United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ST. ARMANT POST 

OFFICE, St. Armant, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0463

Issued: September 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 7, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 25, 

2022 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before theBoard, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by theBoard, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that following the January25, 2022 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

ISSUE

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

disability for the period November 20, 2019 through May 1, 2021 causally related to her accepted 

February 24, 2018 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 24, 2018 appellant, then a 43-year-old rotating/irregularrural carrier associate 

(RCA), filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that day she sprained her right 

arm while picking up a tub of mail in the performance of duty. She stopped work that day.4

On March 22, 2018 appellant was seen by Dr. John F. Loupe, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon. Dr. Loupe noted appellant’s history of injury and her right shoulder complaints. He 

completed a duty status report of even date wherein he diagnosed torn rotator cuff and traumatic

injury to the right rotator cuff joint. Dr. Loupe placed appellant on a no work status.

OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of right shoulder girdle and adhesive capsulitis of 

right shoulder and authorized a right shoulder arthroscopic surgery, which appellant underwent on 

June 28, 2018.5

OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from May 6 

through October 13, 2018 and on its periodic rolls from October 14, 2018 through November 9, 

2019, with a supplemental payment issued from November 10 through 15, 2019. 

On November 15, 2019 Dr. Scott G. Petrie, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, released

appellant to full-duty work beginning November 16, 2019. Appellant returned to work on 

November 16, 2019 in a full-duty capacity. She stopped work on November 19, 2019. 

On November 21, 2019 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that 

on November 19, 2019 a supervisor snatched a tray of mail from her hands while in the 

performance of duty. She claimed reinjury to her right shoulder and neck pain. OWCP assigned 

File No. xxxxxx645. By decision dated January 8, 2020, it denied the claim as the medical 

evidence did not demonstrate that the claimed medical conditions were causally related to the 

accepted November 19, 2019 employment incident. 

In a November 21, 2019 report, Dr. Petri reported that appellant had complaints of right 

shoulder and neck pain after she returned to work and her postmaster/supervisor pulled a mail tray 

away from her. He noted appellant’s physical examination findings indicating that appellant’s 

right shoulder portal/incision were well healed. Dr. Petri diagnosed right shoulder/C-spine 

contusion/strain/right upper extremity radiculopathy related to a November 19, 2019 work injury. 

4 Appellant was seen by Dr.Vanessa Tarver, Board-certified in emergency medicine, on February 24, 2018. In an 

attending physician’s report (Form CA-20),Dr.Tarver did not indicate that appellant was totally or partially disabled. 

The record is unclear as to the date appellant returned to work; however, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) dated 

May 2, 2019 indicates that appellant stopped work on March 22, 2018 and did not return.

5 The surgical procedures involved right shoulder arthroscopic subscapularis repair, right shoulder mini open 

supraspinatus repair, right shoulder arthroscopic Mumford procedure and extensive debridement of the glenohumeral 

joint, right shoulder subacromial decompression and regional block. 
3

He also assessed “right shoulder ATS/decompression/Mumford/RTCR [June 28, 2018]” based on 

February 24, 2018 employment injury. In that report and in an accompanyingNovember 21, 2019 

duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Petri related appellant’s diagnoses as right shoulder/cervical 

strain and downgraded appellant’s work status to sedentary duty. 

In a December 16, 2019 Form CA-17, Dr. Petri noted the February 24, 2018 date of injury 

and continued appellant on sedentary duty. 

A January 13, 2020 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of appellant’s cervical spine 

related findings of disc protrusions at C4-C7, and/or uncovertebral spurring and foraminal stenosis 

C5-C6.

In a January 24, 2020 report, Dr. Petri noted that appellant had not been able to perform

much work since her recent reinjury. He related that on physical examination appellant’s right 

shoulder portal/incision were well healed, her range of motion and strength continued to improve, 

her motor and sensory functions were intact, and her pulses were intact bilaterally. Dr. Petri

continued to assess “right shoulder ATS/decompression/Mumford/RTCR [June 28, 2018]” based 

on the February 24, 2018 employment injury. In that report and in an accompanying CA-17, he

also continued to place appellant on a sedentary-duty work status. 

In a February 24, 2020 report, Dr. Petri noted that appellant’s complaints of right shoulder 

weakness and tenderness on examination anteriorly and laterally. He continued to assess “right 

shoulder ATS/decompression/Mumford/RTCR[June 28, 2018]”based on February 24, 2018 work 

injury. In that report and in an accompanying CA-17, Dr. Petri continued appellant on a sedentaryduty work status. 

