United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Redondo Beach, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1052 

Issued: September 4, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 3, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the December 11, 2013 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

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has more than a one percent impairment of her left lower 

extremity causally related to her accepted employment injury. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 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). The Board therefore has no jurisdiction to review the January 30, 2014 medical report appellant submits 

on appeal. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 29, 2008 appellant, a 39-year-old letter carrier, sustained a traumatic injury in 

the performance of duty when she lifted a tray of mail into her postal truck. OWCP accepted her 

claim for a lumbosacral ligament sprain and left groin strain/sprain. 

In 2012, appellant filed a claim for a schedule award. Dr. Charles F. Xeller, the attending 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, found that she was exquisitely tender in the left inguinal 

canal with no discrete lump. Left hip flexion was painful but full. All other findings were 

normal. “So, with regards to her hernia, apparently I consider that [appellant] has an inguinal 

strain.” Clinical studies were normal; they did not show an inguinal hernia. Appellant had 

occasional mild discomfort that did not preclude most activities of daily living. She did have 

palpable pain and, at times, swelling. 

Dr. Xeller diagnosed a left groin strain and left inguinal hernia. Using Table 6-10, page 

122, of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment

(6th ed. 2009), under the chapter entitled “The Digestive System,” he evaluated a three percent 

impairment of the whole person due to a left inguinal hernia. 

In an addendum report, Dr. Xeller clarified that appellant had no frank herniation but a 

rather significant inguinal strain with ongoing pain. Nonetheless, he reaffirmed that Table 6-10 

of the A.M.A., Guides, relating to herniation, was the appropriate table for rating her 

impairment. 

An OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Xeller’s impairment evaluation and 

recommended that the accepted left inguinal strain be considered equivalent to a left hip strain 

with palpatory findings, under Table 16-4, page 512 of the A.M.A., Guides. The default 

impairment value for such a diagnosis was one percent of the lower extremity. The medical 

adviser made no adjustment for functional history, a +1 adjustment for physical findings and a -1 

adjustment for clinical studies, resulting in no net adjustment of the default impairment value. 

On May 1, 2013 OWCP issued a schedule award for a one percent impairment of the left 

lower extremity. 

Dr. Xeller advised in a May 13, 2013 report that he did not know how OWCP’s medical 

adviser arrived at a one percent impairment rating. He stood by his three percent rating of the 

whole person for an inguinal hernia and noted that appellant found it hard to bend over and to 

reach and twist due to her groin pain. 

Appellant requested reconsideration. 

OWCP’s medical adviser stood by his one percent rating in a September 27, 2013 report. 

In a decision dated December 11, 2013, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim 

and denied an additional schedule award. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA3 and the implementing regulations4 set forth the 

number of weeks of compensation payable for the loss or loss of use, of scheduled members, 

functions and organs of the body. FECA, however, does not specify the manner in which the 

percentage of loss shall be determined. The method used to make such a determination is a 

matter that rests within the sound discretion of OWCP.5

For consistent results and to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants, good 

administrative practice necessitates the use of a single set of tables so that there may be uniform 

standards applicable to all claimants. OWCP has adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate 

standard for evaluating schedule losses.6

 As of May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.7

Diagnosis-based impairment is the primary method of evaluating the lower limb. 

Impairment is determined first by identifying the relevant diagnosis, then by selecting the class 

of the impairment (no objective problem, mild problem, moderate problem, severe problem, very 

severe problem approaching total function loss) and finally by adjusting the default rating up or 

down slightly for grade, which is based on modifiers or nonkey factors such as functional 

history, physical examination and clinical studies.8

No schedule award is payable, however, for a member, function or organ of the body not 

specified under FECA or in the regulations.9

 Because neither FECA nor the regulations 

authorize a schedule award for the permanent loss of use of the spine or back,10 no claimant is 

entitled to such an award.11

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a lumbosacral ligament sprain and a left groin 

strain/sprain when she lifted a tray of mail into her postal truck on April 29, 2008. Appellant 

later filed a claim for a schedule award. As such, the question is whether the accepted diagnoses 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

5 Linda R. Sherman, 56 ECAB 127 (2004); Danniel C. Goings, 37 ECAB 781 (1986). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404; Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 130 (2001). 

7

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, 

Chapter 2.808.6.6a (January 2010). 

8

 A.M.A., Guides 497. 

9 William Edwin Muir, 27 ECAB 579 (1976). 

10 FECA specifically excludes the back from the definition of “organ.” 5 U.S.C. § 8101(19). 

11 E.g., Timothy J. McGuire, 34 ECAB 189 (1982). 
4

caused any permanent impairment to a member or function or organ of the body as specified in 

FECA or its implementing regulations. 

The accepted lumbosacral ligament sprain is located in appellant’s lower spine or back. 

