United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MONTEREY PARK 

POST OFFICE, Monterey Park, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1368

Issued: September 7, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 13, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 9, 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 to consider the merits of this case.2

ISSUE

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

total disability from July 18 through November 6, 2013, and from June 14, 2014 through 

May 2015 causally related to his accepted August 1, 2002 employment injury.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the issuanceof the July 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior order are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On December 10, 2002 appellant, then a 46-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a bilateral Achilles tendon condition as a

result of delivering mail to business offices and private homes while in the performance of duty. 

He noted that he first became aware of his condition on August 1, 2002 and of its relationship to 

his federal employment on December 4, 2002. OWCP accepted the claim for bilateral calcaneus 

spurs.

Appellant underwent OWCP-authorized resection of the fractured bone and multiple 

bone fragments, posterior of the left calcaneus, and repair of Achilles tendon of the left ankle on 

July 16, 2003 and resection of the bone posterior right calcaneus, and repair of Achilles tendon 

of the right ankle with removal of a calcified bone on March 3, 2004. OWCP paid him wageloss compensation on the supplemental rolls, effective December 4, 2002, and on the periodic 

rolls effective May 10, 2009. 

OWCP subsequently expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include bilateral 

Achilles tendinitis, sprain of bilateral shoulder, upper arm, and rotator cuff, bilateral shoulder 

impingement. Appellant underwent OWCP-authorized right and left shoulder open subacromial 

decompression with open rotator cuff repair on March 26, 2009 and October 26, 2010, 

respectively.

On March 25, 2013 appellant returned to modified-duty work as a customer care agent. 

The physical requirements of the position included lifting 15 to 20 pounds for two hours,

standing and walking up to three hours, pushing/pulling 2 to 3 pounds up to three hours, reaching 

above the shoulder up to one hour and use of a platform, and no repetitive bending or stooping. 

Appellant received wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from March 10 until 

July 15, 2013. OWCP paid him schedule award compensation from November 7, 2013 until 

June 13, 2014, and then again from May 27 until September 24, 2016. It resumed payment of 

intermittent wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from July 26, 2017 and on the 

periodic rolls as of April 29, 2018. 

In a July 11, 2013 progress report, Dr. Brad Katzman, a podiatrist, diagnosed left 

posterior heel spur, fasciitis on the left, post cerebral vascular accident (CVA), and ankle 

tendinosis. He recommended surgical resection and noted that appellant could not return to work 

until after the recommended surgery. 

In a primary treating physician’s progress report dated July 15, 2013, Dr. Scott Goldman, 

a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted appellant’s accepted conditions. Additionally, he 

provided an assessment of painful lower back and left hip conditions as a consequence of 

abnormal gait pattern due to weakness and pain in the Achilles tendon. Dr. Goldman advised 

that appellant was temporarily totally disabled from work. 

3 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-0620 (issued November 18, 2020).
3

On August 31, 2013 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) claiming 

disability from work commencing July 15, 2013 when he experienced pain in his right knee, left 

hip, and lower back due to his accepted employment injuries. 

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence from Dr. Goldman. In primary treating 

physician’s progress reports dated August 20, September 19, October 25, November 18, and 

December 16 and 17, 2013, Dr. Goldman again provided assessments of the accepted condition 

of bilateral shoulder rotator cuff injury with impingement, and painful lower back and left hip

conditions as a compensatory consequence of abnormal gait pattern due to weakness and pain in 

the Achilles tendon. He also provided assessments of improving bilateral Achilles tendon repair. 

Dr. Goldman continued to advise that appellant was either temporarily partially disabled or 

temporarily totally disabled from work. In his December 17, 2013 report, he opined that 

appellant’s bilateral shoulder and bilateral Achilles conditions were the direct result of repetitive 

trauma from performing his duties for the employing establishment. Dr. Goldman related that 

appellant’s initial injury occurred in 2002, since then he had exacerbations of the condition 

affecting both shoulders and both Achilles tendons, requiring ongoing treatment. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated September 27, 2013, Dr. Goldman indicated 

that appellant’s diagnoses of bilateral shoulder impingement and bilateral Achilles tendinitis 

were due to the accepted August 1, 2002 employment injury and that he was temporarily totally 

disabled from work. 

OWCP, by decision dated January 17, 2014, denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of 

disability commencing July 18, 2013. It found that the medical evidence of record was

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

his accepted employment injuries.

On February 6, 2014 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

OWCP subsequently received additional reports dated January 22, February 21, and 

March 21, 2014 from Dr. Goldman. Dr. Goldman diagnosed bilateral shoulder rotator cuff strain

and the accepted condition of bilateral ankle Achilles tendinitis with inflammation and pain. He

advised that appellant was temporarily partially disabled from work as of January 27, 2014 and 

could perform modified-duty work, six hours per day, as of that date. 

