United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, SEQUOIA & 

KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARK, 

Three Rivers, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1359

Issued: May 11, 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 September 15, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 3, 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, commencing April 4, 2021, causally related to his accepted 

September 7, 2005 employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 12, 2005 appellant, then a 34-year-old forestry technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 7, 2005 he injured his back when he carried 

a person on a backboard down a steep, uneven trail while in the performance of duty. He was 

released to return to modified-duty work on October 13, 2005 and to regular work with no 

restrictions on November 17, 2005. OWCP accepted the claim for lumbar sprain. 

On April 26, 2021 appellant filed a Form CA-2a claiming a recurrence of the need for 

medical treatment commencing April 4, 2021. 

In a development letter dated May 17, 2021, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

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

by a medical explanation as to the relationship between his current need for medical treatment and 

the accepted September 7, 2005 employment injury. It provided a questionnaire for his 

completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. 

In a completed questionnaire dated May 24, 2021,appellant replied that he required further 

medical care as his back pain was severe. He also noted that he had not missed any work. 

Appellant explained that he had experienced back pain since his 2005 employment injury, which 

had worsened. 

By decision dated August 3, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of the 

need for medical treatment,finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish

a need for medical treatment “due to a worsening of your accepted work-related conditions without 

intervening cause.” 

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 

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.2

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.3 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.4

2

5 U.S.C. § 8103(a).

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(y).

4

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 (issued June 5, 2018); Mary A. Ceglia, Docket No. 04-113 (issued July 22, 2004).
3

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 April 4, 2021 causally related to his accepted 

September 7, 2005 employment injury.

On April 27, 2021 appellant filed a Form CA-2a for medical treatment due to his continued 

back pain. OWCP informed him, in a development letter dated May 17, 2021, of the type of

medical evidence required to establish his recurrence claim. To meet his burden of proof, appellant

was required to submit medical evidence, which explained why he required further medical 

treatment for his accepted lumbar sprain.

5

 He, however, has not submitted any medical evidence 

in support of his recurrence claim. As appellant has not submitted any medical evidence 

establishing a recurrence of a need for medical treatment due to his accepted September 7, 2005 

employment injury, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof.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 a recurrence of 

the need for medical treatment, commencing April 4, 2021, causally related to his accepted 

September 7, 2005 employment injury.

5 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).

6

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 3, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 11, 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