As the Board noted, no schedule award is payable for the permanent loss of use of the spine or 

back because neither is a specified member, function or organ of the body. No claimant may 

receive such an award. Further, Dr. Xeller, the attending orthopedic surgeon, evaluated no 

impairment of the lower extremities resulting from the accepted lumbosacral ligament sprain. 

As for the accepted left groin strain/sprain, Dr. Xeller evaluated a three percent whole 

person impairment using Table 6-10, page 122 of the A.M.A., Guides. Table 6-10 provides 

criteria for evaluating impairment due to abdominal herniation but OWCP did not accept 

appellant’s claim for a hernia. A schedule award cannot be granted for a hernia because hernia is 

not listed in FECA or the regulations as a scheduled member or organ of the body. The terms of 

FECA are specific as to the method and amount of payment of compensation. Neither OWCP 

nor the Board has the authority to enlarge the terms of FECA or to make an award of benefits 

under terms other than those specified in the statute.12

Imaging studies revealed no inguinal hernia and Dr. Xeller clarified that what she 

actually had was a rather significant inguinal strain. In the absence of a protrusion or palpable 

defect in the supporting structures of the abdominal wall, it is unclear whether Table 6-10 can 

apply. 

Lastly, Dr. Xeller evaluated an impairment of the “whole person.” FECA does not 

authorize schedule awards for permanent impairment of the whole person.13 Payment is authorized 

only for permanent impairment of specified members, organs or functions of the body, such as the 

upper and lower extremities, the hands and feet, the fingers and toes, hearing, vision, the eye, the 

lung, larynx and the kidney. Accordingly, Dr. Xeller’s rating for the whole person provides no 

basis under the law for the payment of a schedule award. 

Nonetheless, Dr. Xeller’s findings may be compared with appropriate tables in the A.M.A., 

Guides to determine appellant’s entitlement. Chapter 16 of the A.M.A., Guides provides criteria 

for determining impairment of the lower extremities, which are scheduled members of the body.14 

Table 16-4, the Hip Regional Grid, provides criteria for determining impairment due to various 

diagnoses of the hip area, from the articular cartilage of the acetabulum to the mid shaft of the 

femur.15 It was OWCP’s medical adviser’s opinion that the accepted left groin strain/sprain 

condition was medically equivalent to a strain in the left hip region. 

 12 K.S., Docket No. 14-0133 (issued April 1, 2014) (no schedule award payable for hernia). 

13 Ernest P. Govednick, 27 ECAB 77 (1975). 

14 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(2) (for the total loss of a lower extremity, as with amputation, an employee may receive up 

to 288 weeks of compensation). 

15 A.M.A., Guides 500. 
5

The first step in determining an impairment rating is to choose the diagnosis that is most 

appropriate for the region being assessed.16 OWCP medical adviser’s opinion that the accepted 

left groin strain/sprain may be evaluated as a soft-tissue strain in the hip region under Table 16-4 

appears reasonable under the circumstances. Dr. Xeller diagnosed a left groin strain in addition 

to a left inguinal hernia. He found that appellant had palpable pain and that left hip flexion was 

painful but full. Palpatory findings and the absence of motion deficits are sufficient to classify 

the accepted left groin strain as class 1 or mild, under Table 16-4. The default impairment value 

is one percent of the left lower extremity. 

Appellant’s occasional mild discomfort did not preclude most activities of daily living, 

but Dr. Xeller clarified that she did find it hard to bend over and to reach and twist due to her 

groin pain. In the absence of any need for assistive devices such as a cane or crutch, her 

functional history appears to be mild, warranting no adjustment of the default impairment 

value.17

If a grade modifier or nonkey factor was used for primary placement in the regional grid, 

it may not be used again in the impairment calculation.18 This applies in appellant’s case 

because palpatory findings and the absence of motion deficits placed her diagnosis in the mild 

category. Physical examination findings, therefore, may not be used again to adjust the default 

impairment value. 

Dr. Xeller noted that imaging studies were normal. As they did not confirm a diagnosis 

or even mild pathology, they are indicative of no problem.19 This normally adjusts the default 

impairment value slightly lower, but under Table 16-4, the default impairment value and the next 

milder value are the same: one percent of lower extremity. This represents appellant’s final 

rating. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has no more than a one percent impairment of 

her left lower extremity causally related to her accepted employment injury. The Board will 

therefore affirm the December 11, 2013 decision denying modification of her schedule award. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has no more than a one percent impairment of her left 

lower extremity causally related to her accepted employment injury. 

 16 Id. at 499. 

17 Id. at 516 (Table 16-6, Functional History Adjustment, Lower Extremities). 

18 Id. at 515-16. 

19 Id. at 519 (Table 16-8, Clinical Studies Adjustment, Lower Extremities). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 11, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 4, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board