K.T. and U.S. Postal Service, Processing and Distribution Center, Little Rock (Board decision, December 15, 2023)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP's February 11, 2021 recurrence denial as modified after narrowing the remaining issue to disability beginning September 1, 2013. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A postal building equipment mechanic sought wage loss benefits after a 2004 fall caused accepted physical and psychiatric conditions. An earlier Board decision had already denied benefits for a later disciplinary suspension but required OWCP to check whether his modified job remained available afterward. The employer confirmed that the job was available from September 1, 2013. The Board found that the medical reports did not explain how the accepted injury caused disability from that date, despite describing ongoing conditions. It affirmed OWCP's recurrence denial as modified to reflect that narrower period.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x).
• Outcome: Recurrence denial affirmed as modified for disability from September 1, 2013.
• Key point: A modified job remaining available leaves the worker to prove a medically supported recurrence of disability.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
K.T., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 21-1166
)
Issued: December 15, 2023
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & )
DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Little Rock, AR, )
Employer
)
__________ )

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 July 26, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 11, 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 over the merits of this case. 2

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2
The Board notes that, following the February 11, 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.
ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability commencing May 23, 2012 causally related to his accepted April 5, 2004 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board. 3 The facts and circumstances as set forth in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are set forth below.

On April 5, 2004 appellant, then a 38-year-old building equipment mechanic, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he slipped on a wet ladder and fell onto a chair while in the performance of duty. 4 OWCP accepted the claim for neck, lumbar, and rib sprains. Appellant returned to a light-duty job on April 12, 2004. By decisions dated July 10 and 24, 2008, OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and major depression, recurrent episode, severe with mention of psychotic behavior.

A memorandum dated May 16, 2012 from D.M., a union steward, indicated that he had been called to represent appellant in a meeting that day with his supervisor. A discussion ensued as to whether appellant had thrown away paperwork regarding an assignment in Little Rock , and whether an appropriate supervisor had signed the paperwork. At the end of the meeting, appellant was placed off the clock and escorted from the building for failure to follow instructions from a supervisor.

On June 11, 2012 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from work commencing May 30, 2012.

On July 17, 2012 the employing establishment issued a notice of removal for cause, indicating that appellant would be separated from employment with an expected removal date of August 17, 2012. Appellant thereafter filed a grievance challenging the notice of removal.

By decision dated September 27, 2012, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability commencing May 23, 2012, finding that the factual and medical evidence of record

3
Docket No. 11-278 (issued October 6, 2011); Docket No. 14-613 (issued October 9, 2014); Docket No. 17-0009 (issued October 8, 2019).
4
OWCP assigned OWCP File No xxxxxx098 to the present claim. On June 5, 2007 appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2), assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx005, alleging stress and anxiety due to factors of his federal employment including conflicts with his supervisor over his work restrictions. He noted that he first became aware of his claimed emotional condition and its relation to his federal employment on April 20, 2006. On December 26, 2013 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging an aggravation of preexisting anxiety and depression. OWCP File Nos., xxxxxx005, xxxxxx243, and xxxxxx098 have been administratively combined by OWCP with the latter serving as the master file.

2 was insufficient to establish disability due to a material change or worsening of his accepted work- related conditions.

On October 9, 2012 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A telephonic hearing was held on February 11, 2013.

By decision dated April 26, 2013, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the September 27, 2012 denial of appellant’s recurrence claim.

On June 21, 2013 OWCP further expanded the acceptance of the claim to include cervical spondylosis and lumbar spondylosis.

On August 26, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration. He also continued to file Form CA-7 claims for wage-loss compensation.

In support of his claims for wage-loss compensation, appellant submitted an arbitration decision, dated August 1, 2013, which concluded that the employing establishment had just cause to discipline him, but did not have just cause to remove him from employment. The decision instructed the employing establishment to reduce appellant’s removal to a suspension running from the date of removal to 30 days following the date of the arbitration decision. Further, the arbitration decision instructed that appellant’s return to work was conditional and based on appellant providing acceptable medical documentation regarding the resolution of his medical issues. In reaching his decision, the arbitrator found that the evidence of record supported that appellant had “some type of medical condition which obviously” impacted his ability to perform assigned work.

