United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

V.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New Orleans, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0431

Issued: September 14, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 28, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal froma January 13, 2022merit 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 met her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability 

commencing July 14, 2021, causally related to her accepted October 25, 2016 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 25, 2016 appellant, then a 29-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she injured her back, left leg, and left knee 

when she jumped off a porch as she was running from a dog while in the performance of duty. 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

She stopped work on October 27, 2016. OWCP accepted the claim for left knee sprain. It 

subsequently expanded the acceptance to include lower back muscle, fascia and tendon strain, and 

left knee traumatic arthropathy. Appellant returned to work four hours per day with restrictions 

on November 18, 2016. She stopped work on November 6, 2017. OWCP authorized left knee 

arthroscopic surgery, which was performed on June 7, 2018. It paid appellant wage-loss 

compensationon the supplemental rollsJune 7 through July 21, 2018, on the periodic rollsJuly 22, 

2018 through January 30, 2021, and again on the supplemental rolls as of February 7, 2021. 

Appellant returned to full-time modified-duty work on February 8, 2021. The physical duties of 

the modified assignment were noted as sedentary work only, no walking. 

OWCP received a July 8, 2021 report, wherein Dr. Robert Douglas Bostick, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine physician, diagnosed left knee contusion, left 

knee patellofemoral pain syndrome, left knee synovitis, lumbar radiculopathy, and left knee pain. 

On examination, Dr. Bostick reported that appellant had left knee swelling, some warmth, no 

erythema, stable ligamentous examination, some patellofemoral articulation crepitus, and global 

tenderness in the medial and lateral joint lines and retropatellar tissues. He related that her knee 

swelling had become so severe that she had to stop work. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated July 8, 2021, Dr. Bostick advised that appellant 

was unable to work. He diagnosed left knee strain, which he attributed to the October 25, 2016 

employment injury.

On August 18, 2021 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claiming wage-loss compensation for the 

period July 14 to August 16, 2021. In Form CA-7a of even date, she claimed 192.00 hours for the 

period July 15 to August 16, 2021. 

In a development letter dated August 23, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim for compensation. It advised her of the type of medical evidence required 

and provided her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP subsequently received a September 14, 2021 report, wherein Dr. Bostick advised 

that appellant had been placed off work due to her employment injury. Dr. Bostick opined that 

appellant was disabled from work due to her increased pain and knee swelling. He explained that 

her job required standing and walking for extended periods of time, which is why he found her

disabled from work at the last appointment.

By decision dated October 5, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for disability for the 

period July 14 through August 16, 2021.

Subsequently, OWCP received a September 23, 2021 progress report from Dr. Bostick. 

Dr. Bostick noted that appellant continued having ongoing swelling and some sciatic-type 

symptoms in her left leg. He opined that she was disabled from work due to her inability to stand 

or walk for any significant period of time and due to her significant pain at night. Physical 

examination findings of appellant’s left leg included slight antalgic gait, no erythema or warmth, 

some sciatic-type symptoms, no mechanical findings, and generalized pain with left knee range of 

motion. Dr. Bostick diagnosed left knee contusion, transient synovitis, patellofemoral pain 

syndrome and pain and lumbar radiculopathy.
3

Appellant continued to file Form CA-7 claims.

In a November 30, 2021 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the definition 

of a recurrence and advised appellant of the deficiencies of her claim. It requested that she submit 

additional factual and medical evidence supporting her claim for total disability beginning 

July 14, 2021. OWCP further provided appellant with a questionnaire for completion and 

requested a report from her physician addressing the relationship between her claimed disability 

and her employment injury. It afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP subsequently received a November 30, 2021 report, wherein Dr. Bostick, noted 

appellant’s history of injury, reviewed diagnostic studies, and provided examination findings. 

Dr. Bostick diagnosed lumbar radiculopathy and left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome,

contusion, and synovitis. 

In a December 13, 2021 report, Dr. Bostick again noted appellant’s history of injury and 

medical treatment and provided her physical examination findings. He reported that she had 

persistent, ongoing left knee pain and retropatellar tissue swelling. Dr. Bostick diagnosed left knee 

pain, contusion, and synovitis. He also concluded that appellant likely developed, based on her 

symptoms, inflammatory arthropathy. Dr. Bostick held her off work pending updated diagnostic 

testing results. He found appellant unable to perform prolonged walking or standing, or repetitive 

bending, squatting, stooping, or climbing.

Appellant continued to file Form CA-7 claims. 

By decision dated January 13, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim, finding 

that she did not establish disability due to a material change or worsening of her accepted 

employment-related conditions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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.2 This term also means an inability to work when a light-duty assignment, made 

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to 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.

3

 

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

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

record establishes that he or she can perform the limited-duty position, the employee has the burden 

of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence 

2

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); T.J., Docket No. 18-0831 (issued March 23, 2020).

3

Id.
4

of total disability and to show that he or she cannot perform such limited-duty work. As part of 

this burden, the employee must show a change in the nature and extent of the injury-related 

condition or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty job requirements.

4

 This burden 

includes the necessity of furnishing evidence from a qualified physician who concludes, on the 

basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, that for each period of disability 

claimed, the disabling condition is causally related to the employment injury, and supports that 

conclusion with medical reasoning.

5

 Where no such rationale is present, the medical evidence is 

of diminished probative value.

6

ANALYSIS 

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

disability commencing July 14, 2021, causally related to her accepted October 25, 2016 

employment injury.

First, the Board notes that appellant has not alleged, and the evidence does not establish, a 

change in the nature and extent of appellant’s light-duty work requirements. Additionally, there 

is no indication in the record that the employing establishment withdrew a light-duty assignment. 

The remaining issue is whether the medical evidence is sufficient to establish a worsening of 

appellant’s accepted left knee conditions such that she could not perform her limited-duty work.

Appellant submitted a series of reports from Dr. Bostick. In his July 8, 2021 report,

Dr. Bostick held her off work due to severe swelling of her left knee. In his September 14 and 23,

2021 reports, and in his progress reports through December 13, 2021, he reiterated that appellant

was disabled from work due to her increased pain and knee swelling. Dr. Bostick explained that 

her job required standing and walking for extended periods of time, which is why he found her 

disabled from work. He related that appellant was unable to return to work due to her left knee 

swelling as her job required standing and walking for extended periods of time. However, the 

modified position appellant accepted as of February 8, 2021 was a strictly sedentary position that 

did not include walking. The Board, therefore, finds that Dr. Bostick did not provide sufficient 

medical rationale supporting worsening of the accepted beginning July 14, 2021 such that 

appellant could no longer perform her modified-duty sedentary position. Dr. Bostick’s reports,

therefore, do not contain a rationalized medical opinion explaining how appellant’s accepted 

employment conditions caused total disability during the claimed period.7 As such, these reports 

are of diminished probative value and are insufficient to establish the recurrence claim.

4 T.B., Docket No. 20-0255 (issued March11, 2022); S.D., Docket No. 19-0955 (issued February 3, 2020); Terry R. 

Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986).

5 T.B., id.; J.M., Docket No. 19-1517 (issued January 29, 2020);RonaldA. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001); Mary A. 

Ceglia, Docket No. 04-0113 (issued July 22, 2004).

6

Id.

7

See N.M., Docket No. 18-1584 (issued March 15, 2019).
5

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a worsening of appellant’s 

accepted left knee conditions such that she could not perform her limited-duty work, 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 July 14, 2021, causally related to her accepted October 25, 2016 

employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 13, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 14, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board