United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.V., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, AVON LAKE POST 

OFFICE, Avon Lake, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1347

Issued: May 1, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 23, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an

August 19, 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.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, 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 the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

disability commencing May 16, 2019, causally related to the accepted January 16, 2014 

employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 16, 2014 appellant, then a 31-year-old city carrier associate, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she twisted her left knee when she stepped 

out of her postal vehicle and her mailbag got caught on a window handle while in the 

performance of duty. She stopped work on January 17, 2014. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim 

for left knee sprain and closed dislocation of the left knee patella. It paid her wage-loss 

compensation on the supplemental rolls, effective March 22, 2014, and on the periodic rolls, 

effective June 1, 2014. 

By decision dated October 23, 2014, OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s 

claim to include contracture of the left tendon sheath. 

On December 5, 2014 appellant underwent OWCP-approved left knee arthroscopic 

surgery for revision of the medial patellofemoral ligament. 

On March 31, 2016 appellant returned to work without restrictions.3 

The case lay dormant until November 2021. 

On November 19, 2021 when appellant filed a notice of recurrence (Form CA-2a)

claiming disability from work, commencing May 10, 2019, due to a change or worsening of her 

work-related injury. She indicated that she had increased aches and pains, which continuously 

worsened after surgery. Appellant indicated that the first date of medical treatment following the 

recurrence was May 16, 2019. 

In a development letter dated December 16, 2021, OWCP advised appellant of the 

definition of a recurrence of disability and requested that she provide additional factual and 

medical evidence supporting that her accepted condition had worsened such that she was 

disabled from work. It afforded her 30 days to respond. 

OWCP received duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated February 9 and March 14, 2016,

from an unknown medical provider who indicated that appellant could work full time with 

restrictions of climbing up to two hours per day, sitting, kneeling, bending/stooping, 

pulling/pushing, and reaching above the shoulder up to four hours per day, simple grasping up to 

five hours per day, and fine manipulation and driving a vehicle up to six hours per day. 

3 By decision dated September 24, 2018, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 14 percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity. The period of the award ran for 40.32 weeks from March 5 through 

September 15, 2018. 
3

Appellant submitted an October 14, 2021 report by Dr. Louis Keppler, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, who noted that she was evaluated for a left knee condition. Dr. Keppler 

reported that she underwent left knee surgery on December 5, 2014 and complained of 

increasing posterior knee pain that “comes and goes” during the last year. Appellant indicated 

that her symptoms worsened with walking, squatting, lifting, and weather changes. Dr. Keppler 

noted that she had been able to work at her current position without restrictions. He 

recommended that appellant not return to her previous position as a mail carrier because it “may 

place [appellant’s] left knee at risk of reinjury.” Dr. Keppler advised that she continue with her 

current role with the employing establishment. 

In a note dated November 24, 2021, Roman Hanycz, a physician assistant, indicated that 

appellant was seen for follow-up of her left knee and for paperwork regarding her return to work. 

He noted that she had undergone left knee surgery. Mr. Hanycz opined that appellant was not a 

candidate to return to work as a letter carrier. 

In a letter dated January 5, 2022, Dr. Keppler indicated that he had treated appellant since 

2014 and described the initial January 16, 2014 employment injury. He noted that she returned 

to the office on October 14, 2021 after being last seen in May 2019, and complained of 

increasing posterior knee pain, throbbing, and cramping. Appellant recounted that she had these 

symptoms “off and on” over the last year. Dr. Keppler described the conservative treatment that 

she had received. He recommended a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan because of 

appellant’s continued and persistent posterior knee pain. Dr. Keppler opined that “[a]ll of this is 

part of [appellant’s] initial injury to the left knee and surgery required for the same.” He 

reported that appellant’s postoperative condition remained unchanged and recommended that she

continue with her current role at the employing establishment, but not as a mail carrier. 

By decision dated February 17, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she

had not established a recurrence of disability on May 16, 2019 causally related to her accepted 

employment injury. 

On March 2, 2022 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on June 7, 2022. 

In a July 25, 2022 statement, A.P., a human resource management specialist of the 

employing establishment, described the January 16, 2014 employment injury. She explained 

that, for the past several years, appellant worked a detail assignment as a safety driving 

instructor, which did not require carrying mail. A.P. noted that appellant did not file her 

recurrence claim until she was instructed to go back to her original assignment. She reported 

that appellant currently had a new assignment as a clerk training technician, which involved 

sitting in an office doing all office and computer work. A.P. asserted that the work required no 

carrying or handling mail and was of no danger to appellant’s knee. 

By decision dated August 19, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

February 17, 2022 decision. 
4

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 that had resulted from a previous 

compensable injury or illness and without an intervening injury or new exposure in the work 

environment.4 This term also means an inability to work because a light-duty assignment made 

specifically to accommodate an employee’s physical limitations and which is necessary because 

of a work-related injury or illness is withdrawn or altered so that the assignment exceeds the 

employee’s physical limitations.5

OWCP 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. The 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.6

An employee who claims a recurrence of disability due to an accepted employmentrelated 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 

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

ANALYSIS

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

of disability commencing May 16, 2019, causally related to the accepted January 16, 2014 

employment injury.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted reports by Dr. Keppler dated October 14, 

2021 and January 5, 2022. Dr. Keppler described the January 16, 2014 employment injury and 

discussed the medical treatment that she had received. He indicated that appellant was evaluated 

on October 14, 2021 for complaints of increasing posterior knee pain that “comes and goes”

during the last year. Dr. Keppler advised that she could continue with her current employment 

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see J.D., Docket No. 18-1533 (issued February 27, 2019). 

5

Id. 

6 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Recurrences, Chapter 2.1500.2 (June 2013); F.C., Docket 

No. 18-0334 (issued December 4, 2018); Kenneth R. Love, 50 ECAB 193, 199 (1998).

7 H.T., Docket No. 17-0209 (issued February 8, 2019); Ronald A. Eldridge, 53 ECAB 218 (2001).

8 E.M., Docket No. 19-0251 (issued May 16, 2019); MaryA. Ceglia, Docket No. 04-0113 (issued July 22, 2004).
5

position, but recommended that she not return to her previous mail carrier position because it 

“may place [appellant’s] left knee at risk of reinjury.” He opined that appellant’s persistent left 

knee pain was part of her initial injury to the left knee and subsequent surgery. Dr. Keppler did 

not, however, address the relevant issue of whether she sustained an employment-related 

recurrence of disability such that she was unable to work beginning May 16, 2019 and, thus, his 

opinion is insufficient to meet her burden of proof.9 

Appellant also submitted a November 24, 2021 note by Mr. Hanycz, a physician 

assistant. This note, however, is of no probative value because physician assistants are not 

considered physicians as defined under FECA.10

As appellant has not submitted any rationalized medical evidence establishing a 

recurrence of disability commencing May 16, 2019, causally related the accepted January 16, 

2014 employment injury, 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 May 16, 2019, causally related to her accepted January 16, 2014 

employment injury.

9 D.H., Docket No. 22-0533 (issued August 4, 2022); T.M., Docket No. 21-1310 (issued March 7, 2022); D.B., 

Docket No. 21-0503 (issued August 24, 2021).

10 Section 8102(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8102(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See supranote 6 atCausal Relationship, Chapter 2.805.3a(1) 

(January2013); David P. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician assistants, 

nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to render a medical opinion under FECA); see also C.R., Docket 

No. 22-0734 (issued March 3, 2023) (physician assistants are not considered “physician[s]” as defined under FECA; 

George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004) (physician assistants are not physicians as defined under FECA).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 19, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 1, 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