United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CAROL STREAM 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Carol Stream, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1597 

Issued: January 5, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 20, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 15, 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish more than 19 

percent impairment of the right upper extremity and 1 percent impairment of the left upper 

extremity, for which she received schedule awards. 

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP improperly relied on the opinions of its 

medical advisers whose reports were not based on an accurate medical background. She states 

that Dr. Michael D. Hellman, an orthopedic surgeon and OWCP medical adviser, incorrectly 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

stated that a normal April 23, 2014 electromyogram (EMG) related to her right arm when it only 

addressed her left arm. Appellant states that Dr. Hellman’s medical opinion is not entitled to 

greater weight than the medical opinion of Dr. Samuel J. Chmell, an attending Board-certified 

specialist, because Dr. Hellman is only a resident in training. She further states that 

Dr. Sanjai K. Shukla, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and OWCP medical adviser, 

incorrectly opined that she had a temporary symptom exacerbation due to crutch use for her right 

ankle surgery. Appellant denies using a crutch. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 28, 2005 appellant, then a 49-year-old flat sorter machine clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that her tendinitis in her right hand, wrist, arm, 

and fingers was due to employment factors. On January 25, 2006 OWCP accepted her claim for 

right wrist tendinitis. 

On July 2, 2009 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). She 

submitted an August 14, 2009 impairment evaluation from Dr. Chmell who found that she had 

37 percent impairment of the right arm under the sixth edition of American Medical Association, 

Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides). Dr. Chmell completed an 

upper extremity impairment worksheet excerpted from the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, 

based on the rating methodology of Table 15-32. He obtained the following ranges of motion for 

the right wrist: 0 to 20 degrees of flexion equaling 7 percent impairment; 0 to 20 degrees of 

extension equaling 7 percent impairment; 0 to 5 degrees of ulnar deviation equaling 4 percent 

impairment; 0 to 5 degrees of radial deviation equaling 4 percent impairment. Dr. Chmell 

determined that the right wrist had grade 4 strength equaling 10 percent impairment and 

moderate crepitus equaling 5 percent impairment. He added these impairment percentages to 

equal 37 percent impairment of the right upper extremity. Dr. Chmell diagnosed right wrist 

tendinitis and opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement on 

July 2, 2009. In a September 30, 2009 medical report, he found that appellant had multiple 

tendinitis of the left wrist which developed in 2005 as a result of her repetitive work duties. 

By letter dated September 18, 2009, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left wrist 

tendinitis. 

On September 19, 2009 Dr. Neil S. Ghodadra, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and 

an OWCP medical adviser, reviewed the medical record, including Dr. Chmell’s August 14, 

2009 findings. He determined that appellant had 19 percent impairment of the right upper 

extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Dr. Ghodadra utilized Table 15-32, 

page 473, to find seven percent impairment each for 0 to 20 degrees of flexion and 0 to 20 

degrees of extension, four percent impairment for 0 to 5 degrees of ulnar deviation, and one 

percent impairment for 0 to 5 degrees of radial deviation. He added the range of motion 

impairment ratings to find that appellant had 19 percent impairment of the right upper extremity. 

Dr. Ghodadra concluded that she reached maximum medical improvement on July 2, 2009, as 

found by Dr. Chmell. 

In a November 17, 2009 decision, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 19 

percent impairment of the right upper extremity using the range of motion method. 
3

In a March 8, 2010 report, Dr. Chmell opined that appellant had right carpal tunnel 

syndrome due to her repetitive work duties based on his examination findings and a nerve 

conduction velocity (NCV) test dated March 21, 2008. He recommended right carpal tunnel 

release. 

By letter dated December 17, 2010, OWCP accepted right carpal tunnel syndrome. On 

March 4, 2011 it authorized right carpal tunnel surgery.2

On November 18, 2011 appellant filed a claim for an additional schedule award (Form 

CA-7) for her right upper extremity. In a December 28, 2011 report, Dr. Chmell again opined 

that appellant had 37 percent impairment of the right upper extremity. He completed an upper 

extremity impairment worksheet excerpted from the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, based 

on the rating methodology of Table 15-32. Dr. Chmell obtained the following ranges of motion 

for the right wrist: 0 to 45 degrees of flexion equaling three percent impairment; 0 to 40 degrees 

of extension equaling three percent impairment; 0 to 10 degrees of radial deviation equaling two 

percent impairment; and 0 to 5 degrees of ulnar deviation equaling four percent impairment. 

