United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Des Moines, IA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-40 

Issued: March 27, 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 October 6, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of an August 29, 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 consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has more than one percent impairment of his left leg for 

which he received a schedule award. 

On appeal, appellant argued that OWCP failed to consider the extent of his arthritis in 

calculating his schedule award. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 27, 2013 appellant, then a 56-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim alleging that on February 26, 2013 he twisted his left knee when he slipped on ice and 

snow in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted his claim for sprain of the cruciate ligament 

and tear of the medial meniscus in the left knee on March 29, 2013. 

Dr. Timothy G. Kenney, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, examined appellant on 

March 14, 2013 and stated that he slipped on some snow at work and twisted his left knee on 

February 26, 2013. Appellant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan which 

demonstrated significant tricompartmental degenerative arthritis and tearing of the posterior horn 

of the medial meniscus. The MRI scan also showed degenerative changes of the anterior 

cruciate ligament (ACL) with a possible tear and moderate joint effusion. Dr. Kenney 

recommended surgery. 

On April 26, 2013 Dr. Kenney performed a left knee arthroscopy with partial medial 

meniscectomy. He noted grade two to three chondromalacia in the patellofemoral compartment, 

grade three to four changes on the medial, and femoral condyle with a small area of full 

thickness lost on the posteromedial aspect of the condyle. Dr. Kenney stated that appellant had 

scatter grade two to three changes on the tibia. He reported a horizontal cleavage tearing 

throughout the substance of the medial meniscus with displaceable component. Dr. Kenney 

stated that appellant’s ACL was degenerative but not torn. He also found changes and 

irregularities on the anterior and posterior horn of the lateral meniscus without discrete tearing. 

Following the surgery, Dr. Kenney examined appellant on June 20, 2013 and stated that 

he had returned to regular duty. He noted that appellant had some discomfort and swelling by 

the end of the day which worsened with certain movements and activities. On August 8, 2013 

appellant informed Dr. Kenney that he was still experiencing swelling and discomfort as well as 

mechanical symptoms with overuse and twisting movements. After three joint injections, he 

continued to report moderate symptoms worsened by twisting movements. On September 27, 

2013 OWCP accepted the additional condition of aggravation of left knee osteoarthritis. 

Appellant requested a schedule award on March 17, 2014. In a report dated 

December 17, 2013, Dr. Kenney noted appellant’s surgery and viscosupplemental injections. He 

stated that appellant continued to experience symptoms on a daily basis with were worsened with 

activities and weather changes. Appellant had improvement when wearing a hinged knee brace. 

Dr. Kenney reported that he had an antalgic gait, with mild swelling, trace effusion, and no 

atrophy. He found tenderness to palpation in the medial joint line of the patella with mild 

crepitation of the patella. Dr. Kenney stated that appellant had 130 degrees of passive flexion 

and 0 degrees of extension in the left knee. He stated that appellant had significant degenerative 

arthritis prior to his injury which was not previously highly symptomatic. Dr. Kenney opined 

that appellant’s arthritis was the primary cause of his current symptoms and that he had reached 

maximum medical improvement from his work-related injuries. 

OWCP requested additional medical evidence in support of his claim for a schedule 

award by letter dated March 19, 2014. Appellant responded on March 31, 2014 and stated that 

Dr. Kenney was unwilling to provide a further impairment rating. 
3

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination with Dr. Anadeep Kumar, a 

physician Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation on June 10, 2014. Dr. Kumar 

examined appellant and found normal alignment and range of motion from 0 to 130 degrees. He 

found no tenderness in the medial joint line of the patella. Dr. Kumar applied the American 

Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment2

 diagnosis-based 

estimate for partial medial meniscectomy found in Table 16-3 of the A.M.A., Guides. He found 

that appellant had a class 1 impairment with a default value of two percent. Dr. Kumar stated 

that appellant’s Functional History (GMFH) grade modifier was zero, that his Physical 

Examination (GMPE) grade modifier was zero, and that the Clinical Studies (GMCS) grade 

modifier was not applicable. He concluded, after applying the formula of the A.M.A., Guides, 

that appellant had a grade A impairment rating of one percent of the left lower extremity. 

An OWCP medical adviser reviewed this report on August 17, 2014 and agreed with 

Dr. Kumar’s impairment rating stating, “This impairment rating is acceptable based on the 

[A.M.A., Guides].” 

