United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Dallas, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0071 

Issued: April 12, 2016 

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 October 16, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a September 3, 2015 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.2

 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant established more than two percent permanent impairment 

to the right upper extremity, for which he had previously received a schedule award. 

                                                             1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 The Board notes that following the issuance of the September 3, 2015 OWCP decision appellant submitted new 

evidence to OWCP. The Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time it 

issued its final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
2 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

OWCP accepted that appellant, a 54-year-old medical supply technician, sustained a neck 

sprain, cervical radiculitis, and right impingement syndrome as a result of a syncopal episode on 

February 18, 2010 when he blacked out while stocking an operating room and hit a case cart on 

the way to the floor. He was placed on the periodic compensation rolls effective 

February 13, 2011. 

Functional capacity evaluations dated February 8 and March 9, 2011, asserted that 

appellant was not capable of pushing, pulling, or lifting at work. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Marvin Van Hal, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

for a second opinion evaluation. In his March 8, 2011 report, Dr. Van Hal opined that appellant 

was capable of performing a limited-duty job. 

OWCP found a conflict in the medical evidence regarding appellant’s work capabilities 

and restrictions and referred appellant to Dr. Bernie McCaskill, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, for an impartial medical examination to resolve the conflict. In his May 31, 2011 

report, Dr. McCaskill reviewed the medical evidence of record and found no objective evidence 

that appellant continued to suffer residuals from his accepted conditions. He concluded that 

there was no credible basis for any physical limitations that would prevent appellant from 

returning to his date-of-injury position and released him to his regular job without restrictions. 

In a July 7, 2011 letter, OWCP notified appellant that it proposed to terminate his wageloss compensation benefits as his accepted conditions had resolved without residuals, relying on 

Dr. McCaskill’s May 31, 2011 report. Appellant submitted additional medical evidence, 

including a functional capacity evaluation dated July 29, 2011. 

By decision dated August 16, 2011, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss and medical 

compensation benefits effective August 28, 2011. It found the weight of the medical evidence 

was represented by Dr. McCaskill. 

Appellant requested that OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review consider the matter.3

 

By decision dated June 26, 2012, an OWCP hearing representative reviewed the written record 

and affirmed the prior decision, in part finding that OWCP properly terminated his wage-loss 

compensation benefits, but reversed in part as OWCP had improperly terminated his medical 

benefits because the July 7, 2011 notice had not included medical benefits and thus he had not 

received the required due process.4

 

On May 7, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

                                                             3

 Appellant initially requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. When he was unable to 

appear at the scheduled hearing, OWCP changed the oral hearing to a review of the written record. 

4

 By decision dated March 18, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for authorization of a fusion surgery at 

C4-7. 
3 

In a March 17, 2015 report, Dr. Robert Helsten, a physiatrist and appellant’s attending 

physician, determined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement as of 

August 22, 2014. He found that appellant had sharp and aching pain in the neck and right 

shoulder rated 10 out of 10 on the visual analog pain scale. Appellant’s pain was aggravated by 

any movement of the right arm, cold weather, movement of the head and neck with associated 

difficulty sleeping, and radiating pain down the right arm. Evaluation of the right shoulder 

revealed decreased range of motion without end-range pain. Motor strength was five out of five 

bilaterally. Appellant did not have decreased sensation with light touch. Dr. Helsten reported 

positive Apprehension, positive Hawkins, and negative Dugas orthopedic testing results. Based 

on Table 15-5,5 page 402, of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, Dr. Helsten placed 

appellant in a class 4 diagnosis for impingement syndrome with residual loss, functional with 

normal motion. He assigned a grade modifier 2 for Functional History (GMFH) for 

pain/symptoms with normal activity, medications to control symptoms, and ability to perform 

self-care activities with modification but unassisted. Dr. Helsten assigned a grade modifier 2 for 

Physical Examination (GMPE) based on moderate palpatory findings, consistently documented 

and supported by observed abnormalities. He assigned a grade modifier 1 for Clinical Studies 

(GMCS) because appellant’s GMCS confirmed his diagnosis with mild pathology. Dr. Helsten 

opined that appellant had four percent permanent impairment of the right arm.6

 

On May 14, 2015 Dr. Michael Katz, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and OWCP 

medical adviser, reviewed Dr. Helsten’s March 17, 2015 report and found that it was inconsistent 

and thus of little probative value. 

