United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

AVIATION DEPOT, Cherry Point, NC, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1951 

Issued: March 12, 2015 

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 September 8, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the August 28, 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 to review the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant is entitled to an additional schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

In a prior appeal, the Board found in its May 7, 2013 decision that appellant was not 

entitled to an additional schedule award.2

 In 1998, as a 40-year-old sandblaster, appellant filed 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 Docket No. 12-1628 (issued May 7, 2013). 
2

an occupational disease claim alleging that his carpal tunnel syndrome was a result of hand 

cleaning, stripping or blasting small aircraft components, which made his hands numb. OWCP 

accepted his claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and approved surgical releases. 

Appellant had received schedule awards totaling 42 percent for his left upper extremity (27 

percent in 2000 plus an additional 15 percent in 2007) and 28 percent for his right (10 percent in 

2000 plus an additional 15 percent in 2007 plus an additional three percent in 2012).3

 The Board 

found that appellant had only a six percent impairment bilaterally under the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2009) (hereinafter 

A.M.A., Guides). As this was less than the impairment for which he previously received 

schedule awards, the Board found that he was not entitled to an additional award. 

On February 6, 2014 appellant underwent additional bilateral carpal tunnel release. He 

filed a claim for an additional schedule award. In support thereof, appellant submitted the 

July 10, 2014 report of Dr. Ivor B. Kaplan, a hand surgeon and Board-certified plastic surgeon. 

During postsurgical physical therapy, he noted an almost immediate improvement in the 

numbness and tingling in his fingers. When he last saw Dr. Kaplan on July 2, 2014, appellant 

noted that his hands felt “the best that they have ever felt.” It was Dr. Kaplan’s opinion that he 

had reached maximum medical improvement and had an upper extremity impairment of one 

percent bilaterally. 

In a decision dated August 28, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an additional 

schedule award. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA authorizes the payment of schedule awards for the loss or loss of use of specified 

members, organs, or functions of the body. Such loss or loss of use is known as permanent 

impairment. Compensation for the complete loss of an upper extremity, as with amputation at 

the shoulder, extends 312 weeks.4

 Compensation for partial losses is proportionate.5

FECA, however, does not specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be 

determined. The method used in making such a determination is a matter that rests within the 

sound discretion of OWCP.6

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 

 3

 OWCP mistakenly indicated that appellant had received schedule awards for a 30 percent impairment of his 

right upper extremity, when in fact he received schedule awards of 10 percent and 15 percent. 

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(1). 

5 Id. at § 8107(c)(19). 

6 Linda R. Sherman, 56 ECAB 127 (2004); Danniel C. Goings, 37 ECAB 781 (1986). 
3

standard for evaluating schedule losses.7

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

Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.8

ANALYSIS 

The issue before the Board is whether appellant has permanent impairment in excess of 

42 percent permanent impairment of his left upper extremity and a 28 percent permanent 

impairment of his right upper extremity. The Board finds that appellant has not established 

entitlement to an additional schedule award. 

It would appear from the July 10, 2014 report of Dr. Kaplan, the surgeon who performed 

the most recent carpal tunnel releases, that appellant now has almost no impairment of his upper 

extremities. Appellant stated that his hands feel the best they have ever felt. This is a dramatic 

improvement since OWCP determined that he had permanently lost 42 percent of the use of his 

left upper extremity and 28 percent of the use of his right. Dr. Kaplan found that appellant’s loss 

of use was now merely one percent bilaterally. 

Under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, the highest impairment rating anyone may 

receive for carpal tunnel syndrome is nine percent of the upper extremity.9

 As appellant has 

already received much more than this, he is not entitled to receive an additional schedule award 

under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides regardless of how bad his accepted condition may 

become. 

The Board finds that he is not entitled to an additional schedule award. The Board will 

therefore affirm OWCP’s August 28, 2014 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant is not entitled to an additional schedule award. 

 7

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

8

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

Chapter 2.808.6.6a (January 2010). 

9

 A.M.A., Guides 449, Table 15-23 (6th ed. 2009). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 28, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 12, 2015 

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