By decision dated August 29, 2014, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for one 

percent impairment of his left leg. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA3 and its implementing regulations4 set forth the 

number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent impairment for 

loss of loss of use, of scheduled members or functions 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 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. OWCP evaluates the 

degree of permanent impairment according to the standards set forth in the specified edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides.

5

In addressing lower extremity impairments, the sixth edition requires identifying the 

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

based on functional history, physical examination, and clinical studies. The net adjustment 

formula is (GMFH-CDX) + (GMPE-CDX) + (GMCS-CDX).6

 2

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

3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193, 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

5

 For new decisions issued after May 1, 2009, OWCP began using the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

A.M.A., Guides, 6th ed. (2008); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and 

Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.5 (February 2013); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- 

Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 (January 2010). 

6

 A.M.A., Guides 521. J.B., Docket No. 09-2191 (issued May 14, 2010). 
4

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed a schedule award for permanent impairment of the left lower extremity 

caused by a work-related left knee injury including partial medial menisectomy and aggravation 

of underlying arthritis. He underwent an MRI scan which demonstrated significant 

tricompartmental degenerative arthritis and tearing of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. 

Dr. Kenney found that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement and stated 

that appellant continued to experience symptoms on a daily basis which were worsened with 

activities and weather changes. He found that appellant had an antalgic gait, mild swelling, trace 

effusion, and no atrophy in the left leg. Dr. Kenney found tenderness to palpation in the medial 

joint line of the patella with mild crepitation of the patella. He stated that appellant had 130 

degrees of passive flexion and 0 degrees of extension in the left knee. Dr. Kenney stated that 

appellant had significant degenerative arthritis prior to his injury which was not previously 

highly symptomatic. He opined that appellant’s arthritis was the primary cause of his current 

symptoms and that he had reached maximum medical improvement from his work-related 

injuries. Dr. Kenney did not provide an impartment rating and did not correlate his findings with 

the A.M.A., Guides. His report is therefore insufficient to establish appellant’s permanent 

impairment for schedule award purposes. 

Dr. Kumar, the second opinion physician, found normal alignment and range of motion 

from 0 to 130 degrees in appellant’s left knee. He reported no tenderness in the medial joint line 

of the patella. Dr. Kumar applied Table 16-3 of the A.M.A., Guides7 and correctly noted that a 

partial medial meniscectomy was a class 1 impairment with a default rating of two. He stated 

that appellant’s functional history grade modifier was zero as he did not find any gait 

derangement.8 Dr. Kumar further stated that appellant’s physical examination grade modifier 

was zero due to the absence of palpatory findings, normal alignment, and no ratable loss of 

motion.9 He stated that the clinical studies grade modifier was not applicable. The record does 

not contain imaging studies used to grade arthritis10 which would be ratable under this grade 

modifier. Dr. Kumar applied the (GMFH-CDX) + (GMPE-CDX) + (GMCS-CDX). A.M.A., 

Guides formula and found that (0-1) + (0-1) resulted in a grade A or one percent impairment of 

appellant’s left lower extremity due to his knee conditions. 

OWCP medical adviser reviewed this report on August 17, 2014 and agreed with 

Dr. Kumar’s impairment rating stating, “This impairment rating is acceptable based on the 

[A.M.A., Guides].” 

The Board finds that the weight of the medical evidence is represented by the reports of 

Dr. Kumar and OWCP medical adviser who reviewed the findings on examination and applied 

 7 Id. at 509, Table 16-3. 

8 Id. at 516, Table 16-6. 

9 Id. at 517, Table 16-7; 549, Table 16-23. 

10 Id. at 518, 16.3c Adjustment Grid--Clinical Studies; 519, Table, 16-8. 
5

the A.M.A., Guides. These physicians agreed that appellant had one percent impairment of his 

left lower extremity due to his partial medial meniscectomy. 

On appeal appellant argued that his schedule award did not take into account the degree 

of his arthritis. As noted above, the record does not contain the necessary x-rays to demonstrate 

and grade arthritis. The A.M.A., Guides provide detailed standards for the type, view and 

distance of x-rays needed to evaluated knee arthritis. As Dr. Kumar did not report physical 

findings relative to arthritis, he did not feel it necessary to undertake these studies. 

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 no more than one percent impairment of his left leg for 

which he has received a schedule award. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 29, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 27, 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