United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

_________________________________________ 

S.C., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hollywood, FL, Employer 

_________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1521 

Issued: January 7, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 23, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 20, 2014 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 schedule award determination. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish more than an eight 

percent impairment of the right upper extremity for which he received a schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 18, 2008 appellant, then a 57-year-old manager, filed a traumatic injury claim 

alleging that on that same date, a customer struck him in the right shoulder, and left hand in the 

performance of duty. He did not stop work. On October 10, 2008 OWCP accepted appellant’s 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

claim for a sprain of the right shoulder/upper arm, rotator cuff syndrome right. On August 17, 

2009 appellant underwent authorized surgery to the right shoulder for impingement syndrome, 

and partial tears of the rotator cuff, and glenoid labrum. He received compensation benefits. 

On March 10, 2009 OWCP issued a schedule award for eight percent impairment of the 

right arm due to appellant’s right shoulder condition. The award covered a period of 24.96 

weeks from November 6, 2008 to January 17, 2009.2

 

On November 8, 2010 appellant underwent an authorized right shoulder debridement of 

scar tissue, subacromial decompression (SAD), and mini open rotator cuff repair. 

In a report dated February 20, 2014, Dr. Scott D. Tannenbaum, Board-certified in 

physical medicine and rehabilitation, opined that appellant had six percent impairment using a 

diagnosis-based evaluation for a grade “C-D” right rotator cuff tear. 

In a March 6, 2014 report, an OWCP medical adviser determined that appellant did not 

have any additional impairment. He utilized the A.M.A., Guides and concluded that evidence 

did not support an additional schedule award of the right arm. The medical adviser found that 

appellant had reached maximum medical improvement and that appellant had a right shoulder 

arthroscopic SAD and debridement to the rotator cuff, and glenoid labrum on August 17, 2009 

for impingement syndrome, and partial tear of the rotator cuff. Appellant had a second right 

shoulder SAD, debridement, and full thickness rotator cuff tear repair on November 8, 2010. 

The medical adviser noted that appellant received a schedule award for eight percent right arm 

impairment following the August 17, 2009 surgery. He noted that the report from 

Dr. Tannenbaum reflected a six percent impairment award based upon the diagnosis-based 

evaluation. The medical adviser referred to Table 15-5 for full thickness rotator cuff tear,3

noting that the table is used for a full thickness rotator cuff tear with residual functional loss. As 

appellant had already received a schedule award for eight percent impairment of the right arm, he 

determined that there was no additional impairment. 

On April 4, 2014 appellant filed a claim for an additional schedule award. 

By letter dated April 14, 2014, OWCP informed appellant of the type of evidence needed 

to support his claim and requested that he submit such evidence within 30 days. It advised him 

that the medical adviser reviewed the report from Dr. Tannenbaum and determined that the 

impairment rating of six percent was not greater than the eight percent previously awarded. 

Appellant was advised to review the report from the medical adviser. OWCP noted that 

Dr. Tannenbaum would need to submit a final impairment rating and discussion of the rationale 

 2

 Appellant retired on March 3, 2010. He subsequently sought an increased schedule award. OWCP denied 

appellant’s claim for an increased award in a September 14, 2011 decision as the medical evidence did not 

demonstrate an increased impairment. On January 28, 2012 appellant requested reconsideration. In a February 15, 

2012 decision, OWCP refused to reopen his case for further review of the merits of his claim. It found that appellant 

had not submitted relevant new evidence. 

3

 A.M.A., Guides 403. For a full thickness rotator cuff tear with residual loss, this table provides an impairment 

range of three to seven percent for the arm. 
3

for his calculation to find any impairment greater than eight percent of the right arm as 

previously awarded. 

Appellant did not respond to the request to OWCP’s request to provide additional 

documentation to support his claim for increased permanent impairment. 