In an April 18, 2014 report, Dr. Goldman restated his diagnoses of bilateral shoulder 

rotator cuff tendinitis and bilateral ankle Achilles tendinitis, and opined that appellant was 

temporarily partially disabled from work and could perform modified-duty work, six hours per 

day. He noted that appellant may need a stool to elevate his lower extremities.

In primary treating physician’s progress reports and a Form CA-17 report dated April 18,

June 9, July 11, August 1, 7, and 15, and September 8, 2014, Dr. Goldman reiterated his prior 

bilateral shoulder and bilateral ankle diagnoses, and provided an opinion on appellant’s work 

capacity. On August 7, 2014 he advised that appellant had no disability and could return to fullduty work. In an August 15, 2014 report, Dr. Goldman noted that appellant had returned to 
4

modified-duty work on July 27, 2014. He reported that appellant’s left hip, back, and right knee 

pain had improved, but he remained symptomatic. 

In progress reports dated January 30, February 24, April 21, June 23, and August 23, 

2014, Dr. Katzman reiterated his diagnoses of left posterior heel spur, left fasciitis, CVA, and 

ankle tendinosis. He also diagnosed status post CVA. Dr. Katzman advised that appellant could 

not return to work until after surgery on his left heel.

Following a telephonic hearing held on August 8, 2014 appellant submitted additional 

medical evidence. 

In an October 21, 2014 primary treating physician’s progress report, Dr. Goldman 

continued to opine that appellant could perform modified-duty work, six hours per day. 

By decision dated October 24, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

January 17, 2014 decision, finding that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to 

establish that appellant was disabled from work due to a material change or worsening of his 

accepted employment injuries.

In additional reports dated December 11, 2014 and March 2, 2015, Dr. Goldman restated 

his opinion on appellant’s work capacity. In an industrial injury status report dated May 4, 2015, 

he placed appellant off work on that day. 

Dr. Katzman, in progress reports dated December 4, 2014 and January 15, April 16, and 

May 28, 2015 reiterated that appellant could not return to work until he underwent left heel

surgery. 

On July 6, 2015 appellant, through his representative, requested reconsideration of the 

October 24, 2014 decision and submitted additional medical evidence. 

In a June 8, 2015 report, Dr. Goldman noted that a question had been raised as to whether 

appellant was entitled to compensation for the period April 19 through June 13, 2014. He related

that appellant sustained work-related bilateral shoulder and feet injuries. Dr. Goldman indicated 

that on April 18, 2014 he placed appellant on modified-duty work with restrictions of six-hour

workdays and elevation of the lower extremities with a stool for the period April 19 through 

May 4, 2015 to reduce swelling, inflammation, and pain in the bilateral ankle Achilles tendons. 

He then indicated that these restrictions could not be accommodated by the employing 

establishment, and because appellant was unable to work, he was entitled to compensation for 

the noted period. Dr. Goldman further indicated that appellant had disabling bilateral shoulder 

conditions due to limited range of motion, tenderness, and swelling with weakness.

In subsequent primary treating physician’s progressreports dated July 6, August 21, and

September 22, 2015, Dr. Goldman restated his bilateral shoulder and bilateral ankle diagnoses. 

He opined that appellant was temporarily partially disabled from work as of July 18, 2013 and 

could perform modified-duty work six hours per day. 

By decision dated October 8, 2015, OWCP denied expansion of appellant’s claim to 

include additional diagnoses of his left hip, back, and right knee because the medical evidence of 
5

record did not establish that these conditions were causally related to the accepted employment 

injury. 

By decision dated October 20, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the October 24, 2014 

decision, finding that the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim of a recurrence of disability commencing July 18, 2013. 

Appellant continued to request reconsideration. OWCP issued nonmerit decisions 

denying his request for reconsideration. 

On October 21, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. He contended that he was 

totally disabled for work from July 2013 to January 2014, and partially disabled from 

January 2014 to May 2015, because the employing establishment failed to accommodate

Dr. Goldman’s medical restriction that he use a rest bar to elevate his feet, which resulted in the 

worsening of his accepted bilateral foot condition. Appellant noted that he had filed an Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint on September 26, 2013 regarding the employing 

establishment’s refusal to allow him to use a rest bar for his foot, despite his physician’s July 22, 

2004 report. Dr. Goldman attached an August 29, 2019 settlement agreement from the EEO 

which related that appellant would receive $20,000.00 as compensatory damages in settlement of 

his claim with the employing establishment. The agreement also noted that the agreement did 

not affect appellant’s right to file claims for OWCP benefits. Appellant also attached a copy of

Dr. Goldman’s July 22, 2004, report which related that appellant could return to modified, 

sedentary work, while keeping the right and left legs elevated as needed. 

