United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

P.O., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION, Chula 

Vista, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1480 

Issued: October 24, 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 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 17, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the February 6, 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 met his burden of proof to establish permanent impairment 

of his left eye entitling him to receive schedule award compensation. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that on November 15, 2011 appellant, then a 32-year-old border patrol 

agent, sustained a laceration of his left eye when he was struck by a tree branch while running 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

through a wooded area at work. Appellant did not stop work but performed limited-duty indoor 

work for about a week after his injury. 

Appellant was seen on a periodic basis by Dr. Welden Haw, an attending Board-certified 

ophthalmologist. In progress reports from late-2011 through mid-2013, Dr. Haw advised in the 

objective findings portion of the reports that appellant had 20/20 or 20/25 vision in his left eye. 

He provided the diagnoses of corneal scar and corneal astigmatism of the left eye. In the 

subjective complaints portion of these reports, Dr. Haw noted that appellant complained of 

blurry/distorted vision and foreign body sensation in his left eye. 

In a May 8, 2013 report, Dr. Haw saw appellant in follow up of a corneal scar 

encroaching on his superior pupillary border sustained from a tree branch which had “cut” into 

his left cornea while on duty in November 2011. On the initial evaluation on 

November 17, 2011, appellant had 20/30 vision and irregular astigmatism on his left eye 

resulting from injury. Dr. Haw noted that best spectacle corrected vision was 20/20 on 

November 30, 2011. On the last refraction, appellant’s vision was 20/20 and a Pentacam reading 

demonstrated improvement in his irregular astigmatism. Dr. Haw noted that the corneal scar was 

likely to be persistent and stated that appellant’s present uncorrected visual acuity was 20/25. 

On September 18, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award due to his accepted 

left eye laceration. 

In a form report dated September 4, 2013, Dr. Haw discussed the mechanism of 

appellant’s November 15, 2011 injury and stated that he complained of blurry vision and foreign 

body sensation in his left eye. He diagnosed corneal scar with astigmatism of the left eye. A 

portion of the form report stated, “Impairment rating: Report the whole person (WPI) rating for 

each impairment using the [American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment], 5th Edition and explain how the rating was derived. List tables used and 

page numbers.” Dr. Haw responded that appellant had a “0-10 percent” whole person 

impairment under Table 6 on page 10. He also indicated that appellant’s uncorrected left eye 

vision was 20/30 and that his vision was correctable to 20/20 in both eyes. Appellant had full 

ability to work without restrictions. 

In a letter dated October 11, 2013, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

medical evidence in support of his claim. It advised that the September 4, 2013 report of 

Dr. Haw did not provide a “clear impairment rating” under the standards of the sixth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant resubmitted a portion of Dr. Haw’s September 4, 2013 evaluation 

which indicated that he had 20/30 vision in his left eye. 

In a February 6, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim. It 

found that he had not submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish that he sustained 

permanent impairment of his left eye. OWCP determined that the September 4, 2013 report of 

Dr. Haw did not provide an impairment rating that was conducted in accordance with the 

relevant standards of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA2 and its 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. However, FECA does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. 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. The A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by the implementing regulations as the 

appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.4 The effective date of the sixth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides is May 1, 2009.5 The Board has held that a schedule award is not payable 

under section 8107 of FECA for an impairment of the whole person.6

 An opinion which is not 

based upon the standards adopted by OWCP and approved by the Board as appropriate for 

evaluating schedule losses is of little probative value in determining the extent of a claimant’s 

permanent impairment.7

Section 8107(c)(19) of FECA provides that “[t]he degree of loss of vision or hearing 

under this schedule is determined without regard to correction.”8 The sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides indicates that the evaluation of visual impairment is based on the functional 

vision score (FVS), which is the combination of an assessment of visual acuity, the ability of the 

eye to perceive details, necessary for activities such as reading and an assessment of visual field, 

the ability of the eye to detect objects in the periphery of the visual environment, which relates to 

orientation and mobility.9 The A.M.A., Guides also allows for individual adjustments for other 

functional deficits, such as contrast and glare sensitivity, color vision defects and binocularity, 

stereopsis, suppression and diplopia, only if these deficits are not reflected in a visual acuity or 

visual field loss.10 However, the A.M.A., Guides specifically limits adjustment of the 

impairment rating for these deficits to cases which are well documented and states, “The 

 2 Id. at § 8107. 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

4 Id. 

5

 FECA Bulletin No. 09-03 (issued March 15, 2009). 

6 See Gordon G. McNeill, 42 ECAB 140 (1990). 

7 See James Kennedy, Jr., 40 ECAB 620 (1989). 

8

 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(19). 

9

 A.M.A., Guides 282, 285. This represents a change from the visual efficiency scale that was used up to the 

fourth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, as the extra scale and losses for diplopia and aphakia have been removed. The 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, also utilizes a different formula for calculating visual impairment ratings to 

better account for situations where the binocular function is not identical to the function of the better eye. 

10 A.M.A., Guides 305. 
4

adjustment should be limited to an increase in the impairment rating of the visual system 

(reduction of the FVS) by, at most, 15 points.”11 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on November 15, 2011 appellant sustained a laceration of his left 

eye when he was poked in his left eye by a tree branch while running through a wooded area 

while working. On September 18, 2013 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award due to his 

accepted left eye laceration. OWCP denied his claim as he had not submitted sufficient medical 

evidence to establish entitlement to schedule award compensation. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained permanent impairment of his left eye due to the accepted injury. 

Appellant submitted a September 4, 2013 form report in which Dr. Haw, an attending 

Board-certified ophthalmologist, diagnosed corneal scar and corneal astigmatism of the left eye. 

The form report of Dr. Haw is clearly a state workers’ compensation form citing to state code 

section and use of the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. A portion of the state form states, 

“Impairment rating: Report [WPI] rating for each impairment using the A.M.A., Guides, 5th

Edition and explain how the rating was derived. List tables used and page numbers.” Dr. Haw 

listed that appellant had “0 to 10 percent” whole person impairment under Table 6 on page 10. 

He also indicated that appellant’s uncorrected left eye vision was 20/30 and that his vision was 

correctable to 20/20 in both eyes. 

The Board finds that the September 4, 2013 report of Dr. Haw is of diminished probative 

value. Dr. Haw failed to provide an impairment rating in accordance with the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides as required for claims before OWCP.

12 Moreover, his opinion on left eye 

impairment was also equivocal in that he merely listed a range of impairment (0 to 10 percent 

whole person impairment). The Board notes schedule awards are not payable for whole person 

impairment.13 Dr. Haw made reference to Table 6 on page 10, but there is no such table in the 

fifth or sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides which relates to the evaluation of eye impairment. 

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides provides the relevant standards for evaluating 

appellant’s eye impairment.14 Dr. Haw did not provide any assessment of appellant’s eye 

impairment under these standards. 

On appeal, appellant argued that the September 4, 2013 report of Dr. Haw showed that he 

sustained a permanent impairment of his left eye, but the Board has explained why this report 

does not establish permanent impairment under the relevant standards of the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides.

 11 Id. 

12 See James Kennedy, Jr., 40 ECAB 620, 626 (1989). 

13 See supra note 6. 

14 See supra note 5. 
5

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment of his left eye entitling him to receive schedule award compensation. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 6, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 24, 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