In a May 18, 2015 letter, OWCP requested a supplemental report from Dr. Helsten 

clarifying his impairment rating. 

Subsequently, Dr. Helsten submitted another report dated March 17, 2015 diagnosing 

cervical sprain, cervical radiculitis, and right shoulder impingement. He found that appellant had 

severe pain in his neck and both shoulders with radiating pain down his right upper extremity. 

Dr. Helsten opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement as of March 17, 

2015, his date of examination. He noted that the A.M.A., Guides did not provide impairment 

ratings for lumbar injuries and found no evidence of peripheral neuropathy based on an 

electromyography and nerve conduction studies. Thus, Dr. Helsten concluded that appellant had 

no ratable impairment related to his accepted cervical sprain. Based on Table 15-5,7

 page 401, of 

the A.M.A., Guides, he placed appellant in a class 1 diagnosis for shoulder contusion or crush 

injury with residual symptoms and consistent objective findings at maximum medical 

improvement. Dr. Helsten assigned a grade modifier 4 based on appellant’s QuickDASH score 

of 84 and calculated that his GMFH was therefore 3. He assigned a grade modifier 1 for GMPE 

based on appellant’s residual pain and limited range of motion and found that a grade modifier 

                                                             5

 Table 15-5, page 401-05, of the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides) is entitled Shoulder Regional Grid: Upper Extremity Impairments. 

6

 Dr. Helsten also calculated seven percent permanent impairment on an accompanying impairment worksheet. 

7 Id. 
4 

for GMCS was not applicable since they were not used to make his diagnosis. Dr. Helsten 

concluded that appellant had three percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. 

Appellant further submitted progress reports from Dr. Helsten dated June 9 through 

July 28, 2015. 

On August 13, 2015 OWCP’s medical adviser, Dr. Katz, reviewed a statement of 

accepted facts and the medical evidence. He found that appellant had reached maximum medical 

improvement as of March 17, 2015, the date of Dr. Helsten’s impairment examination. Dr. Katz 

concurred with Dr. Helsten’s class 1 diagnosis of shoulder contusion with residual symptoms and 

consistent objective findings based on Table 15-5 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

The medical adviser, however, found that Dr. Helsten incorrectly utilized a grade modifier 4 for 

GMFH in his calculation of a net adjustment for the shoulder impairment. Dr. Katz explained 

that section 15.3a of the A.M.A., Guides, page 406,8

 provided that if the grade for GMFH 

differed by two or more grades from that described by the GMPE or GMCS, it should be 

assumed to be unreliable, and if the functional history was unreliable or inconsistent with other 

documentation, it was to be excluded from the grading process. As the grade modifier 4 for 

GMFH was two or more grades from the grade modifier 1 for GMPE, the medical adviser found 

that it should be excluded from the calculation. Dr. Katz concluded that appellant’s impairment 

resulted in a default, class 1C rating for shoulder contusion, equaling two percent permanent 

impairment of the right arm. 

By decision dated September 3, 2015, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for two 

percent permanent impairment to the right upper extremity for 6.24 weeks and a fraction of a day 

for the period March 17 to April 29, 2015. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provisions of FECA9 provide for compensation to employees 

sustaining impairment from loss or loss of use of specified members of the body. FECA, 

however, does not specify the manner in which the percentage loss of a member shall be 

determined. The method used in making such determination is a matter which rests in the sound 

discretion of 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 a standard for evaluation of 

schedule losses and the Board has concurred in such adoption.10 For schedule awards after 

                                                             8

 Section 15.3a, page 406-07, of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is entitled Adjustment Grid: Functional 

History. 

9

 5 U.S.C. § 8107; 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

10 See Bernard A. Babcock, Jr., 52 ECAB 143 (2000). See also 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 
5 

May 1, 2009, the impairment is evaluated under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, 

published in 2009.11 

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides provides a diagnosis-based method of evaluation 

utilizing the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability 

and Health (ICF).12 Under the sixth edition, the evaluator identifies the impairment class for the 

diagnosed condition Class of Diagnosis (CDX), which is then adjusted by grade modifiers based 

on GMFH, GMPE, and GMCS.13 The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - 

CDX) + (GMCS - CDX). Evaluators are directed to provide reasons for their impairment rating 

choices, including the choices of diagnoses from regional grids and calculations of modifier 

scores.

