United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.D., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY 

DEPOT, Corpus Christi, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1373 

Issued: October 10, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Glenda Turner, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 30, 2014 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from the 

March 19, 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 has more than a one percent impairment of her left lower 

extremity. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 6, 2011 appellant, 59-year-old production controller (aircraft), sustained a 

traumatic injury in the performance of duty when she stepped on an object that made her lose her 

balance and stumble. X-rays revealed a minimally displaced comminuted fracture of the 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

midshaft of the left fifth metatarsal. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a closed fracture of 

the left calcaneus. 

Dr. Charles W. Kennedy, Jr., a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, evaluated the 

permanent impairment to appellant’s left lower extremity on December 10, 2013. Appellant’s 

diagnosis was a healed fracture of the left fifth metatarsal. She had no limitation of motion. 

Appellant’s most recent examination showed no tenderness or swelling and she was 

neurovascularly intact. An extremity questionnaire indicated mild symptoms. Referring to 

Table 16-2, page 504 of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2009), Dr. Kennedy determined that appellant had a one percent 

impairment of her left lower extremity. 

On January 13, 2014 Dr. Ronald Blum, an OWCP medical adviser reviewed 

Dr. Kennedy’s evaluation and concurred. Appellant had an essentially nondisplaced fracture of 

the left fifth metatarsal shaft, which warranted a one percent impairment rating under Table 16-2. 

In a decision dated March 19, 2014, OWCP issued a schedule award for a one percent 

impairment of appellant’s left leg. The award was 2.88 weeks of compensation. 

Appellant contends on appeal that she is still in pain and can no longer wear certain types 

of shoes, such as high heels and boots. “I believe that my impairment rating was way too low.” 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA2 and the implementing regulations3 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. 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.4

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.5

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

Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.6

 2 Id. at § 8107. 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

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

5 Supra note 3; Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 130 (2001). 

6

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

Chapter 2.808.6.6a (January 2010). 
3

ANALYSIS 

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

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), which will provide a default impairment rating. 

This default rating may then be adjusted slightly for grade, which is determined by functional 

history, physical examination and clinical studies.7

Appellant’s diagnosis was a nondisplaced fracture of the left fifth metatarsal shaft. 

Impairment ratings for fractures of the foot and ankle regions are found in Table 16-2 of the 

A.M.A., Guides. Ratings for a fractured metatarsal are provided on page 504. For a healed 

fracture with no objective deficits, the class of the impairment is “no objective problem” and the 

lower extremity impairment rating is zero. For a fracture of a metatarsal other than the first 

metatarsal, nondisplaced with abnormal examination findings, the class of the impairment is 

“mild problem” with impairment ratings ranging from zero to two percent. These are the only 

two classifications that are available for a fractured metatarsal. 

X-rays showed the fracture to be essentially nondisplaced. There was no angular 

deformity that would justify placing appellant’s impairment in the mild category. Further, 

Dr. Kennedy, the evaluating orthopedic surgeon, noted no limitation of motion. Examination 

findings about a week earlier showed no tenderness and no swelling. Appellant was found to be 

neurovascularly intact. The record does not contain abnormal examination findings which would 

justify placing her impairment in the mild category. Given the apparent absence of objective 

deficits, either on x-ray or physical examination, the classification of “no objective problem” and 

an impairment rating of zero is correct. 

Dr. Kennedy classified the impairment as mild, which has a default impairment rating of 

one percent. He noted that appellant completed an extremity questionnaire which indicated mild 

functional symptoms.8

 Because appellant’s impairment was classified as mild, this did not affect 

the default impairment value. 

Physical examination findings appeared negative. No observed or palpable findings were 

reported. There was no mention of instability, misalignment, deformity, loss of motion, atrophy 

or leg length discrepancy.9

 These findings indicate no problem on physical examination and 

move the default impairment value to the next lower grade. The impairment rating for the next 

lower grade is one percent, as shown in Table 16-2, page 504. 

X-rays confirmed the diagnosis but were not interpreted to show moderate pathology, 

such as a healed angulation or rotational deformity less than five percent in any plane.10 The 

 7

 A.M.A., Guides 497. 

8 See id. at 516 (Table 16-6, Functional History Adjustment). 

9 See id. at 517 (Table 16-7, Physical Examination Adjustment). 

10 See id. at 519 (Table 16-8, Clinical Studies Adjustment). 
4

clinical studies establish a mild problem, which does not alter impairment rating. Appellant’s 

final impairment rating, therefore, is one percent. 

Appellant contends that her impairment rating was too low. The highest rating any 

claimant may receive for such a fracture is two percent, but, in appellant’s case, none of the 

adjustments for functional history, physical examination or clinical studies supported an increase 

in the default impairment value of one percent. 

The Board notes a one percent impairment rating equals 2.88 weeks of compensation. 

Under section 8107(c)(2) of FECA, a claimant who loses a lower extremity is entitled to a 

maximum of to 288 weeks of compensation. 

Section 8107(c)(19) provides that compensation for a partial loss of use is proportionate. 

Thus, the compensation payable for appellant’s one percent impairment is one percent of 288 

weeks of compensation or 2.88 weeks of compensation. 

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

lower extremity. The default rating for her essentially nondisplaced fifth metatarsal fracture is 

one percent -- assuming abnormal examination findings -- and the slight adjustment for grade 

leaves the rating unchanged. The Board will therefore affirm OWCP’s March 19, 2014 schedule 

award. 

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 no more than a one percent impairment of her left 

lower extremity. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 19, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 10, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board