Utilizing Table 15-23 to rate impairment due to appellant’s accepted right carpal tunnel 

syndrome, he reported that she had a significant history, decreased grip sensation on 

examination, and moderate impairment based on EMG and nerve conduction results equaling 25 

percent impairment. Dr. Chmell added the range of motion and diagnosis-based impairment 

percentages to equal 37 percent impairment of the right upper extremity. He diagnosed 

tenosynovitis of the right hand and wrist, and right carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Chmell opined 

that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement on September 1, 2011. 

On May 27, 2012 Dr. Shukla reviewed the medical record, including Dr. Chmell’s 

December 28, 2011 report. He found that appellant had no more than 19 percent impairment of 

the right upper extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A, Guides. Dr. Shukla found no 

evidence to support an increase in her previous impairment rating. He reasoned that appellant 

appeared to have a temporary exacerbation of symptoms secondary to her use of a crutch related 

to her right ankle surgery.3

 Dr. Shukla compared Dr. Ghodadra’s findings to Dr. Chmell’s 

December 28, 2011 notes which showed that range of motion of her right wrist had improved. 

Dr. Ghodadra’s note reported 0 to 20 degrees of flexion and 0 to 20 degrees of extension whereas 

Dr. Chmell’s note reported 0 to 45 degrees of flexion and 0 to 40 degrees of extension. 

Dr. Shukla related that, if any change were made to appellant’s rating, it would be a decrease in 

impairment. He recommended referral of appellant to an independent medical examiner if a 

dispute continued regarding her current impairment. 

By decision dated February 27, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased 

schedule award for the right upper extremity based on Dr. Shukla’s opinion. 

On March 14, 2013 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. 

 2

 The record does not indicate that appellant underwent the authorized right carpal tunnel release. 

3

 On April 18, 2012 appellant underwent right tarsal tunnel release and posterior tibial tendon repair performed by 

Dr. Chmell. 
4

In a May 8, 2013 decision, an OWCP hearing representative set aside the February 27, 

2013 decision and remanded the case to OWCP for further medical development. He found that 

neither Dr. Chmell nor Dr. Shukla provided an impairment rating in accordance with the A.M.A., 

Guides. The hearing representative found that Dr. Chmell had combined diagnosis-based 

impairment ratings with range of motion ratings to find 37 percent right arm impairment. He 

further found that Dr. Shukla had not considered whether appellant had greater impairment due 

to her accepted right carpal tunnel syndrome. 

On remand, Dr. David H. Garelick, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and an OWCP 

medical adviser, reviewed appellant’s medical record. In a December 16, 2013 report, he 

determined that appellant had no more than 19 percent impairment of the right upper extremity 

and one percent impairment of the left upper extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides. Dr. Garelick diagnosed right carpal tunnel syndrome and reported that appellant had 

subjective complaints of numbness and tingling in the right arm which represented a grade 2 

modifier for significant intermittent symptoms under Table 15-23, page 449. The alleged 

atrophy in the thenar musculature described in the physical examination represented a grade 3 

modifier under the same table. The March 21, 2008 EMG/NCV test described normal motor 

latencies, but a sensory conduction delay represented a grade 1 modifier for test findings. 

Dr. Garelick determined that the average of the grade modifiers was 2 which represented five 

percent impairment of the right upper extremity for appellant’s accepted right carpal tunnel 

syndrome. He noted that, as this impairment rating was significantly less than the 19 percent 

previously awarded, there was no change in the percentage of permanent impairment. 

Dr. Garelick noted that appellant had subjective complaints of radial sided left wrist pain 

consistent with de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. According to Table 15-3, page 395, he determined 

that she had one percent impairment of the left arm for wrist pain without consistent objective 

findings. Dr. Garelick concluded that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement on 

July 2, 2009. 

By decision dated December 17, 2013, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 

one percent impairment of the left upper extremity. It found that she had no more than 19 

percent impairment of the right upper extremity, which had been previously awarded. 

On January 3, 2014 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. 

On April 17, 2014 appellant filed a claim for an increased schedule award (Form CA-7) 

for her left upper extremity. On April 18, 2014 Dr. Chmell disagreed with OWCP’s schedule 

award for one percent impairment of appellant’s left arm. He noted that, she never had an 

appropriate physical examination to determine the extent of impairment to her left upper 

extremity and the diagnoses upon which such impairment was established did not include her 

work-related left carpal tunnel syndrome. In an April 28, 2014 report, Dr. Chmell reiterated that 

appellant had 37 percent right arm impairment. 

