United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LANCASTER POST 

OFFICE, Lancaster, SC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0122

Issued: December 7, 2023

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 3, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 31, 2022 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.

ISSUE

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

disability commencing December 2, 2021 causally related to her accepted January 5, 2002 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 8, 2002 appellant, then a 39-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 5, 2002 her postal vehicle was rear-ended 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

resulting in injuries to her neck, shoulder, left arm, and back while in the performance of duty. 

She stopped work on January 5, 2002 and returned to a series of light-duty positions beginning on 

February 12, 2002.2 OWCP accepted the claim for sprains of the neck and back (lumbar region);

displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy, herniated at T12-L1; and 

displacement of thoracic intervertebral disc without myelopathy, herniated at T12-L1. Appellant

returned to a modified position as a full-time distribution clerk on August 3, 2010 and to a position 

as a modified distribution associate on February 20, 2013.

3

In a note dated April 13, 2019, Dr. William L. Lehman, an orthopedic surgeon, described 

appellant’s light-duty position due to residuals of the 2022 employment injury of thoracic disc 

herniation and chronic pain. He further reported that she was lifting tubs at work on March 21, 

2019, heard a loud pop, and injured her back and neck. Dr. Lehman recounted that following this 

event appellant experienced repeated events of transitory numbness and tingling in both legs to 

both feet. He repeated her allegations that her light-duty restrictions were not reliably 

accommodated. Dr. Lehman performed a physical examination and diagnosed a work-related 

injury on March 21, 2019. He further diagnosed chronic thoracolumbar spine pain following the 

January 5, 2002 employment injury, chronic periscapular pain, chronic disc protrusion T12-L1 and 

T7-8, and thoracolumbar spondylosis and disc disease with a history of lumbar arachnoiditis.

Dr. Lehman concluded that appellant’s March 21, 2019 incident was under investigation and that 

it was unclear whether her current symptoms were an aggravation of the 2002 work injury or a 

new injury.

On October 3, 2021 Dr. Lehman examined appellant due to her January 5, 2002 

employment injury. He also asserted that her accepted conditions were aggravated by a reinjury 

on March 21, 2019. Dr. Lehman again described the events of March 21, 2019 and recounted that 

appellant’s light-duty work restrictions were not reliably accommodated as she was extremely 

busy due to understaffing, worked 10-hour days, and stood at the service window for at least 6 

hours a day. He diagnosed prolapse of thoracic intervertebral disc without radiculopathy, chronic 

thoracolumbar spine pain following the January 5, 2020 employment injury, chronic T7-8 

herniation, chronic disc protrusion T12-L1 and T7-8, thoracolumbar spondylosis, and disc disease.

In October 20 and December 31, 2021 notes, Dr. Lehman reviewed an October 15, 2021 

MRI scan which demonstrated disc protrusion at T7-8 and T12-L1 and an annular tear at T11-12

that had not substantially changed from previous evaluations. He described the March 21, 2019 

lifting incident and recounted that appellant continued to experience occasional numbness and 

tingling in both legs. Dr Lehman found that she was unable to continue working after December 2, 

2 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx760. The Board notes that appellant filed a second 

Form CA-1 dated December 2, 2021 alleging that on October 1, 2021 she was working overtime and beyond her work 

restrictions which caused new disc bulges in her neck and thoracic spine. OWCP assigned this claim OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx855, developed it as an occupational disease, and denied it by decision dated January 10, 2022, finding that 

appellant failed to submit medical evidence of an additionally diagnosed condition. It administratively combined 

appellant’s claims, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx760 designated as the master file.

3 On July 23, 2010 the employing establishment noted that appellant’s work restrictions were intermittent lifting of 

up to 15 pounds for three hours a day, sitting/standing/walking intermittently for four hours a day, bending/

stooping/twistingintermittently for two hours a day,reachingabove the shoulder intermittently two hours a day, and 

performing fine manipulation/simple grasping intermittently for eight hours a day.
3

2021 due to pain with burning in her feet and tingling in her legs. He diagnosed thoracic 

degenerative disc disease, thoracic spondylosis with myelopathy, a January 5, 2002 work-related 

injury of the thoracic spine which was aggravated by an injury of March 21, 2019, and prolapse of 

the thoracic intervertebral disc without radiculopathy. Dr. Lehman found that appellant was 

unable to perform her usual work activities and recommended sedentary work with no tasks 

requiring significant repetition or dexterity.

In a report dated November 3, 2021, Dr. Adewunmi A. Akande, a Board-certified

anesthesiologist, recounted appellant’s symptoms of low back pain. He found that diagnostic 

studies demonstrated herniated discs and facet arthropathy at T12-L1 and L1-2. Dr. Akande noted 

that appellant was performing light-duty work. He diagnosed lumbar spondylosis and lumbar 

degenerative disc disease. On December 1, 2021 Dr. Akande found that appellant’s low back pain 

had improved.

On December 2, 2021 appellant stopped work.

Dr. Akande completed notes from December 29, 2021 through April 20, 2022 recounting

that appellant’s low back pain had improved. He noted on December 29, 2021 that she had 

recently stopped work at the employing establishment “and now had her disability completed.”

Dr. Akande diagnosed lumbar spondylosis, lumbar degenerative disc disease, myofascial pain,

cervical herniated and degenerated disc and spondylosis without myelopathy, and radiculitis.

On April 26, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability

from work for the period April 11 through 22, 2022.

In an April 28, 2022 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of 

her recurrence claim. It advised her of the type of medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the requested 

evidence. 

Appellant continued to file CA-7 forms claiming compensation for disability from work.

OWCP received October 15, 2021 and January 28, 2022 MRI scans of the thoracic spine 

which demonstrated disc bulges at T7-11, central annular tear at T11-12, and left central disc 

protrusion at T12-L1.