14 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a neck sprain, cervical radiculitis, and right 

impingement syndrome as a result of a syncopal episode at work on February 18, 2010. In a 

September 3, 2015 award of compensation, it granted him a schedule award for two percent 

permanent impairment to the right upper extremity. It is appellant’s burden to submit sufficient 

evidence to establish the extent of permanent impairment.15 

In a March 17, 2015 report, Dr. Helsten opined that appellant had reached maximum 

medical improvement as of March 17, 2015, his date of examination. Utilizing Table 15-5,16

page 401, of the A.M.A., Guides, he placed appellant in a class 1 diagnosis for shoulder 

contusion or crush injury with residual symptoms and consistent objective findings at maximum 

medical improvement. Dr. Helsten assigned a grade modifier 4 based on appellant’s 

QuickDASH score of 84 and calculated that his GMFH was therefore 3. He assigned a grade 

modifier 1 for GMPE based on appellant’s residual pain and limited range of motion and found 

that a grade modifier for clinical studies was not applicable since they were not used to make his 

diagnosis. Dr. Helsten concluded that appellant had three percent permanent impairment of the 

right upper extremity. 

In accordance with its procedures, OWCP properly referred the evidence of record to 

Dr. Katz, an OWCP medical adviser who reviewed the clinical findings of Dr. Helsten on 

August 13, 2015 and determined that appellant had two percent permanent impairment of the 

                                                             11 See D.T., Docket No. 12-503 (issued August 21, 2012); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.5(a) (February 2013); see also Part 3 -- Medical, 

Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010). 

12 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed., 2009), p.3, section 1.3, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and 

Health (ICF): A Contemporary Model of Disablement. 

13 Id. at 494-531. 

14 See R.V., Docket No. 10-1827 (issued April 1, 2011). 

15 See Annette M. Dent, 44 ECAB 403 (1993). 

16 Id. 
6 

right upper extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Dr. Katz found that 

appellant had reached maximum medical improvement as of March 17, 2015, the date of 

Dr. Helsten’s impairment examination. He concurred with Dr. Helsten’s class 1 diagnosis of 

shoulder contusion with residual symptoms and consistent objective findings based on Table 

15-5 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. The medical adviser, however, explained that 

Dr. Helsten incorrectly utilized a grade modifier 4 for GMFH in his calculation of a net 

adjustment for the shoulder impairment. 

The medical adviser discussed how he arrived at his conclusion by listing specific tables 

and pages in the A.M.A., Guides. According to section 15.3a of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides, page 406,17 if the grade for GMFH differed by two or more grades from that described 

by the GMPE or GMCS, it should be assumed to be unreliable, and if the GMFH was unreliable 

or inconsistent with other documentation, it was to be excluded from the grading process. As the 

grade modifier 4 for GMFH was two or more grades from the grade modifier 1 for GMPE, 

Dr. Katz properly found that it should be excluded from the calculation. Using the net 

adjustment formula of (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX), the medical adviser 

found a net grade modifier zero, resulting in an impairment class 1, default grade C, equaling a 

two percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. Dr. Katz properly interpreted 

Table 15-5 and section 15.3a of the A.M.A., Guides to find that appellant qualified for two 

percent permanent impairment to the right upper extremity. The Board finds that the medical 

adviser in this case properly applied the standards of the A.M.A., Guides. Dr. Katz’ opinion is 

the weight of medical evidence and supports that appellant does not have a greater right upper 

extremity impairment than the two percent previously awarded. Thus, the Board finds that 

OWCP properly relied upon the opinion of its medical adviser in denying appellant’s claim for 

an additional schedule award. 

There is no current medical evidence of record, in conformance with the sixth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides, establishing that appellant has more than two percent permanent impairment 

to the right arm. Accordingly, appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a schedule 

award greater than that previously awarded. 

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 not established more than two percent permanent 

impairment to the right upper extremity, for which he had previously received a schedule award. 

                                                             17 Supra note 7. 
7 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 3, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 12, 2016 

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