United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Boar

__________________________________________

B.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICES, SEQUOIA & 

KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK, 

Three Rivers, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1358

Issued: May 11, 2022

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 15, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 30, 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.

ISSUE

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

need for medical treatment on or after March 22, 2021,causally related to his accepted October 15, 

1997 employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board on another issue.

2

 The facts and 

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

relevant facts are as follows.

On October 17, 1997 appellant, thena 26-year-old firefighter, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on October 15, 1997 he injured his right knee when hiking on a hillside

while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for right knee and leg sprain, right 

patella chondromalacia, right plica syndrome, and aggravation of right lower leg osteoarthrosis. It 

authorized right knee arthroscopies, which were performed on March 3, 1998, February 9, 1999, 

September 6, 2000, March 3, 2003, January 26, 2010, and March 1, 2016. Appellant returned to

his full-time date-of-injury job on June 9, 2016. 

On April 26, 2021 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) alleging a need for 

additional medical treatment for his right knee conditions beginning March 22, 2021. He claimed 

that his right knee was very unstable which was why he required further medical treatment by an 

orthopedic physician. 

In a development letter dated April 29, 2021, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional evidence in support of his claim, including a physician’s opinion supported by a medical 

explanation establishing the relationship between his current need for medical treatment and the 

accepted employment conditions. It provided a questionnaire for his completion, which posed 

questions regarding his medical treatment. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

In a completed questionnaire dated May 4, 2021, appellant explained that he had not 

missed work due to his injury, but that he had the same right knee pain since the October 15, 1997 

employment injury and that the pain was worsening. 

In a letter dated May 5, 2021, OWCP noted that appellant had indicated on his Form CA-2a 

that on March 22, 2021 at 7:00 a.m. he felt pain in his right knee. It requested that he explain 

where he was at 7:00 a.m. on March 22, 2021 when he felt the pain and whether he was at work.

In a May 17, 2021 response, appellant related that he was at work at the time in question. 

By decision dated July 30, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim for medical 

treatment finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a worsening of the 

accepted work-related conditions requiring further medical treatment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The United States shall furnish to an employee who is injured while in the performance of 

duty the services, appliances, and supplies prescribed or recommended by a qualified physician 

2 Docket No. 18-0782 (issued January 11, 2019); Docket No. 14-796 (issued September 12, 2014). 
3

that the Secretary of Labor considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce the degree or the period of 

any disability, or aid in lessening the amount of any monthly compensation.3

A recurrence of a medical condition means a documented need for further medical 

treatment after release from treatment for the accepted condition or injury when there is no 

accompanying work stoppage.4 An employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she 

sustained a recurrence of a medical condition that is causally related to his or her accepted 

employment injury without intervening cause.5 To meet this burden the employee must submit 

medical evidence from a physician who, on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and 

medical history, supports that the condition is causally related and supports his or her conclusion 

with sound medical rationale.6 Where no such rationale is present, medical evidence is of 

diminished probative value.7

ANALYSIS

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

the need for medical treatment on or after March 22, 2021 causally related to his accepted 

October 15, 1997 employment injury.

Appellant filed a notice of recurrence of medical treatment (Form CA-2a) due to worsening 

right knee pain beginning March 22, 2021. In a development letter dated April 29, 2021, OWCP

advised him regarding the medical and factual evidence required to establish his recurrence claim. 

In response, appellant answered questions posed on the questionnaire, however, he did not, submit 

any medical evidence. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to submit evidence establishing that he required further 

medical treatment for his accepted right knee conditions on or after March 22, 2021 as a result of 

his accepted October 15, 1997 employment injury.8 As he has not submitted any medical evidence 

showing a recurrence of medical condition due to his accepted October 15, 1997 employment 

injury, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof.9

3

5 U.S.C. § 8103(a).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(y).

5

S.P., Docket No. 19-0573 (issued May 6, 2021); M.P., Docket No. 19-0161 (issued August 16, 2019); E.R., 

Docket No. 18-0202 (issuedJune 5, 2018).

6 T.B., Docket No. 18-0672 (issued November 2, 2018); O.H., Docket No. 15-0778 (issued June 25, 2015).

7 T.B., id.; Michael Stockert, 39 ECAB 1186, 1187-88 (1988); see alsoMary A. Ceglia, Docket No. 04-0113 (issued 

July 22, 2004). 

8 C.B., Docket No. 19-0121 (issued July 2, 2019); E.G.,Docket No. 18-1383 (issued March 8, 2019);see also C.J., 

Docket No. 18-1181 (issued May20, 2019); A.L.,Docket No. 16-1092 (issued May 9, 2017); MaryA. Ceglia, id.

9

See C.B., id.; E.R.,Docket No. 18-0202 (issued June5, 2018).
4

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 a recurrence of 

the need for medical treatment on or after March 22, 2021, causally related to his accepted 

October 15, 1997 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 30, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 11, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board