United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

ARMY MATERIAL COMMAND, 

Chambersburg, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-2058 

Issued: April 21, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

On September 29, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of an August 18, 2014 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Board docketed the appeal as 

No. 14-2058. On August 18, 2014 OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to more than an 

11 percent schedule award for his left upper extremity. 

Appellant, a 63-year-old electrical equipment repairman, filed a Form CA-2 claim for 

occupational disease on May 2, 2012, alleging that he developed a left-sided carpal tunnel 

condition causally related to employment factors. OWCP accepted the claim for left carpal 

tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, and tardy ulnar nerve compression at the elbow. On 

March 19, 2013 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for a schedule award based on a partial loss 

of use of his left upper extremity. 

On July 6, 2013 Dr. Joseph Holobinko, Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, performed 

left carpal tunnel release surgery on appellant. In an October 15, 2013 report, an OWCP medical 

adviser found that he had five percent impairment from his accepted left carpal tunnel condition 

pursuant to the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (sixth edition) (A.M.A., Guides). OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Robert A. Smith, 

Board-certified in orthopedic surgery, who found in a September 12, 2013 report that appellant 
2

had a six percent left upper extremity impairment for left carpal tunnel syndrome under the 

A.M.A., Guides. In a November 26, 2013 report, OWCP’s medical adviser noted that he had 

previously rated five percent left upper extremity impairment for left carpal tunnel syndrome. 

He stated, however, that because appellant had previously received an award for 11 percent left 

upper extremity impairment, he was not entitled to an additional award for left upper extremity 

impairment based on left carpal tunnel syndrome. The medical adviser stated that, if the prior 

schedule award was based upon the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant’s award would 

likely be reduced in his schedule award in light of the new methodology and criteria set forth in 

the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Therefore, OWCP’s medical adviser found that 

appellant was not entitled to an increased award for left upper extremity impairment based on 

left carpal tunnel syndrome. He did not mention or review Dr. Smith’s September 12, 2013 

second opinion report. 

By decision dated December 4, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. In an August 18, 

2014 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the December 4, 2013 decision. He 

stated that appellant was not entitled to an additional schedule award for his left upper extremity 

because he had previously been granted one percent impairment of the left upper extremity for 

abrasion or friction burns to his left finger, elbow, forearm and wrist, left forearm sprain and left 

lateral epicondylitis under case number xxxxxx731; and 10 percent impairment of the left upper 

extremity for left shoulder tendinitis, left shoulder impingement, acromioplasty of the left 

shoulder and arthroscopic decompression under case number xxxxxx151. The OWCP hearing 

representative further stated that, although OWCP’s medical adviser failed to evaluate 

Dr. Smith’s September 12, 2013 report, such action was not necessary since this only indicated 

that appellant had six percent left upper extremity impairment for left carpal tunnel syndrome, 

and he had already been awarded 11 percent impairment of the left upper extremity. 

Section 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 requires OWCP to issue a decision containing findings of fact 

and a statement of reasons.1

 OWCP erred in its December 4, 2013 and August 18, 2014 

decisions by failing to analyze Dr. Smith’s second opinion report and provide sufficient reasons 

why it did not establish that appellant was entitled to an additional schedule award for left upper 

extremity impairment based on left carpal tunnel syndrome. OWCP’s medical adviser erred in 

finding that appellant’s previous awards for left upper extremity impairment precluded an 

additional award based on his accepted left carpal tunnel syndrome. As OWCP relied on this 

erroneous finding and did not make the required findings or provide a statement of reasons in its 

August 18, 2014 decision denying an additional schedule award, its decision was issued in error.

Accordingly, the case will be remanded to OWCP to enable it to properly consider the 

medical evidence submitted prior to the issuance of the August 18, 2014 decision, thoroughly 

evaluate the merits of appellant’s claim, make findings of fact and provide reasons for its 

decision, pursuant to the standards set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. After 

such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it should issue an appropriate decision to 

protect appellant’s appeal rights. 

 1

 20 C.F.R. § 10.126. 
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 18, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside; the case record is remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: April 21, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board