In medical reports and accompanying CA-17 forms and work status notes dated March 23, 

April 20, May 18, June 15, July 13, August 10, September 9, October 7, November 4, 

December 2, December 30, 2020 and January 27, February 5, February 24, March 24 and 

April 21, 2021, Dr. Petri reported appellant’s continued complaints regarding the right shoulder

and cervical spine. He continued to assess “right shoulder ATS/decompression/Mumford/RTCR

[June 28, 2018]” based on February 24, 2018 work injury. Dr. Petri also continued to indicate that 

appellant was restricted to sedentary duty. In his reports dated April 20, 2020 and February 25, 

2021, he also provided assessments of right shoulder/cervical spine contusion/strain/right upper 

extremity radiculopathy based on November 19, 2019 work injury and cervical spine spondylosis 

C4-C7 and spurring/non-foraminal stenosis C5-C8.

On June 8, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from 

work for the period November 20, 2019 through May 1, 2021. 

In a developmental letter dated June 10, 2021, OWCP indicated that appellant was alleging 

a recurrence of disability on November 20, 2019 when she stopped work. It noted that she had 

filed a claim under File No. xxxxxx645 for November 19, 2019 injuries to her right shoulder and 

neck which was denied. OWCP notified her of the definition of a recurrence of disability and 

requested that she provide additional factual and medical information supporting that her accepted 

conditions had materially changed/worsened without an intervening injury such that she was 

disabled from employment. It afforded appellant 30 days to respond to the request.

OWCP received a June 30, 2021 statement from appellant wherein she described the 

November 19, 2019 employment incident. Appellant related that a tray of mail was aggressively 
4

snatched from her hands, while she was holding onto both sides of the tray. She further explained 

that her right arm was pulled in an upward position, which aggravated previously injured muscles, 

tendons, and nerves. 

In May 21 and June 18, 2021 reports, Dr. Petri continued to assess “right shoulder 

ATS/decompression/Mumford/RTCR [June 28, 2018]” based on February 24, 2018 work injury. 

He continued to indicate that appellant’s work status was limited to sedentary duty. 

In reports dated November 11 and December 9, 2020 and January 8, February 5, March 5, 

April 5, May 3, June 2, 2021, Dr. Petri also provided assessments of right shoulder/cervical spine 

contusion/strain/right upper extremity radiculopathy based on claimed a November 19, 2019 work 

injury and cervical spine spondylosis C4-C7 and spurring/non-foraminal stenosis C5-C8. He 

continued to restrict appellant to sedentary work duties.

By decision dated August 4, 2021, OWCP denied the claim for compensation for the period 

November 20, 2019 through May 1, 2021. It found that the evidence was insufficient to establish 

that appellant was totally disabled due to a material change/worsening of her accepted February 24, 

2018 right shoulder conditions.

On August 9, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A telephonic hearing was held on 

December 6, 2021.

In reports dated July 19 and November 30, 2021, Dr. Petri continued to assess right 

shoulder ATS/decompression/Mumford/RTCR June 28, 2018 based on the February 24, 2018 

employment injury. He continued to relate that appellant was restricted to sedentary duty. 

OWCP also received CA-17s dated June 18, July 19, August 16, September 14, 

November 30, 2021 from Dr. Petri noting a February 24, 2018 date of injury. In these reports he 

again related that appellant was restricted to sedentary work.

By decision dated January 25, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

August 4, 2021 decision as appellant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support the 

claim for recurrent disability for the period November 20, 2019 through May 1, 2021 was causally

related to the accepted February 24, 2018 employment injury. He found that appellant’s claim was 

not a claim for recurrence of disability, but rather a claim for a new traumatic injury on 

November 19, 2019. The hearing representative also instructed OWCP to double File No. 

xxxxxx645 into File No. xxxxxx591, the current case.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

OWCP’s implementing regulations define a recurrence of disability as 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 injury or illness without an intervening injury or new exposure to 

the work environment.6

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x).
5

An employee who claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employment-related 

injury has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the substantial, reliable, and probative 

evidence that the disability for which he or she claims compensation is causally related to the 

accepted injury. This burden of proof requires that a claimant furnish medical evidence from a 

physician who, on the basis of a complete and accurate factual and medical history, concludes that, 

for each period of disability claimed, the disabling condition is causally related to the employment 

injury, and supports that conclusion with medical reasoning.7 Where no such rationale is present, 

the medical evidence is of diminished probative value.8

OWCP’s procedures provide that a recurrence of disability includes a work stoppage 

caused by a spontaneous material change in the medical condition demonstrated by objective 

findings. That change must result from a previous injury or occupational illness rather than an 

intervening injury or new exposure to factors causing the original illness. It does not include a 

condition that results from a new injury, even if it involves the same part of the body previously 

injured.9

OWCP’s procedures require that in cases where recurrent disability for work is claimed 

within 90 days or less from the first return to duty, the claimant is not required to produce the same 

evidence as a recurrence claimed long after apparent recovery and return to work.10 Thus, in cases 

where a recurrence is claimed within 90 days of the first return to duty, the focus is on disability 

rather than causal relationship of the accepted condition(s) to the work injury.

