United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Baltimore, MD, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1093 

Issued: October 6, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 10, 2014 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from the 

February 10, 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 10 percent impairment of her left arm. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 14, 2009 appellant, then a 38-year-old mail handler, sustained a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty while pushing a wire cage. OWCP accepted her claim for left 

wrist sprain. It later expanded its acceptance to include a tear of the triangular fibrocartilage 

complex (TFCC) and other joint derangement of the left wrist. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

On January 19, 2010 appellant underwent a left wrist ulnar shortening osteopathy and 

arthroscopy with partial synovectomy. 

In 2013 she filed a schedule award claim. On March 11, 2013 Dr. Stuart J. Goodman, a 

Board-certified neurologist, evaluated her impairment under the American Medical Association, 

Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2009). He found a moderate 

functional history under Table 15-7, page 406, a moderate physical examination under Table 

15-8, page 408, and moderate clinical studies under Table 15-9, page 410. Referring to Table 

15-10, page 412, “Methodology for Determining the Grade in an Impairment Class,” 

Dr. Goodman found that appellant had a class 3 or severe impairment of 28 percent, or two 

percent less than the default impairment value for that class. 

Dr. Arnold T. Berman, an OWCP medical adviser, reviewed the impairment evaluation 

on April 23, 2013 and noted that Dr. Goodman did not make a calculation based upon a 

diagnosis. Instead, he immediately went to the adjustment grids, which cannot be used until an 

initial diagnosis-based estimate is made. Using Table 15-3, page 396, Dr. Berman observed that 

the default impairment value for a documented TFCC injury was eight percent of the upper 

extremity, mild impairment. As to the adjustment grids, the medical adviser agreed with 

Dr. Goodman that appellant had a moderate functional history (symptoms with normal 

activities), a moderate physical examination (moderate decrease in range of motion), and 

moderate clinical studies (confirming the diagnosis and moderate pathology). These adjustment 

factors increased the default impairment value of eight percent to 10 percent under Table 15-3, 

page 396. 

On June 5, 2013 OWCP issued a schedule award for a 10 percent impairment of the left 

upper extremity. The period of the award ran for 31.2 weeks. 

On February 10, 2014 an OWCP hearing representative affirmed, finding that the weight 

of the medical evidence rested with the rating performed by Dr. Berman. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA2 and the implementing regulations3 set forth the 

compensation payable to injured employees who sustain permanent impairment from the 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 

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

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

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

ANALYSIS 

Diagnosis-based impairment is the primary method of evaluation for the upper 

extremities. The first step is to choose the diagnosis that is most applicable for the region being 

assessed. Selection of the optimal diagnosis requires judgment and experience. If more than one 

diagnosis can be used, the highest causally related impairment rating should be used; this will 

generally be the more specific diagnosis. Typically, one diagnosis will adequately characterize 

the impairment and its impact on activities of daily living.7

Specific criteria for that diagnosis determine which class of impairment is appropriate: 

no objective problem, mild problem, moderate problem, severe problem, or very severe problem 

approaching total function loss. The A.M.A., Guides assigns a default impairment rating for 

each diagnosis by class. This default rating may be slightly adjusted using such factors as 

functional history, physical examination and clinical studies.8

Dr. Berman, OWCP’s medical adviser, correctly noted that Dr. Goodman, the evaluating 

neurologist, did not accomplish the first step in the process: he did not identify the applicable 

diagnosis or locate its default impairment rating under Table 15-3, the Wrist Regional Grid. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left wrist sprain, tear of the left TFCC, and other joint 

derangement. Appellant’s impairment could be rated under the diagnosis of left wrist 

sprain/strain, but the highest rating she could receive for that diagnosis is two percent of the 

upper extremity.9 TFCC offers a higher default impairment rating of eight percent and is an 

accurate diagnosis of the accepted condition. The Board finds that this is the most appropriate 

diagnosis upon which to rate appellant’s impairment. 

Dr. Berman agreed with Dr. Goodman that all of the adjustment factors -- functional 

history, physical examination, and clinical studies -- were moderate and would adjust the default 

impairment rating slightly higher. As a matter of procedure, however, the Board notes that, if a 

particular adjustment factor has already been used to determine the impairment class under the 

regional grid, it may not be used again to adjust the default impairment value.10 Here, clinical 

studies documenting appellant’s TFCC injury were used to place her TFCC impairment in the 

class 1 or mild category, which has a default impairment rating of eight percent. Clinical studies 

cannot be used again, therefore, to adjust this default rating higher or lower. Nonetheless, 

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404; 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). 

7

 A.M.A., Guides 387, 389 (6th ed. 2009). 

8 Id. at 497. 

9 Id. at 395. 

10 Id. at 411 (Method, 2.b). 
4

moderate functional history and physical findings both move the default rating slightly higher to 

10 percent under Table 15-3, page 396. A 10 percent impairment of the upper extremity is the 

highest impairment rating for a TFCC tear. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has no more than a 10 percent impairment of 

her left arm. The Board will affirm OWCP’s February 10, 2014 decision. 

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 10 percent impairment of her left upper 

extremity, for which she has received a schedule award. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 10, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 6, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board