By decision dated May 20, 2014, OWCP determined that appellant was not entitled to an 

additional schedule award. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8107 of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the 

permanent loss of use of specified members, functions, and organs of the body.4 FECA, 

however, does not specify the manner by which the percentage loss of a member, function, or 

organ shall be determined. To ensure consistent results and equal justice for all claimants under 

the law, good administrative practice requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all 

claimants.5 The A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by the implementing regulations as the 

appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.6 For decisions issued after May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition will be used.7

 

In addressing upper extremity impairments, the sixth edition requires identifying the 

impairment class for the Class of Diagnosis (CDX), which is then adjusted by grade modifiers 

based on Functional History (GMFH), Physical Examination (GMPE) and Clinical Studies 

(GMCS).8

 The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX).9 

OWCP procedures provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file 

should be routed to the medical adviser for an opinion concerning the nature and percentage of 

impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with him providing rationale for the 

percentage of impairment specified.10

ANALYSIS 

The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant has more than eight 

percent impairment of the right arm. OWCP accepted his claim for a sprain of the right 

shoulder/upper arm, rotator cuff syndrome right. It also approved August 17, 2009, right 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

5 Ausbon N. Johnson, 50 ECAB 304, 311 (1999). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

7

 FECA Bulletin No. 09-03 (issued March 15, 2009). 

8

 A.M.A., Guides 494-531; see J.B., Docket No. 09-2191 (issued May 14, 2010). 

9 Id. at 521. 

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

Chapter 2.808.6(f) (February 2013). 
4

shoulder surgery, and a November 8, 2010 right SAD, debridement, and repair of a rotator cuff 

tear. 

In a report dated February 20, 2014, Dr. Tannenbaum opined that appellant had an 

impairment of six percent to the right arm for a grade “C-D” right rotator cuff tear. However, he 

did not explain how he arrived at his opinion. By letter dated April 14, 2014, OWCP informed 

appellant of the type of evidence needed to support his claim and requested that he submit such 

evidence within 30 days. It noted that Dr. Tannenbaum would need to submit a final impairment 

rating and a discussion of the rationale for his calculation. Because Dr. Tannenbaum did not 

explain his rating under the A.M.A., Guides and did not otherwise support a greater impairment 

of the shoulder region than appellant had already received. His opinion is insufficient to warrant 

a greater schedule award.

Furthermore, in a March 6, 2014 report, the medical adviser utilized the A.M.A., Guides

and determined that evidence did not support an additional schedule award to the right arm. He 

noted appellant’s conditions, and his two authorized right shoulder surgeries. The medical 

adviser explained that appellant previously received a schedule award of eight percent to the 

right upper extremity following the right shoulder arthroscopy of August 17, 2009. He referred 

to Table 15-5 for full thickness rotator cuff tear, with residual loss.11 The Board notes that the 

range of impairment for this diagnosis is three to seven percent. The medical adviser found no 

basis on which to attribute additional impairment of the right shoulder region. Thus, he correctly 

utilized the A.M.A., Guides and determined that appellant had an impairment of no more than 

eight percent to right upper extremity for which he previously received a schedule award. 

Section 8107(c)(1) of FECA provides 312 weeks of compensation for the total loss of an 

arm.

12 Section 8107(c)(19) provides that compensation for partial losses is proportionate.13 

Therefore, eight percent of 312 weeks of compensation is 24.96 weeks of compensation, which 

is what OWCP awarded. Appellant has not submitted any other medical evidence conforming 

with the A.M.A., Guides establishing that he has a greater schedule award.14

On appeal, appellant argued that Dr. Tannenbaum meant that he was entitled to an 

additional impairment of six percent. However, Dr. Tannenbaum did not respond to the request 

to clarify his findings with the requisite rationale in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides. He 

also submitted additional evidence with his appeal. However, the Board has no jurisdiction to 

review this evidence for the first time on appeal.15 

 11 A.M.A., Guides 403. 

12 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(1). 

13 Id. at § 8107(c)(19). 

14 The Board also notes that OWCP regulations provide that benefits payable under section 8107(c) shall be 

reduced by the period of compensation paid or payable under the schedule for an earlier injury if: (1) compensation 

in both cases is for impairment of the same member or function or different parts of the same member or function; 

and (2) the latter impairment in whole or in part would duplicate the compensation payable for the preexisting 

impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(d). 

15 Id. at § 501.2(c); James C. Campbell, 5 ECAB 35, 36 n.2 (1952). 
5

Appellant may request a schedule award or increased schedule award based on evidence 

of a new exposure or medical evidence showing progression of an employment-related condition 

resulting in permanent impairment or increased impairment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish more than an 

eight percent impairment of the right upper extremity for which he received a schedule award. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 20, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 7, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board