United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Atlanta, GA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0879 

Issued: July 15, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from the October 30, 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’s July 8, 2009 employment injury caused any permanent 

impairment to her right lower extremity. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 8, 2009 appellant, a 38-year-old mail handler, sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty when she stepped into a hole while carrying sacks of mail. She stated that 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

her right knee was bruised and swollen at the top and that this was a knee she had previously 

injured. Appellant also stated there was tingling in her right ankle. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for contusion of the right knee and right lower 

extremity. Following an imaging study showing radial tears involving the free edge of the body 

and posterior horn of the medial meniscus, it accepted appellant’s claim for the additional 

condition of right medial meniscus tear. 

Shortly thereafter appellant underwent arthroscopic surgery for a medial meniscectomy. 

However, the articular surface in the medial and lateral compartments was normal. There was a 

large, thick medial plica in the suprapatellar area, which the Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

Dr. Howard B. Krone, excised. No meniscectomy was warranted. 

Appellant filed a claim for a schedule award on September 3, 2014. Dr. Krone evaluated 

appellant’s impairment. He described her complaint of some chronic pain, 3/5 on occasion, over 

the medial femoral condyle of the right knee. There was no swelling, locking, or giving way. 

There was some slight tenderness over the medial femoral condyle but no evidence of any 

thickening or effusion. Appellant had full range of motion and no patellofemoral crepitus. Xrays were normal. It was Dr. Krone’s opinion that appellant had no permanent impairment to the 

right knee based on the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides) (6th ed. 2009). 

An OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Krone’s evaluation. He noted that appellant’s 

arthroscopic surgery showed the menisci intact. The source of appellant’s problem was instead a 

large, thick plica, and the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides did not provide an impairment 

rating for plica. The medical adviser agreed with appellant’s orthopedic surgeon that appellant 

had no permanent impairment of her right lower extremity. 

In a decision dated October 30, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim. It 

found that the medical evidence did not support that she had a permanent impairment to her right 

lower extremity. 

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 

 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

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

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed a claim for a schedule award, but submitted no evaluation showing 

permanent impairment due to her July 8, 2009 work injury. Her surgeon, Dr. Krone, found no 

impairment of her right lower extremity. An OWCP medical adviser reviewed the matter and 

agreed. Thus, no physician has supported appellant’s schedule award claim. 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a right knee contusion and a medial meniscus tear. 

Table 16-3, page 509 of the A.M.A., Guides, provides a default lower extremity impairment 

rating of two percent for a meniscal tear, partial medial or lateral meniscectomy, or meniscal 

repair. When Dr. Krone performed the arthroscopy, he found no tear. As the medical adviser 

noted, the menisci were intact. There was no physical basis, therefore, for the payment of a 

schedule award. 

The medical adviser noted that the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide 

an impairment rating for plica. In fact, Table 16-3, page 509 of the A.M.A., Guides provide a 

default impairment rating of one percent for soft-tissue injuries such as bursitis, plica, history of 

contusion, or other soft-tissue lesion. Impairment ratings for schedule awards include those 

conditions accepted by OWCP as job related.7

 OWCP did not accept the condition of plica. To 

receive any rating for plica or history of contusion, however, Table 16-3 requires significant 

consistent palpatory findings or radiographic findings. When Dr. Krone performed his 

impairment evaluation, he described the tenderness over appellant’s medial femoral condyle as 

“some slight tenderness,” not significant. X-rays were normal, and appellant had full range of 

motion. Thus, there was again no basis for the payment of a schedule award. 

Because the medical opinion evidence does not support that appellant’s July 8, 2009 

employment injury caused any permanent impairment to her right lower extremity, the Board 

finds that appellant is not entitled to a schedule award. Accordingly, the Board will affirm 

OWCP’s October 30, 2014 decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the medical opinion evidence fails to establish that appellant’s 

July 8, 2009 employment injury caused any permanent impairment to her right lower extremity. 

 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 2.808.5.a (February 2013). 

7 Id. at Chapter 2.808.5.d. 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 30, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 15, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board