The Board has held that, if recurrent disability from work is claimed within 90 days or less 

from the first return to duty, the attending physician should describe the duties which the employee 

cannot perform and demonstrate objective medical findings that form the basis for the renewed 

disability from work.11

ANALYSIS

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

disability for the period November 20, 2019 through May 1, 2021 causally related to her accepted 

February 24, 2018 employment injury.

On November 16, 2019 appellant returned to full-time work in a full-duty capacity 

following her February 24, 2018 employment injury. On November 19, 2019 she alleged that she 

sustained a new intervening traumatic injury to her right shoulder and neck. Appellant 

subsequently filed, on June 8, 2021, a Form CA-7 for disability from work for the period 

November 20, 2019 through May 1, 2021, which OWCP developed as a recurrence claim. While 

she stopped work within days of her November 16, 2019 return to work following the February 24, 

7

See J.S., Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January 24, 2020).

8

Id.

9 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.2 (June 2013); D.T., Docket 

No. 19-1064 (issued February 20, 2020).

10 Id.;see also R.E., Docket No. 20-0421 (issued May 17, 2021);R.W., Docket No. 17-0720 (issued May 21, 2018).

11 R.E., id.; K.R., Docket No. 19-0413 (issued August7, 2019).
6

2018 accepted injury, the record does not establish that this was appellant’s first return to work.12 

Therefore, the burden of proof requires that appellant establish causal relationship of her claimed 

disability to the February 24, 2018 employment injury. 

In progress and CA-17 forms and work notes dated November 21, 2019 through 

November 30, 2021, Dr. Petri diagnosed right shoulder ATS/decompression/Mumford/RTCR

June 28, 2018 based on February 24, 2018 employment injury. He also included, in some reports, 

additional assessments of right shoulder/cervical spine contusion/strain/right upper extremity 

radiculopathy related to November 19, 2019 work injury and cervical spine spondylosis C4-C7 

and spurring/nonforaminal stenosis C5-C8. In his progress reports and accompanying 

November 21, 2019 CA-17 forms, Dr. Petri downgraded appellant’s work status from full to 

sedentary duty. 

However, Dr. Petri did not provide a rationalized medical opinion establishing that 

appellant had objective findings of disability or that the accepted conditions of February 24, 2018 

had materially worsened with or without an intervening cause. While he noted appellant’s 

subjective complaints on physical examination, he did not provide objective medical findings to 

support his opinion regarding appellant’s disability status.13 Further, Dr. Petri failed to offer a

rationalized opinion on causal relationship. Medical evidence that does not offer an opinion 

regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship or disability.14 Without a specific opinion regarding how the accepted employment 

injury of February 24, 2018 caused the downgrading of appellant’s work status, due to objective 

findings, Dr. Petri’s reports are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.15

The record also contains a January 13, 2020 MRI scan of the cervical spine which noted 

several conditions. The Board has held, however, that diagnostic studies, standing alone, lack 

probative value on the issue of causal relationship as they do not address whether the accepted 

employment injuries resulted in appellant’s period of disability on specific dates.16

As the medical evidence of record does not contain a rationalized medical opinion, based 

on objective medical findings, establishing that appellant sustained a recurrence of disability

causally related to her February 24, 2018 employment injury which resulted either in a change in 

her work status or that her accepted conditions related to the February 24, 2018 employment injury 

had worsened without intervening injury, the Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof 

to establish her recurrence claim.

12 Supra note 10. 

13 J.W., Docket No. 17-0715 (issued May 29, 2018). 

14 T.M., Docket No. 21-1310 (issued March 7, 2022); K.F., Docket No. 19-1846 (issued November 3, 2020);L.B., 

Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

15 T.M., id.;see D.B., Docket No. 21-0503 (issued August 24, 2021).

16 D.K., Docket No. 21-0082 (issued October 26, 2021); O.C., Docket No. 20-0514 (issued October 8, 2020); R.J., 

Docket No. 19-0179 (issued May 26, 2020).
7

On appeal, counsel contends that appellant’s denied claim under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx645 should be allowed as a new injury. However, the issue before the Board concerns only 

the recurrence claim in the present case. 

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 her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of 

disability for the period November 20, 2019 through May 1, 2021 causally related to her accepted 

February 24, 2018 employment injury.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 25, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board