United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Las Vegas, NV, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1656 

Issued: January 8, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 25, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 7, 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 established more than an 11 percent permanent 

impairment to the right arm, for which she received a schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 20, 2012 appellant, then a 51-year-old city letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she developed a right shoulder and arm conditions due to pitching 

mail, lifting, and delivering mail. OWCP accepted the claim for right shoulder tendinitis and 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

right shoulder labrum tear. It authorized a January 17, 2013 right shoulder arthroscopy with 

adhesion resection, acromioplasty, mumford, and manipulation. This surgery was performed by 

Dr. Robert J. Grondel, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. After her surgery, appellant 

returned to light duty on February 19, 2013. OWCP paid wage-loss compensation. 

In an April 17, 2013 report, Dr. Grondel noted that appellant was three months 

postsurgery. He advised that appellant had mild tenderness, mild limited range of motion in her 

right shoulder, and numbness in the right arm. Dr. Grondel recommended that appellant undergo 

an electromyogram (EMG) and nerve conduction study (NCS). In a May 15, 2013 report, 

Dr. Leo Germin, a Board-certified neurologist, noted the findings of the EMG and NCS testing 

and found that there was no evidence of right carpal tunnel syndrome, ulnar neuropathy, atonal 

or demyelinating sensory motor peripheral neuropathy. He also found that motor unit action 

potential firing pattern and configuration was within a normal range for all muscles tested. 

In a July 29, 2013 report, Dr. Bradley Baker, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon to 

whom appellant was referred by Dr. Grondel, noted that appellant was experiencing right 

shoulder pain despite surgery. He reported normal range of motion with some discomfort at 

times. Dr. Baker stated that appellant appeared to have reached the maximum improvement and 

that he did not recommend any additional treatment options. 

In an August 30, 2013 report, Dr. Grondel noted that appellant complained of right 

shoulder pain. He recommended that appellant undergo a functional capacity evaluation and an 

additional magnetic resonance imaging scan to track her progress. On September 18, 2013 

Dr. Alison Nguyen, Board-certified in diagnostic radiology, advised that a right shoulder 

arthrogram revealed moderate supraspinatus tendinosis with undersurface tendon spurring. The 

testing did not show a full thickness tear of the rotator cuff. 

In an October 4, 2013 report, Dr. Grondel noted reviewing a September 27, 2013 

functional capacity evaluation and noted current findings. He advised that appellant was 

experiencing tenderness, swelling, and limited range of motion. Dr. Grondel assessed right 

rotator cuff tendinitis, right shoulder pain, right shoulder adhesive capsulitis, right biceps 

tendinitis and chronic right rotator cuff tear. Dr. Grondel recommended that appellant be placed 

on permanent disability with limitations. He stated that her case was considered closed. In an 

accompanying October 4, 2013 duty status report (CA-17), Dr. Grondel reiterated the work 

restrictions outlined in the functional capacity evaluation. The record contains a September 27, 

2013 functional capacity evaluation from a physical therapist. The report concluded that 

appellant had the ability to perform light work and noted her physical work abilities. 

On November 13, 2013 appellant claimed a schedule award. On December 4, 2013 

OWCP advised appellant of the type of medical report that she needed to support her claim for a 

schedule award. In a December 16, 2013 letter, appellant informed OWCP that Dr. Grondel did 

not provide impairment calculations. Appellant asked that OWCP refer her to a physician who 

would provide an impairment rating. 

On December 30, 2013 OWCP referred appellant, together with the medical record and a 

statement of accepted facts, to Dr. Aubrey Swartz, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for an 

opinion regarding permanent impairment. In a January 29, 2014 report, Dr. Swartz noted 
3

appellant’s history and reviewed her medical record. He reported his findings on examination 

and advised that she was status post January 17, 2013 right shoulder surgery. In addressing 

permanent impairment, Dr. Swartz used the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, 

Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Referring to page 403, Table 15-5 for 

acromioclavicular (AC) joint injury or disease, he found that appellant had a class 1 impairment 

for Class of Diagnosis (CDX) with a default 10 percent impairment. For a Functional History 

(GMFH) adjustment under Table 15-7, at page 406, Dr. Swartz advised that appellant had a 

