United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Louisville, KY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1147 

Issued: September 4, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 21, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 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 merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant is entitled to a schedule award for a permanent impairment 

of the right upper extremity. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 16, 2007 appellant, then a 53-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on January 13, 2007 he fell on his right side when he slipped on a ramp. 

OWCP accepted the claim for a right shoulder contusion, right shoulder sprain and an acute right 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

shoulder subscapularis tear. On April 4, 2007 he underwent an authorized open subscapularis 

repair of the right shoulder. On May 11, 2007 appellant returned to modified employment. 

On June 18, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award. On June 25, 2013 OWCP 

requested a report from his attending physician addressing the extent of any permanent 

impairment in accordance with the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2009) (A.M.A., Guides). By letter dated July 16, 2013, 

appellant’s representative advised OWCP that his physician did not provide impairment ratings 

and requested a second opinion evaluation. 

On August 13, 2013 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Stanley W. Collis, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination. In a report dated September 3, 2013, 

Dr. Collis discussed appellant’s history of injury and current complaints of pain with right 

shoulder motion. He diagnosed status postsurgical repair of the right rotator cuff with a good 

result. On examination Dr. Collis found no weakness, muscle atrophy or loss of motion of the 

right upper extremity. He noted that appellant experienced discomfort with motion in the front 

of his shoulder. Dr. Collis stated, “[Appellant] has good right shoulder function. I think he does 

have some discomfort of the right shoulder as he states, especially at night, and I think that is due 

to the developmental bursitis, not work related.” Dr. Collis advised that appellant had no 

impairment of the right upper extremity according to Table 14-34 on page 475 of the A.M.A., 

Guides. 

On September 25, 2013 an OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Collis’ report and 

concurred with his finding that appellant had no impairment of the right upper extremity. He 

noted that appellant had normal range of motion and strength and that the surgical repair of the 

partial thickness rotator cuff tear of April 4, 2007 was successful. 

By decision dated October 8, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award 

on the grounds that the weight of the evidence did not show that he had a permanent impairment 

of an extremity. 

A September 6, 2013 magnetic resonance imaging scan study of the right shoulder, 

received by OWCP on October 22, 2013, showed findings not well visualized due to metal 

artifacts. A right shoulder arthrogram obtained on September 25, 2013 revealed a complete tear 

of the supraspinatus tendon and amorphous extravasation of contrast in the subscapularis region 

and muscle. 

On October 28, 2013 appellant, through his representative, requested a review of the 

written record. By decision dated March 20, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed 

the October 8, 2013 decision. 

On appeal appellant asserts that at the time of the impairment evaluation Dr. Collis was 

around 85 years old and no longer a practicing physician. He also alleges that the examination 

lasted less than three minutes. He told Dr. Collis that he believed that he had retorn his arm 

because of the increased pain. Appellant alleged that Dr. Collis found that his examination was 

normal even though he had a completed severed rotator cuff tear at the time of his examination 

as established by the arthrogram. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA,2 and its implementing federal regulations,3 set 

forth the number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent 

impairment from loss, or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. However, 

FECA does not specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. For 

consistent results and to ensure equal justice under the law for all claimants, OWCP has adopted 

the A.M.A., Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants.4 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.5

 The claimant has the 

burden of proving that the condition for which a schedule award is sought is causally related to 

his employment.6

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a right shoulder contusion, right shoulder sprain 

and an acute subscapularis tear of the right shoulder due to a January 13, 2007 fall. On April 4, 

2007 he underwent a repair of the subscapularis tear. 

On June 18, 2013 appellant requested a schedule award. As his attending physician did 

not provide impairment evaluations, OWCP referred him to Dr. Collis for a second opinion 

examination. On September 3, 2013 Dr. Collis diagnosed a repair of the right rotator cuff with a 

good result. On examination he found no weakness, atrophy or loss of motion of the right upper 

extremity. Dr. Collis discussed appellant’s complaints of pain in the right shoulder but found 

that it resulted from nonemployment-related bursitis. He concluded that he had no impairment 

of the right upper extremity. On September 25, 2013 an OWCP medical adviser concurred with 

Dr. Collis’ determination that appellant had no right upper extremity impairment. The Board 

finds that Dr. Collis provided a comprehensive medical examination based on a detailed physical 

examination and review of the radiographic evidence and determined that appellant had no 

impairment due to the January 13, 2007 employment injury. Dr. Collis’ opinion thus represents 

the weight of the evidence and establishes that appellant is not entitled to a schedule award.7

On appeal appellant asserts that Dr. Collis performed a cursory examination, that he had 

reached an advanced age and that he was no longer practicing. He has not, however, submitted 

any evidence showing that Dr. Collis was not competent to render a medical opinion. 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(a). 

5

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

Chapter 2.808.5(a) (February 2013); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 

(January 2010). 

6 See Veronica Williams, 56 ECAB 367 (2005). 

7 See J.D., Docket No. 12-612 (issued November 2, 2012); L.H., Docket No. 12-519 (issued August 20, 2012). 
4

Appellant additionally notes that diagnostic studies showed that he had retorn his rotator 

cuff. The diagnostic studies, however, were obtained subsequent to Dr. Collis’ examination and 

provide no discussion of impairment or relationship to the accepted condition. Further, OWCP 

has not accepted a retorn rotator cuff as employment related. As noted, the claimant has the 

burden of proving that the condition for which a schedule award is sought is causally related to 

his employment.8

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 established that he is entitled to a schedule award 

for a permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. 

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 4, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 8 Id.