United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.F., Appellant 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Atlanta, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-427 

Issued: November 25, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., 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 December 13, 2013 appellant, through counsel, timely appealed a November 1, 2013 

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 the schedule award appeal.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has a ratable impairment of the upper or lower extremities 

due to his employment-related cervical and lumbar conditions. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The record on appeal contains evidence received after OWCP issued its November 1, 2013 decision. The Board 

is precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP rendered its final decision. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 45-year-old claims representative, has an accepted claim for dislocation of 

cervical and lumbar vertebrae, which occurred on November 28, 2005 when he slipped and fell 

on a wet marble floor. He was treated by Dr. Lena Kart, a chiropractor, for intermittent 

disability. Appellant was also treated by Dr. Kamal Kabakibou, a specialist in pain management, 

for complaints of low back pain. Dr. Kabakibou noted that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 

scan testing of the lumbar region did not show any herniated disc disease. He recommended 

continued adjustive treatment by Dr. Kart and released appellant back to work at full duty as of 

February 6, 2006. 

In March 2007, appellant was seen by Dr. Kabakibou and prescribed physical therapy. 

On April 27, 2007 Dr. Kabakibou noted that appellant had low back and myofascial pain with 

mid back pain of uncertain etiology. He noted that appellant underwent diagnostic testing of the 

disc and nerves which revealed no degeneration or dislocation. Appellant received physical 

therapy and returned to work at modified duty, receiving compensation for intermittent 

disability.3

On November 14, 2012 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

On December 6, 2012 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Raju M. Vanapalli, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion examination. On January 8, 2013 

Dr. Vanapalli reviewed appellant’s history of injury and medical treatment. He noted that the 

primary complaint was of lower back and left hip pain, aggravated by sitting. Appellant rated his 

pain as 4 on a scale of 1 to 10. Dr. Vanapalli reported that appellant was currently working his 

regular job without restrictions. Physical examination of the cervical spine revealed no 

deformity or tenderness and there was no radiating pain to the upper extremities. Dr. Vanapalli 

also noted full range of motion in the cervical spine. Examination of the upper extremities 

revealed good motor power. Also, sensation was intact in all dermatomes. Upper extremity 

reflexes were 2+ bilaterally throughout all muscle groups (biceps, triceps and brachioradialis). 

Examination of the dorsal lumbar and lumbosacral spines revealed no deformity. Appellant’s 

pain was mostly over the left gluteal region and more specifically the trochanteric area. 

Dr. Vanapalli noted tenderness in the area on deep palpation. He further noted that the pain did 

not radiate into the lower extremities past the trochanteric region. Neurological examination of 

the lower extremities was within normal limits. There was no sphincter dysfunction and pedal 

pulses were 2+. 

Dr. Vanapalli did not conduct any diagnostic tests because he did not believe it necessary. 

His impression was low back pain and left gluteal region pain. Dr. Vanapalli found that 

appellant currently had no dislocations of any cervical or lumbar vertebrae and that the accepted 

conditions had resolved without residuals. Appellant continued to experience pain in the left 

trochanteric region, which worsened with prolonged sitting. Dr. Vanapalli noted that appellant 

had returned to his date-of-injury job without restrictions. He found that appellant had reached 

 3

 A November 23, 2010 MRI scan of the lumbar spine revealed the vertebral body heights were well-maintained 

and alignment was appropriate with no subluxation evident. There was mild facet arthropathy at L4-5 and L5-S1, 

with a minor bulge versus protrusion at L5-S1. 
3

maximum medical improvement and there was no permanent partial impairment as his 

symptoms had resolved. 

By decision dated April 5, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award 

based on Dr. Vanapalli’s January 8, 2013 opinion. 

Appellant requested a hearing, which was held on August 13, 2013. 

OWCP received treatment records dated April 15 to October 13, 2013 from 

Dr. Kabakibou. Appellant was seen for a lumbar sprain and strain and lumbosacral spondylosis; 

however, Dr. Kabakibou did not address permanent impairment or provide an impairment rating. 

In a decision dated November 1, 2013, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed 

OWCP’s April 5, 2013 decision. She found that the weight of medical opinion was represented 

by Dr. Vanapalli and did not establish any permanent impairment to appellant’s extremities 

based on his cervical or lumbar conditions. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8107 of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the 

permanent loss of use of specified members, functions and organs of the body.4 FECA, 

however, does not specify the manner by which the percentage loss of a member, function or 

organ shall be determined. To ensure consistent results and equal justice under the law, good 

administrative practice requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The 

implementing regulations have adopted the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides) as the appropriate standard for 

evaluating schedule losses.5

 Effective May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in 

accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides (2008).6

No schedule award is payable for a member, function or organ of the body that is not 

specified in FECA or in the implementing regulations.7

 The list of schedule members includes 

the eye, arm, hand, fingers, leg, foot, and toes.8

 Additionally, FECA specifically provides for 

compensation for loss of hearing and loss of vision.9

 By authority granted under FECA, the 

 4

 For a total or 100 percent loss of use of a leg, an employee shall receive 288 weeks’ compensation. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8107(c)(2) and for total loss of use of an arm, an employee shall receive 312 weeks’ compensation. Id. at 

§ 8107(c)(1). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

6 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January 2010); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability 

Claims, Chapter 2.808.6a (February 2013). 