QuickDASH score of 22, suggesting a grade modifier of one. He further explained that she had 

pain with vigorous activity which also supported a grade one modifier. Using the formula 

GMFH-CDX (1-1), Dr. Swartz found that there was a net zero grade modifier for functional 

history. For Physical Examination (GMPE) adjustment, he found that appellant was very tender 

and had pain with provocative testing, which suggested a grade two modifier under Table 15-8, 

page 408. Using the formula GMFH-CDX (2-1), he found that there was a grade modifier of 

one. Dr. Swartz advised that the Clinical Studies (GMCS) adjustment was not applicable for 

appellant’s condition. Dr. Swartz found that appellant had a net adjustment of +1. He indicated 

that this moved the grade C default rating of 10 percent to grade D which provided 11 percent 

impairment of the arm. Dr. Swartz advised that appellant’s maximum medical improvement 

(MMI) was January 7, 2014, 12 months postoperative. 

On March 22, 2014 an OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Swartz January 29, 2014 

report and concurred with his determination that appellant had 11 percent impairment of the right 

arm. 

By decision dated April 7, 2014, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 11 

percent permanent impairment of the right arm. The period of the award ran from January 7 to 

September 4, 2014. 

On appeal, appellant argued that her impairment rating should have been higher than 11 

percent and that OWCP overlooked vital medical evidence. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provisions of FECA 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.2

 

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 

 2 See Bernard A. Babcock, Jr., 52 ECAB 143 (2000). See also 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 
4

and Health (ICF).3 Under the sixth edition, the evaluator identifies the impairment class for the 

Class of Diagnosis (CDX), which is then adjusted by grade modifiers based on GMFH, GMPE 

and GMCS.4

 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.5

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined appellant’s permanent impairment of 

her right arm. OWCP accepted the claim for right shoulder tendinitis and right shoulder labrum 

tear and it authorized a January 17, 2013 right shoulder arthroscopy. It accepted the claim for 

aggravation of preexisting right knee synovitis and popliteal cyst. After appellant claimed a 

schedule award, OWCP referred her to Dr. Swartz for an impartial evaluation. 

The Board finds that Dr. Swartz applied the appropriate tables and grading schemes of 

the A.M.A., Guides, in determining that appellant has 11 percent permanent impairment to the 

right arm. He found that the diagnosis-based estimate for AC joint injury or disease, under Table 

15-5 (shoulder-region grid), page 403, was a class 1, default position C, which equated to 10 

percent permanent impairment. This selection was appropriate because the medical evidence of 

record specifies that appellant underwent a distal clavicle resection. Dr. Swartz then explained 

that he assigned a grade modifier 1 for functional history, under Table 15-7, page 406, and a 

grade modifier 2 for physical examination, according to Table 15-8, page 408. He found that 

clinical studies were not applicable. Using the net adjustment formula of (GMFH-CDX) + 

(GMPE-CDX) + (GMCS-CDX), he found that (1-1) + (2-1) + (n/a) resulted in a net grade 

modifier +1. This moves the default grade C impairment to grade D which results in 11 percent 

permanent impairment of the right arm. In a March 22, 2014 report, an OWCP medical adviser 

concurred with Dr. Swartz’ determination. There is no probative medical evidence of record, in 

conformance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, establishing that appellant has more 

than an 11 percent permanent impairment of the right arm. 

On appeal, appellant argued that her impairment rating should have been higher than 11 

percent and that OWCP overlooked vital evidence and had not sufficiently considered her pain 

and the way that the injury affected her ability to engage in everyday activities. As previously 

stated, OWCP calculates schedule awards in conformance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides. In this case, there is no other probative medical evidence that calculates an impairment 

rating using the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Furthermore, the Board has held that 

factors such as limitations on daily activities have no bearing on the calculation of a schedule 

award.6

 3

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

Health (ICF): A Contemporary Model of Disablement. 

4 Id. at 494-531. 

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

6 Kimberly M. Held, 56 ECAB 670 (2005). 
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 has not established that she sustained more than 11 percent 

permanent impairment to the right upper extremity, for which she received a schedule award. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 7, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 8, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board