In an August 28, 2013 letter, Dr. Phillip A. Tracy, a treating Board-certified family medicine physician, opined that appellant continued to be totally disabled from work due to his accepted depression and anxiety.

In reports dated August 7 and September 16, 2013, Dr. James M. Sims, a treating psychiatrist, recommended that appellant be allowed to transfer to a different supervisor. In the September 16, 2013 report, he opined that appellant was unable to return to work due to his anxiety and major depression, recurrent episode, severe with psychotic behavior. Dr. Sims explained that appellant’s past conflicts with his supervisor continued to cause him stress and that he worried about possible future contact with this supervisor.

By decision dated December 20, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of his claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

On January 3, 2014 appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated October 9, 2014, the Board set aside the December 20, 2013 decision, finding that OWCP improperly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128 and remanded the case for further development. 5 The Board found that the arbitration decision constituted new and relevant

5
Docket No. 14-613 (issued October 9, 2014).

3 evidence, which raised the issue of whether appellant’s recurrence of disability was due to an accepted employment condition and was not due to a new injury or new factor of employment.

Appellant continued to submit medical evidence. In a February 3, 2014 report, Dr. Sims summarized appellant’s medical treatment and noted that he had treated appellant since June 26, 2006 for major depression, recurrent, severe with mention of psychotic behavior. He noted that appellant had been sent home from work on May 16, 2012. Dr. Sims opined that appellant was totally disabled from work from May 16, 2012 to the present.

In September 26 and October 15, 2014 reports, Dr. Tracy noted that appellant presented with a diagnosis of anxiety and depression for which he was in ongoing counseling.

In an October 8, 2014 notice of administrative separation, the employing establishment informed appellant that he would be separated from the establishment within 30 days from the date of the notice. The basis of the separation was that appellant was medically unable to perform the essential requirements of his job, that he had been in a leave-without-pay status for more than one year due to his medical conditions, and that he had not been released by Dr. Sims, his treating physician, to return to work in any capacity. The employing establishment advised appellant that he could file for disability retirement.

In an October 22, 2014 report, Dr. Tracy indicated that appellant remained disabled from work as his anxiety and depression had worsened.

By decision dated February 6, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s recurrence claim, finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the claimed recurrence of disability and the accepted employment injury.

On October 14, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration of the February 6, 2015 decision and submitted additional evidence.

In a March 24, 2015 note, Dr. Tracy advised that appellant remained disabled from work due to his accepted employment-related emotional conditions. He noted on July 27, 2015 that appellant’s accepted psychiatric conditions were permanent and stable at that time. In a visit note of even date, Dr. Tracy noted that appellant had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression 11 years prior, and that the course of the condition had been progressive. He indicated that resolution was at a standstill.

In a note dated October 6, 2015, Dr. Tracy noted his treatment of appellant for the past eight years and explained the history of appellant’s emotional condition. He related that appellant’s prolonged exposure to negative work factors caused his anxiety and depression to increase, leading to an aggravation of his mental condition. Dr. Tracy further related that appellant had a diagnosed and accepted medical condition that was worsened by his work environment. His reaction to any administrative decision on May 16, 2012 was exacerbated by his condition and the hostile work environment he was exposed to on a daily basis. Any reasonable person, given the circumstances appellant was dealing with, would have trouble with the action taken by his employer. Given that appellant was in a reduced mental state and exposed to negative work factors, his reaction arose from the conditions of his employment. Dr. Tracy concluded that

4 appellant was presently disabled and unable to return to work due to his accepted medical conditions, and that the continuing stress was not helping his conditions.

OWCP continued to receive progress reports from Dr. Tracy dated September 15 and October 27, 2015.

By decision dated January 21, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the February 6, 2015 decision.

On March 15, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence, including February 22 and 29, 2016 reports by progress reports, wherein Dr. Tracy continued to opine that appellant remained totally disabled from work.