OWCP continued to receive progress reports dated from August 21, 2018 through 

January 23, 2020 from appellant’s treating physicians regarding appellant’s current medical 

conditions and his work status. 

OWCP also received visit notes dated June 3, 13, and 18, 2019 from Dr. Jan D. Tepper, a 

Board-certified orthopedist and podiatrist, who provided assessments of various bilateral ankle, 

bilateral foot, and left leg conditions. 

By decision January 15, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the October 20, 2015 decision finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear 

evidence of error.

On January 28, 2020 appellant, through his representative, appealed OWCP’s January 15, 

2020 decision to the Board. 

Thereafter, OWCP received additional progress reports from Dr. Goldman, dated 

February 6, to November 11, 2020.

By order dated November 18, 2020,

4

the Board set aside OWCP’s January 15, 2020 

decision, finding that the case was not in posture for decision. The Board found that OWCP had 

not considered all evidence properly submitted by appellant and received by OWCP before the 

4

Id.
6

January 15, 2020 decision. The Board remanded the case to OWCP for consideration of all the 

evidence submitted at the time of its January 15, 2020 decision and, following this and other 

such further development as deemed necessary, issue an appropriate decision regarding 

appellant’s recurrence claim.

OWCP subsequently received additional medical evidence. Primary treating physician’s 

progress reports dated from November 11, 20, 2020 to March 30, 2021 related appellant’s 

current diagnoses and appellant’s work status. 

OWCP, by decision dated April 16, 2021, denied modification of the October 20, 2015 

decision, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish a worsening of 

appellant’s accepted conditions as of July 18, 2013.

On April 28, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 16, 2021 decision and 

submitted additional evidence. 

In a March 17, 2016 patient letter, Dr. Ming T. Chong, a Board-certified internist and 

oncologist, noted that appellant was seen on January 11 and December 13, 2013 for right knee 

pain. He also noted that appellant had chronic Achilles tendinitis in both ankles and walked with 

an altered gait. Dr. Chong opined that appellant’s right knee pain was caused by the altered gait, 

and, thus concluded that the condition should be allowed in his claim. In a separate patient letter 

of even date, he indicated that a screening test suggested that appellant might have moderate 

depression.

OWCP thereafter received additional progress reports from Dr. Goldman dated April 2 to 

June 21, 2021. Dr. Goldman continued to diagnose bilateral shoulder and bilateral ankle 

conditions, and opined that appellant was unable to work.

By decision dated July 9, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the April 16, 2021 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.

6

 Under FECA, the term 

disability means incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn the wages that the 

employee was receiving at the time of injury.7 For each period of disability claimed, the 

employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled from work as a result 

5

Supra note 1.

6

See D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020); F.H., Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August 23, 

2019); C.R., Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine 

Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989). 

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); J.S., Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January 24, 2020).
7

of the accepted employment injury.8 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to become 

disabled from work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be proven by 

a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.9

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 that had resulted from a previous 

injury or illness without an intervening injury or new exposure to the work environment that 

caused the illness. The term also means an inability to work when a light-duty assignment made 

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations due to the work-related injury or 

illness is withdrawn (except when such withdrawal occurs for reasons of misconduct, 

nonperformance of job duties or a reduction-in-force), or when the physical requirements of such 

an assignment are altered so that they exceed his or her established physical limitations. 10

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

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

establishes that, light duty can be performed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish 

by the weight of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence a recurrence of total disability. As 

part of this burden of proof, the employee must show either a change in the nature and extent of 

the injury-related condition, or a change in the nature and extent of the limited-duty 

requirements.11

An employee who claims a recurrence of disability resulting from an accepted 

employment injury has the burden of proof to establish that the disability is related to the 

accepted injury. This burden requires furnishing medical evidence from a physician who, on the 

basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, concludes that the disabling 

condition is causally related to the employment injury, and supports that conclusion with sound 

medical reasoning.12

ANALYSIS

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

total disability from July 18 through November 6, 2013, and from June 14, 2014 through 

May 2015 causally related to his accepted August 1, 2002 employment injury.

On March 25, 2013 appellant returned to modified-duty work as a customer care agent. 

He stopped work on July 18, 2013 and alleged a recurrence of disability commencing that date. 

Appellant also clarified in his October 21, 2019 request for reconsideration that he was claiming

8 T.W., Docket No. 19-1286 (issued January 13, 2020).

9

S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April 11, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see D.T., Docket No. 19-1064 (issued February 20, 2020).

11 C.B., Docket No. 19-0464 (issued May 22, 2020);see R.N., Docket No. 19-1685 (issued February 26, 2020); 

Terry R. Hedman, 38 ECAB 222 (1986).

