United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Palatine, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1288 

Issued: September 16, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 15, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 19, 2014 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which denied her schedule award 

claim. 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 established permanent impairment of the upper 

extremities causally related to her accepted conditions. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence following the February 19, 2014 decision. Since 

the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision, the 

Board may not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c); Sandra D. Pruitt, 57 

ECAB 126 (2005). Appellant may submit that evidence to OWCP along with a request for reconsideration. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On March 19, 2010 appellant, then a 62-year-old automation clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she experienced pain in both of her hands, arms and shoulders as a 

result of repetitively lifting, pushing, pulling and reaching in the performance of duty. She first 

became aware of her condition and realized it resulted from her employment on March 18, 2010. 

OWCP accepted her claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral complete rotator 

cuff rupture. Appellant worked modified duty. She stopped work on November 24, 2010 and 

received disability compensation. Appellant underwent authorized right and left shoulder 

surgeries. On March 9, 2011 she was placed on the periodic rolls. Appellant returned to full 

duty on October 23, 2012. She continued to submit medical and physical therapy reports 

regarding her treatment for her accepted conditions. 

On September 25, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award. 

By letter dated October 2, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the evidence needed to 

support her schedule award claim. It requested that appellant submit a detailed report from a 

treating physician which provided an impairment evaluation pursuant to the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).3

 OWCP 

requested an opinion as to when appellant reached maximum medical improvement, a diagnosis 

upon which the impairment was based, a detailed description of objective findings upon which 

any impairment rating may be based, and a detailed description of any permanent impairment 

under the applicable criteria and tables in the A.M.A., Guides.

In a December 12, 2013 report, Dr. Samuel J. Chmell, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, related appellant’s complaints of ongoing pain in both shoulders, hands and wrists. 

Upon examination, he observed crepitus with impingement in both shoulders and tenderness in 

the subacromial area on each side. Dr. Chmell reported that appellant’s hands and wrists 

demonstrated diffuse swelling, tenderness and crepitus. Tinel’s sign was positive at the median 

nerve bilaterally. Dr. Chmell diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and torn rotator cuff of 

both shoulders status post bilateral shoulder rotator cuff repair. He recommended that appellant 

follow up regularly with her primary care physician. 

In a decision dated February 19, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim. 

It found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that she sustained a permanent 

impairment causally related to her accepted conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA4

 and its implementing regulations 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 of a member shall be determined. The 

method used in making such determination is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of 

 3

 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2008). 

4

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
3

OWCP. For consistent results and to ensure equal justice, the Board has authorized the use of a 

single set of tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The 

A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by OWCP as the appropriate standards for evaluating schedule 

losses.5

Not all medical conditions accepted by OWCP result in permanent impairment to a 

scheduled member.6

 An employee seeking a schedule award has the burden to establish a 

permanent impairment.7

 The A.M.A., Guides explain that impairment should not be considered 

permanent until the clinical findings indicate that the medical condition is static and well 

stabilized: 

“It is understood that an individual’s condition is dynamic. Maximal medical 

improvement refers to a date from which further recovery or deterioration is not 

anticipated, although over time there may be some expected change. Once an 

impairment has reached [maximum medical improvement], a permanent 

impairment rating may be performed.”8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral 

complete rotator cuff rupture. Appellant filed a claim for a schedule award for permanent 

impairment of her upper extremities due to her accepted conditions. 

The Board finds that appellant failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to establish 

maximum medical improvement or the extent of any permanent impairment. Appellant 

submitted the December 12, 2013 report from Dr. Chmell who noted appellant’s complaints of 

ongoing pain in her shoulders, hands and wrists. Examination of both shoulders revealed 

crepitus with impingement in both shoulders and tenderness in the subacromial area on each 

side. Dr. Chmell also reported diffuse swelling, tenderness and crepitus in appellant’s hands and 

wrists. Tinel’s sign was positive at the median nerve bilaterally. Dr. Chmell diagnosed bilateral 

carpal tunnel syndrome and torn rotator cuff of both shoulders status post bilateral shoulder 

rotator cuff repair. He recommended that appellant follow up regularly with her primary care 

physician. 

The Board finds that Dr. Chmell did not provide an impairment rating, discuss whether 

the accepted condition caused permanent impairment, or state an opinion as to whether appellant 

was at maximum medical improvement. In order to determine appellant’s entitlement to a 

schedule award, she must provide a report from a treating physician with a sufficiently detailed 

description of her condition so the claims examiner and others reviewing the file will be able to 

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404 (1999); see also Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 139 (2002). 

6 Thomas P. Lavin, 57 ECAB 353 (2006). 

7 See Denise D. Cason, 48 ECAB 530 (1997); see also K.K., Docket No. 14-317 (issued July 11, 2014). 

8

 A.M.A., Guides, Table 2-1 at page 20 (6th ed. 2009); see also Orlando Vivens, 42 ECAB 303 (1991) (a schedule 

award is not payable until maximum medical improvement -- meaning that the physical condition of the injured 

member of the body has stabilized and will not improve further -- has been reached). 
4

clearly visualize the impairment with its resulting restrictions and limitations.9

 As Dr. Chmell 

did not opine that appellant’s accepted conditions caused any permanent impairment, his report 

is insufficient to establish that appellant has any permanent impairment due to her accepted 

upper extremity conditions. Without probative medical opinion evidence from a physician 

explaining whether appellant sustained any permanent impairment as a result of her accepted 

conditions and how any impairment correlated with the A.M.A., Guides, appellant has failed to 

establish her claim for a schedule award.10

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment of the upper extremities related to her accepted conditions. 

ORDER 

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

of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 16, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 9 Renee M. Straubinger, 51 ECAB 667, 669 (2000) (the Board found that, when providing an impairment rating, a 

physician must provide a description of a claimant’s impairment in sufficient detail so that the claims examiner and 

others reviewing the file will be able to clearly visualize the impairment and its resulting restrictions and 

limitations). 

10 D.R., 57 ECAB 720 (2006); Lela M. Shaw, 51 ECAB 372 (2000).