In a note dated April 7, 2016, Dr. Tracy indicated that he had treated appellant for his accepted conditions for approximately 10 years. He attributed appellant’s disability from May 16, 2012 and continuing to his work-related psychiatric conditions of recurrent episodes of severe major depression with psychotic features and generalized anxiety disorder. Dr. Tracy noted these conditions are life-long and had been accepted by OWCP. He stated that the employing establishment withdrew appellant’s modified job, which had been designed to accommodate his medical condition. In another report dated April 7, 2016, Dr. Tracy related that appellant was seen for lumbar pain. He diagnosed radiculopathy of the lumbar region. In a report dated May 10, 2016, Dr. Tracy related that appellant was seen in follow up for neck and back conditions, which were diagnosed more than five years ago. He related that appellant had arthralgias and myalgias of the back and neck which limited his return to work. Dr. Tracy noted diagnoses of lumbar radiculopathy, cervicalgia, and cervicothoracic radiculopathy.

By decision dated September 20, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the January 21, 2016 decision.

On October 5, 2016 appellant appealed the September 20, 2016 decision to the Board.

On October 12, 2016 OWCP further expanded the acceptance of the claim to include chronic pain syndrome, anterior spinal artery compression syndrome cervical region, and other spondylosis with radiculopathy, lumbar region.

In reports dated October 26 and December 7, 2016, Dr. Tracy related that appellant was still disabled due to his OWCP accepted psychiatric conditions including anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder-recurrent episodes, severe with psychotic symptoms. He further related that appellant had no preexisting or other psychiatric diagnoses. While OWCP has stated that appellant had a preexisting, self-generated psychiatric condition, that statement was simply not true. Dr. Tracy requested that OWCP prepare a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) which could be used for appellant’s further medical care.

In progress notes dated January 27, 2017, Dr. Alan Storeygard, a treating family medicine specialist, related that he had reviewed appellant’s medical record and that it “sounds as though” appellant had chronic pain syndrome related to his previous employment injury. He also diagnosed anxiety with depression.

5
In a progress note dated February 13, 2017, Dr. Priya Priyambada, a treating physician Board-certified in family medicine and geriatric medicine, related that appellant was seen to establish care, following the retirement of his primary physician, Dr. Tracy. Dr. Priyambada noted diagnoses of anxiety and depression, and that his conditions were stable.

In a report dated February 14, 2017, Dr. Kenneth Counts, Ph.D., a treating clinical psychologist, related that appellant had a long history of major depressive disorder, recurrent type. He related that appellant’s medical condition had become static and chronic, and that appellant was totally incapacitated and disabled from any type of employment.

On February 15, 2017 appellant was seen by Dr. Richard Hayes, a family medicine specialist, in follow up. Appellant’s diagnoses were listed as chronic pain syndrome, acquired spondylolisthesis, lumbar spondylosis without arthropathy, major depression -recurrent episode severe, and generalized anxiety disorder. Dr. Hayes continued to see appellant in follow up for his diagnoses of major depression-recurrent episode severe and anxiety disorder.

In a report dated July 13, 2017, Dr. Raymond R. Remmel, a treating psychiatrist, related that appellant remained totally and permanently disabled from any type of work due to his accepted conditions of major depression, severe, recurrent episodes with psychotic features, and generalized anxiety disorder.

On November 8, 2017 Dr. Hayes reported that appellant remained totally and permanently disabled due to his conditions of major depressive disorder, severe recurrent e pisodes without psychotic features, and generalized anxiety disorder. He also related that he did not have current records from appellant’s pain management physician.

On April 2, 2018 OWCP received an undated report from Dr. Brian Nichol, a Board- certified anesthesiologist, who indicated that he had been treating appellant since December 2016 for chronic pain syndrome, cervicalgia of a suspected facet mediated etiology, low back pain, right sciatica, osteoarthritis of both knees, left sciatica, and myofascial pain. Dr. Nichol related that appellant’s complaints related to a fall from a ladder at work in April 2004, that the conditions were lifelong and were not expected to improve over time.

