stable in all planes despite guarding, with no 

crepitus, benign calf and neurovascular intact distally, and with a measured range of motion of 5

to 110 degrees. He held her off work and requested a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan 

study be scheduled. In a progress report dated April 19, 2021, Dr. Seidman related that appellant 

was seen again for bilateral knee pain. He related that on physical examination of the bilateral 

knees she had no asymmetrical warmth to palpation, no edema or swelling, and normal sensation 

and motor function. Dr. Seidman again assessed bilateral knee pain and recommended that 

appellant undergo an MRI scan. 

On July 13, 2021 appellant underwent MRI scans of the knees. 

In a July 19, 2021 report, Dr. Seidman noted that appellant’s July 13, 2021 MRI scans

demonstrated a right medial meniscus (recurrent) tear and a left lateral meniscus tear. The x-rays 

taken that day showed mild arthritic change, but weightbearing x-rays demonstrated reasonably 

well-preserved joint spaces. Dr. Seidman noted that appellant had not done well with conservative 

3 Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx311, OWCP accepted an October 6, 2017 traumatic injury for strain of unspecified 

muscle and tendon at ankle and foot level, left foot, left knee sprain, and tear of lateral meniscus, left knee. Appellant 

stopped work on October 6, 2017 and returned to work with restrictions on January 22, 2018. OWCP paid her wageloss compensation on the periodic rolls for this injury from March 31, 2019 until December 5, 2020. 
3

management and, based on the MRI scan studies, he opined that she could undergo arthroscopic 

debridement with partial right medial and partial left lateral meniscectomies. Appellant indicated 

that she wanted to proceed with the right knee procedure. Copies of the July 13, 2021 MRI scans 

were received into record along with Dr. Seidman’s request for surgical authorization of the right 

knee.

Appellant also submitted a July 24, 2021 statement in which she described how her knee 

pain had progressed. 

In an August 12, 2021 developmental letter, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

received was insufficient to establish her claim for recurrence of disability because the medical 

evidence did not describe any duties that she could not perform as of the date of her claimed 

recurrence based upon objective findings. It provided her with the definition of a recurrence of 

disability and requested that she submit additional factual and medical evidence that she was 

disabled from employment. OWCP also provided a questionnaire for appellant’s completion and 

specifically requested that she submit a physician’s opinion explaining how the claimed disability 

was due to the August 6, 2016 employment injury. It afforded her 30 days to provide the necessary 

evidence.

In an August 16, 2021 report, Dr. Seidman provided an assessment of tear of medial 

meniscus of right knee and right knee pain. He indicated that there had been no change in 

appellant’s condition. Dr. Seidman also indicated that treatment recommendations were 

unchanged. 

In a September 13, 2021 progress report, Dr. Seidman provided assessments of right knee 

pain, other chronic pain, tear of medial meniscus of right knee, and unilateral primary 

osteoarthritis, right knee. He noted on right knee examination appellant had difficulty getting out 

of her chair and had to be assisted onto the examination table. Once supine appellant would not 

allow full extension of her knee and held it at about 30 degrees of flexion, but allowed flexion to 

100 degrees. No warmth erythema or effusion was noted and right knee was grossly stable with 

benign calf and distally, neurovascular intact. Dr. Seidman reported significant guarding on 

examination with some palpable medial osteophytes and, compared to other examinations, 

appellant was globally tender and would not tolerate Apley’s or McMurray’s maneuvers. He 

provided a cane to assist her in walking and referred her to pain management.4 

By decision dated October 28, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for recurrence of 

disability commencing December 5, 2020. It found that the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish that she was disabled from work due to a material change or worsening of 

her accepted August 6, 2016 employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

OWCP’s implementing regulations define a recurrence of disability as an inability to work 

after an employee has returned to work, caused by a spontaneous change in a medical condition, 

4 On October 20, 2021 Dr.Seidman performed a right knee arthroscopy with partial medial meniscectomy. 
4

which resulted from a previous injury or illness without an intervening injury or new exposure to 

the work environment.5

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.6 Where no such rationale is present, 

the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.7

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.8

ANALYSIS

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

disability commencing December 5, 2020 causally related to her accepted August 6, 2016 

employment injury. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a series of medical reports and work status 

notes from Dr. Seidman. In December 7, 2020 and April 19, 2021 reports, Dr. Seidman provided 

an assessment of right knee and left knee pain. He noted examination findings and held appellant 

off work commencing December 7, 2020. However, Dr. Seidman did not attribute her disability 

to the accepted August 6, 2016 employment injury.9 Instead, he appeared to attribute appellant’s 

inability to work to increased pain. As the Board has held, medical evidence which does not offer 

an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or disability is of no probative value.

10

 

For this reason, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s recurrence claim. 

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x).

6 N.L., Docket No. 21-1131 (issued March 2, 2022); see J.S., Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January24, 2020).

7

Id.

8 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.2 (June 2013);D.T., Docket 

No. 19-1064 (issued February 20, 2020).

9 T.S., Docket Nos. 20-1177 and 20-1296 (issued May 28, 2021); F.S., Docket No. 18-0098 (issued August 13, 

2018); P.W., Docket No. 17-0514 (issued June9, 2017).

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

Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988).
5

In a July 19, 2021 report, Dr. Seidman reviewed appellant’s July 13, 2021 MRI scan of the 

right knee and related that it demonstrated a right medial meniscus (recurrent) tear. He noted that 

she had not done well with conservative management and, based on the MRI scan study, he opined 

that she should undergo arthroscopic debridement with partial right medial meniscectomy. 

However, Dr. Seidman did not offer an opinion regarding the causal relationship between 

appellant’s claimed recurrence of disability and the accepted employment injury. As such, this 

report is of no probative value.11

Because appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence to establish a recurrence 

of disability commencing December 5, 2020 causally related to her accepted August 6, 2016 

employment injury, 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(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 December 5, 2020 causally related to her accepted August 6, 2016 

employment injury.

11 Id.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THATthe October 28, 2021 decision of the Office Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 15, 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