12 Id.
8

partial disability from January 2014 to May 2015 because the employing establishment failed to 

accommodate Dr. Goldman’s medical restriction that appellant use a rest bar to elevate his feet, 

which resulted in the worsening of his accepted bilateral foot condition. 

In support of his recurrence claim for the relevant periods, appellant submitted a series of 

reports from Dr. Goldman. In his July 15, 2013 report and in continuing reports through 

December 17, 2013, Dr. Goldman noted appellant’s accepted conditions of bilateral shoulder 

rotator cuff injury and bilateral ankle Achilles tendinitis. He opined that appellant was 

temporarily totally disabled from work. Dr. Goldman, however, did not offer any medical 

rationale explaining why appellant was disabled due to the accepted medical conditions, nor did 

he address the specific time period claimed. The Board has held that medical evidence that does 

not offer an opinion that employee’s condition or disability is causally related to the accepted 

employment injury is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.13 In these reports,

Dr. Goldman also indicated that appellant had developed low back and left hip conditions as a 

consequence of his accepted injury. However, he did not provide medical rationale in support of 

his opinion that appellant’s back and left hip conditions were a consequence of the accepted 

injury. OWCP denied further expansion of the claim by decision dated October 8, 2015.

Consequently, these reports from Dr. Goldman are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.

In progress reports during the relevant periods January 22, 2014 through May 4, 2015,

Dr. Goldman diagnosed bilateral shoulder rotator cuff strain, and the accepted condition of 

bilateral ankle Achilles tendinitis with inflammation and pain. He advised that appellant was 

temporarily partially disabled from work as of January 27, 2014 and could perform modifiedduty work, six hours per day, as of that date. In his April 18 and July 22, 2014 and June 8, 2015 

reports, Dr. Goldman explained that appellant had a work restriction to use a stool to elevate 

appellant’s lower extremities which the employing establishment failed to accommodate

resulting in his disability from work. In his June 8, 2015 report, he indicated that the restriction 

was to reduce swelling, inflammation, and pain in the bilateral ankle Achilles tendons. 

Dr. Goldman, however, did not sufficiently explain with medical rationale how appellant’s work 

restriction and disability were causally related to the accepted employment injury, nor did he 

address the specific time periods requested.

14

 The Board has held that a medical opinion not 

supported by medical rationale is of little probative value. 15 Thus, for these reasons,

Dr. Goldman’s reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.16

Dr. Katzman’s progress reports dated July 11, 2013 through May 28, 2015 diagnosed left 

posterior heel spur, fasciitis on the left, CVA, and ankle tendinosis. He advised that appellant 

could not return to work until after a proposed left heel surgical resection. Dr. Katzman, 

however, did not address the cause of appellant’s disability or its relationship to his August 1, 

13 See T.P., Docket No. 22-1335 (issued June 23, 2023); T.M., Docket No. 21-1310 (issued March 7, 2022); K.F., 

Docket No. 19-1846 (issued November 3, 2020); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

14 See K.B., Docket No. 18-0226 (issued August 6, 2018). 

15 Id.

16 L.V., Docket No. 19-1725 (issued April 5, 2021); K.E., Docket No. 19-1922 (issued July 10, 2020).
9

2002 employment injury. As noted, the Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer 

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

on the issue of causal relationship.17 The Board, therefore, finds that appellant has not met his 

burden of proof to establish his recurrence claim.18

Dr. Chong’s March 17, 2016 reports noted that appellant suffered from the accepted 

condition of chronic bilateral ankle Achilles tendinitis and possibly moderate depression.

Dr. Tepper’s June 3, 13, and 18, 2019 visit notes provided assessments of various bilateral ankle, 

bilateral foot, and left leg conditions. Neither physician addressed whether appellant was 

disabled from work during the claimed period. As Dr. Chong and Dr. Tepper did not address the 

claimed periods of disability, their opinions are insufficient to establish his claim. In his 

remaining reports, Dr. Goldman addressed appellant’s conditions after the claimed period of 

recurrent disability. He did not provide an opinion that appellant sustained a recurrence of 

disability commencing July 18, 2013, causally related to the accepted August 1, 2002 

employment injury. 

The remaining medical evidence of record did not address the relevant alleged periods of 

recurrence of disability. The Board has held that the medical evidence must directly address the 

dates of disability from work for which compensation is claimed. 19 

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing a recurrence of 

disability from July 18 through November 6, 2013, and from June 14, 2014 through May 2015

causally related to the accepted August 1, 2002 employment injury, the Board finds that he has 

not met his 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 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 

total disability from July 18 through November 6, 2013, and from June 14, 2014 through 

May 2015 causally related to his accepted August 1, 2002 employment injury.

17 See supra note 13.

18 L.V., supra note 16.

19 Supra note 8; Fereidoon Kharabi, supra note 9.
10

ORDER

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

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board