In a progress report dated August 16, 2018, Dr. Hayes related that appellant continued to be evaluated for anxiety. His anxiety disorder was diagnosed many years ago. True panic attacks occurred in addition to generalized anxiety, the frequency of the symptoms was nearly constant, and triggers included crowds or public places.

OWCP continued to receive progress reports from Dr. Remmel, from May 21, 2019. In these notes, Dr. Remmel noted appellant’s current concerns and his current medications.

By decision dated October 8, 2019, the Board affirmed the September 20, 2016 decision in part, finding that appellant was not entitled to wage-loss compensation for the period of his suspension, which was July 17, 2012 through August 31, 2013, as the evidence of record established that he had stopped work for reasons unrelated to his employment injury.6 The Board

6
Supra note 2.

6 also set aside the September 20, 2016 decision in part, finding that OWCP’s regulations allowed appellant to establish a recurrence of disability when a light-duty job is withdrawn or when there is a change in his work restrictions. The Board remanded the case for OWCP to further develop the case record and determine whether appellant’s modified-duty assignment was available or had been withdrawn at the end of the period of his suspension .

On remand OWCP e-mailed the employing establishment requesting that it provide information as to whether the modified job appellant had been performing remained available following his suspension or whether it had been withdrawn.

In e-mail correspondence dated January 7, 2020, the employing establishment confirmed that appellant’s modified assignment remained available as of September 1, 2013.

By decision dated January 7, 2020, OWCP denied modification of the September 20, 2016 decision.

OWCP continued to receive progress reports from Dr. Remmel, dated from February 26, 2020, which noted appellant’s current concerns and his medications.

On November 16, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration. In support thereof, he submitted a copy of the October 8, 2014 notice of removal from the employing establishment, for medical inability to meet the requirements of his position, and a copy of the June 25, 2017 arbitration decision.

By decision dated February 11, 2021, OWCP denied modification.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 7 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 .8 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. 9 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

7
Supra note 1.
8
See C.B., Docket No. 20-0629 (issued May 26, 2021); 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). 9 J.W., Docket No. 20-0021 (issued September 10, 2021); W.H., Docket No. 19-0168 (issued May 10, 2019); see D.G., Docket No. 18-0597 (issued October 3, 2018).

7 condition is causally related to the employment injury, and supports that conclusion with medical reasoning.10

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. 11 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. 12

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is claimed. To do so would essentially allow an employee to self -certify his or her disability and entitlement to compensation. 13

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability commencing September 1, 2013 causally related to his accepted April 5, 2004 employment injury.

The case record establishes that appellant was in paid status, receiving paid administrative leave from May 2012 up until July 17, 2012. In its October 8, 2019 decision, the Board affirmed the denial of his recurrence claim in part, finding that he was not entitled to wage-loss compensation for the period of his suspension, which was July 17, 2012 through August 31, 2013, as the evidence of record established that he stopped work for reasons unrelated to his employment injury.14 Findings made in prior Board decisions are res judicata absent any further review by OWCP under section 8128 of FECA. 15 Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider the evidence appellant submitted prior to the issuance of OWCP’s September 20, 2016 decision because the Board considered that evidence in its October 8, 2019 decision. 16 The Board, however, set aside the September 20, 2016 decision in part, finding that OWCP’s regulations allowed appellant to establish a recurrence of disability when a light-duty job is withdrawn or when there is a change 10 J.W., id.; J.D., Docket No. 18-0616 (issued January 11, 2019); see C.C., Docket No. 18-0719 (issued November 9, 2018).
11
20 C.F.R. § 10.5(x); see J.W., id.; V.H., Docket No. 18-0456 (issued August 9, 2019).
12
Id.
13
S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April 11, 2019); William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).
14
Supra note 2.
15
G.W., Docket No. 22-0301 (issued July 25, 2022); M.D., Docket No. 19-0510 (issued August 6, 2019); Clinton E.
Anthony, Jr., 49 ECAB 476 (1988).
16
Id.