On May 7, 2022 Dr. Lehman related that appellant had sustained “severe and permanent 

disability since [her] work-related injury on January 5, 2002.” He noted that she also sustained an 

injury on March 21, 2019. Dr. Lehman opined that appellant was unable to work due to severe 

pain with burning in her feet and tingling in her legs. He noted that she had stopped work on 

December 2, 2021, that she experienced bowel and bladder dysfunction, and that her gait had been 

adversely affected. Dr. Lehman opined that appellant was totally disabled due to work-related 

injuries including thoracic spondylosis with myelopathy, prolapse of thoracic intervertebral disc 

without radiculopathy, chronic T7-8 herniation, chronic disc protrusion T12-L1, and T7-8, and 

thoracolumbar spondylosis and disc disease with a history of lumbar arachnoiditis. He further 

opined that the accepted January 5, 2002 employment injury was aggravated by the March 22, 

2019 incident. Dr. Lehman determined that OWCP was unwilling to accept his reports and 

requested a second opinion evaluation.
4

On May 9, 2022 appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a) claiming that on 

November 11, 2021 she sustained a recurrence of her January 5, 2002 medical conditions and that 

she sustained a resulting recurrence of total disability on December 2, 2021. She described her 

work restrictions following the January 5, 2002 employment injury including limitations on sitting, 

standing, and lifting more than 10 pounds. Appellant alleged that she was required to work beyond 

her limitations and recounted the March 21, 2019 lifting incident alleging aggravation of her 

underlying conditions. She further asserted that she had developed a consequential kidney 

condition as a result of medication prescribed for the January 5, 2002 employment injury.

In a May 18, 2022 statement, appellant asserted that by December 2, 2021 she could no 

longer stand or sit for any productive time. She alleged that her work activities had exceeded her 

restrictions for 5 years as she worked more than 50 hours a week, stood up to 8 hours, and lifted

and pushed more than 10 pounds. Appellant further alleged that she had developed work-related 

spondylosis, arthritis, a new annular tear at T11-12, incontinence from her herniated disc at T12-

L1, and chronic kidney disease.

In a May 18, 2022 note, Dr. Akande recounted that appellant’s neck pain had worsened. 

He diagnosed chronic prescription opiate use, lumbar spondylosis, lumbar degenerative disc 

disease, myofascial pain, cervical spondylosis without myelopathy, and cervical herniated disc 

without myelopathy or radiculitis.

By decision dated May 31, 2022, OWCP found that appellant had not established a 

recurrence of disability commencing December 2, 2021 causally related to her accepted January 5, 

2002 employment injury. It noted that its decision did not affect her entitlement to medical benefits 

for her accepted employment-related conditions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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. 5 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.6 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 of the accepted 

employment injury.7 Whether a particular injury causes an employee to become disabled from 

4

Supra note 1.

5

See S.P., Docket No. 21-0380 (issued November 22, 2022); 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).

6

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

7

See R.H., Docket No. 21-0717 (issued June 12, 2023); T.W., Docket No. 19-1286 (issued January 13, 2020).
5

work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues that must be proven by a preponderance 

of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence.8

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. 9

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.10

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.11

ANALYSIS

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

total disability commencing December 2, 2021, causally related to her accepted January 5, 2002 

employment injury.

Appellant submitted a series of reports from Dr. Lehman dated April 13, 2019 through 

May 7, 2022 in which he recounted that she was lifting tubs at work on March 21, 2019, heard a 

loud pop, and injured her back and neck. Dr. Lehman diagnosed chronic thoracolumbar spine pain 

following the January 5, 2002 employment injury, chronic periscapular pain, chronic disc 

protrusion T12-L1 and T7-8, and thoracolumbar spondylosis and disc disease with history of 

lumbar arachnoiditis. He asserted that appellant’s back conditions were aggravated by a reinjury 

on March 21, 2019. Dr. Lehman found that she was unable to continue working after December 2, 

8

S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April 11, 2019); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see G.S., Docket No. 23-0056 (issued July 3, 2023); D.T., Docket No. 19-1064 (issued 

February 20, 2020).

10 S.P., supra note 5; 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).

11 Id.
6

2021 due to pain with burning in her feet and tingling in her legs. He maintained that appellant’s 

work-related conditions prevented her from working.

The Board finds, however, that Dr. Lehman’s reports are of limited probative value 

because he did not provide adequate medical rationale in support of his opinion on causal 

relationship. He did not sufficiently address how the January 5, 2002 employment injury would 

have been competent to cause a recurrence of disability on or after December 2, 2021. Dr. Lehman

failed to explain why appellant’s work stoppage on December 2, 2021 was due to a spontaneous 

recurrence of the January 5, 2002 employment injury, rather than due to the sustaining of a new 

work injury on March 21, 2019. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative value 

regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how a given 

medical condition/level of disability has an employment-related cause.12 For these reasons,

Dr. Lehman’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s recurrence of disability claim.

Appellant also submitted a series of reports dated November 3, 2021 through May 18, 

2022, from Dr. Akande, however, these reports failed to address causation or disability from 

employment. 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. 13

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a recurrence of disability on 

or after December 2, 2021 causally related to her accepted January 5, 2002 employment injury, 

the Board finds that appellant 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 2, 2021, causally related to her accepted January 5, 2002 

employment injury. 

12 See H.C., Docket No. 22-0844 (issued December 5, 2022); J.S., Docket No. 18-0944 (issued 

November 20, 2018).

13 K.F.,Docket No.19-1846 (issued November 3, 2020); L.O., Docket No. 19-0953 (issued October 7, 2019); L.B.,

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 31, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 7, 2023

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