7 W.C., 59 ECAB 372, 374-75 (2008); Anna V. Burke, 57 ECAB 521, 523-24 (2006). 

8

 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c). 

9 Id.
4

Secretary of Labor expanded the list of schedule members to include the breast, kidney, larynx, 

lung, penis, testicle, tongue, ovary, uterus/cervix, and vulva/vagina and skin.10

Neither FECA nor the regulations provide for the payment of a schedule award for the 

permanent loss of use of the back, spine or the body as a whole.11 A schedule award is 

permissible where an employment-related spinal condition affects the upper or lower 

extremities.12 The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides provides a specific methodology for 

rating spinal nerve extremity impairment.13 It was designed for situations where a particular 

jurisdiction, such as FECA, mandated ratings for extremities and precluded ratings for the spine. 

FECA-approved methodology is premised on evidence of radiculopathy affecting the upper or 

lower extremities. The appropriate tables for rating spinal nerve extremity impairment are 

incorporated in FECA procedure manual.14

ANALYSIS 

Appellant’s claim was accepted by OWCP for dislocation of cervical and lumbar 

vertebrae. He claimed a schedule award under FECA.15 Dr. Kabakibou, appellant’s attending 

pain management specialist, did not provide an impairment rating with respect to his cervical or 

low back conditions. He did not address permanent impairment or state whether appellant was at 

maximum medical improvement. OWCP, therefore, referred appellant to Dr. Vanapalli for 

further evaluation regarding his claim for a schedule award. 

Dr. Vanapalli examined appellant on January 8, 2013. He provided an accurate review of 

the accepted employment injury, statement of accepted facts and the accepted dislocations of 

lumbar and cervical vertebrae. Dr. Vanapalli noted appellant’s chief complaint of low back and 

left hip pain, aggravated by sitting. On examination of the cervical spine, he found no deformity, 

tenderness or radiating pain into the upper extremities. There was a full range of motion of the 

cervical spine. The upper extremities and shoulders showed good power present, sensations in 

all dermatomes and equal reflexes of the biceps, triceps and brachioradialis. The lumbar spine 

showed no deformity. Appellant complained of pain over the trochanteric area on deep 

palpation, but it did not radiate into the lower extremities past this region. Neurological 

examination of the lower extremities was within normal limits. Dr. Vanapalli noted that prior 

MRI scan testing of appellant’s lumbar spine was normal after the injury, with evidence of a 

bulging disc and facet joint arthrosis after November 20, 2010. He noted that the medical 

records attributed appellant’s degenerative disease of the lumbar spine to obesity. Dr. Vanapalli 

found that appellant was at maximum medical improvement with no permanent impairment to 

 10 Id. at § 8107(c)(22); 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(b). 

11 Supra note 8; id. at § 10.404(a); see Jay K. Tomokiyo, 51 ECAB 361, 367 (2000). 

12 Supra note 6 at Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.6a(3). 

13 The methodology and applicable tables were initially published in The Guides Newsletter, Rating Spinal Nerve 

Extremity Impairment Using the Sixth Edition (July/August 2009). 

14 Supra note 6 at Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 4. 

15 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(f). 
5

the upper or lower extremities based on the accepted conditions, which he noted had resolved. 

He noted that appellant had resumed his regular employment with no restrictions. 

The Board finds that the weight of medical opinion is represented by the 

well-rationalized report of Dr. Vanapalli, the second opinion examiner, who reviewed an 

accurate history of the employment injury and accepted conditions. Dr. Vanapalli reviewed the 

treatment records and diagnostic tests obtained of the lumbar spine. He advised that appellant 

complained of pain, primarily in the trochanteric region that was not radiating into the lower 

extremities. Neurological examination was within normal limits. Dr. Vanapalli’s examination 

found that appellant had no cervical complaints or radiculopathy from the cervical region into the 

upper extremities. Based on his report, OWCP properly determined that appellant did not 

establish permanent impairment to any extremity based on his accepted cervical or lumbar 

conditions. 

On appeal, counsel argued that FECA-approved methodology for rating spinal nerve 

impairment to the extremities was “junk science.” The Board has previously considered this 

contention.16 As noted, the Board has determined that OWCP properly exercised its authority 

when implementing the current methodology for rating spinal nerve extremity impairment under 

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

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that he sustained permanent 

impairment of any extremity due to his accepted conditions. 

 16 See D.S., Docket No. 14-12 (issued March 18, 2014); D.S., Docket No. 13-2011 (issued February 18, 2014). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 1, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 25, 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