8 in appellant’s work restrictions. The Board remanded the case for further development of the case record as to whether appellant’s modified-duty assignment was available or had been withdrawn at the end of the period of his suspension. On remand, the Board requested that the employing establishment provide information as to whether the modified job appellant had been performing remained available following his suspension or whether it had been withdrawn. In e-mail correspondence dated January 7, 2020, the employing establishment confirmed that appellant’s modified assignment remained available as of September 1, 2013. Therefore, the only question presently before the Board is whether the medical evidence of record is sufficient to establish disability from work commencing September 1, 2013, causally related to the accepted employment injury.

In support of his recurrence claim, appellant submitted reports dated October 26 and December 7, 2016, wherein Dr. Tracy related that appellant was still disabled due to his OWCP accepted psychiatric conditions including anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder-recurrent episodes, severe with psychotic symptoms. Dr. Tracy further related that appellant had no preexisting or other psychiatric diagnoses. In a report dated July 13, 2017, Dr. Remmel related that appellant remained totally and permanently disabled from any type of work due to his accepted conditions of major depression, severe, recurrent episodes with psychotic features, and generalized anxiety disorder. However, while these physicians provided an opinion on causal relationship, they did not provide rationale explaining their opinion. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how the claimed disability was causally related to the accepted employment injury. 17 This evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish the claim.

In progress notes dated January 27, 2017, Dr. Storeygard related that he had reviewed appellant’s medical record and that it “sounds as though” appellant had chronic pain syndrome related to his previous employment injury. He also diagnosed anxiety with depression. In a progress note dated February 13, 2017, Dr. Priya Priyambada, a treating physician Board-certified in family medicine and geriatric medicine, related that appellant was seen to establish care, following the retirement of his primary physician, Dr. Tracy. Dr. Priyambada noted diagnoses of anxiety and depression, and that appellant’s conditions were stable. In a report dated February 14, 2017, Dr. Counts related that appellant had a long history of major depressive disorder, recurrent type. He related that appellant’s medical condition had become static and chronic, and that he was totally incapacitated and disabled from any type of employment. These physicians, however, did not provide an opinion on causal relationship between appellant’s claimed recurrence of disability and the accepted employment injury. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition/disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 18 This evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

17
See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017) (a report is of limited probative value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale describing the relation between work factors and a diagnosed condition/disability). 18 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

9
On February 15, 2017 appellant was seen by Dr. Hayes, a family medicine specialist, in follow up. His diagnoses were listed as chronic pain syndrome, acquired spondylolisthesis, lumbar spondylosis without arthropathy, major depression, recurrent episode severe, and generalized anxiety disorder. Dr. Hayes continued to see appellant in follow up for his diagnoses of major depression, recurrent episode severe, and anxiety disorder. On November 8, 2017 he reported that appellant remained totally and permanently disabled due to his conditions of major depressive disorder, severe recurrent episodes without psychotic features, and generalized anxiety disorder. Dr. Hayes also related that he did not have current records from his pain management physician. In a progress report dated August 16, 2018, Dr. Hayes related that appellant continued to be evaluated for anxiety. His anxiety disorder was diagnosed many years ago. True panic attacks occurred in addition to generalized anxiety, the frequency of the symptoms was nearly constant, and triggers included crowds or public places. On April 2, 2018 OWCP received an undated report from Dr. Nichol, who indicated that he had been treating appellant since December 2016 for chronic pain syndrome, cervicalgia of a suspected facet mediated etiology, low back pain, right sciatica, osteoarthritis of both knees, left sciatica, and myofascial pain. Dr. Nichol related that appellant’s complaints related to a fall from a ladder at work in April 2004, that the conditions were lifelong and were not expected to improve over time. OWCP continued to receive progress reports commencing May 21, 2019, wherein Dr. Remmel noted appellant’s current concerns and his current medications. None of these reports, however, contained an opinion on causal relationship between appellant’s claimed recurrence of disability and the accepted employment injury. As noted above, the Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition/disability is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 19 This evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish a recurrence of disability commencing September 1, 2013, causally related to the accepted April 5, 2004 employment injury, the Board finds that appellant 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(a) 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 disability commencing September 1, 2013 causally related to his accepted April 5, 2004 employment injury.

19
Id.

10
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 11, 2021 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed, as modified.

Issued: December 15, 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

11