In a July 25, 2014 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed in part the 

December 17, 2013 decision finding that appellant had one percent left arm impairment and set 

aside and remanded the case to OWCP for further medical development regarding the extent of 

her right arm impairment. He determined that Dr. Garelick did not provide a rationalized 
5

opinion on whether appellant’s impairment due to her accepted right carpal tunnel syndrome 

duplicated her impairment due to the accepted right wrist tendinitis for which she previously 

received a schedule award. 

On remand Dr. Hellman, an OWCP medical adviser, reviewed the medical record 

including, Dr. Chmell’s reports. In an October 29, 2014 report, he determined that appellant had 

no more than 19 percent impairment of the right arm and one percent impairment of the left arm. 

For the right arm, Dr. Hellman noted that section 15.4f, page 432 of the A.M.A., Guides could 

not be used for her accepted right carpal tunnel syndrome since the April 23, 2014 EMG was 

normal (Appendix 15-B, page 487).4

 Instead, he used section 15.2, page 387, and the diagnosis 

of nonspecific wrist pain. Based on section 15.3f, page 419, Dr. Hellman only used the most 

impairing diagnosis within this region, which was de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. Utilizing Table 

15-3, page 395, he determined that this diagnosis yielded a class 1, grade C impairment with a 

default value of one percent. Dr. Hellman used section 15.3, page 405, for grade adjustment 

calculations. He determined that appellant’s functional history, based on Dr. Chmell’s 

December 28, 2011 note which found that she had significant intermittent symptoms, yielded a 

grade modifier 2 under Table 15-7, page 406. Appellant’s physical examination, based on the 

same note from Dr. Chmell which revealed mild loss of motion in the wrist, was consistent with 

a grade modifier 1 under Table 15-8, page 408. Her clinical studies showed normal conduction 

of the median nerve based on the April 23, 2014 EMG and a normal wrist based on a March 21, 

2008 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Utilizing Table 15-9, page 410, appellant’s 

clinical studies were consistent with a grade modifier 0. The net adjustment was (2-1) + (1-1) + 

(0-1) = 0. Dr. Hellman determined that appellant had a grade C default impairment which 

yielded one percent impairment. 

For the left arm, Dr. Hellman used Table 15-3 to determine that her de Quervain’s 

tenosynovitis yielded a class 1, grade C impairment with a default value of one percent. He used 

section 15.3, page 405, for the grade adjustment calculations. Dr. Hellman agreed with the prior 

OWCP medical adviser’s finding that appellant’s functional history yielded a grade modifier 1 

under Table 15-7, page 406. He also agreed with his finding that her physical examination was 

consistent with a grade 1 modifier under Table 15-8, page 408. Dr. Hellman found that 

appellant’s clinical studies showed normal median nerve conduction based on the April 23, 2014 

EMG and a normal wrist based on a May 2, 2014 MRI scan. Using Table 15-9, page 410, he 

found that she had clinical studies consistent with a grade modifier 0. The net adjustment was 

(1-1) + (1-1) + (0-1) = -1 and Dr. Hellman moved appellant’s grade to a grade B based on 

page 411. Under Table 15-3, this yielded one percent impairment. Dr. Hellman agreed with the 

previous medical adviser’s assessment that appellant reached maximum medical improvement on 

July 2, 2009. He was uncertain as to how Dr. Chmell reached his 37 percent right arm 

impairment rating. Dr. Hellman noted that Dr. Chmell had recently obtained bilateral upper 

extremity EMGs which showed that appellant did not meet the diagnostic criteria for carpal 

tunnel syndrome under Appendix 15-B. Since appellant had multiple diagnoses within the wrist 

region, her tenosynovitis was used as the most impairing diagnosis based on page 419. 

Dr. Hellman related that Dr. Chmell may have been unbundling wrist region diagnoses. Further, 

 4

 The record contains an April 23, 2014, motor nerve conduction study indicating that the right median and ulnar 

nerves were normal. This study also contains findings for the left arm. 
6

he noted that the most impairment that could be awarded was two percent for de Quervain’s 

tenosynovitis and one percent for nonspecific wrist pain. 

In a December 5, 2014 decision, OWCP found that appellant had no more than 19 

percent impairment of the right upper extremity and one percent impairment of the left upper 

extremity based on Dr. Hellman’s opinion. 

On December 27, 2014 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative. 

In a June 15, 2015 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the December 5, 

2014 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA5

 and its implementing federal regulations set 

forth the number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent 

impairment from loss or loss of use, of scheduled members, functions and organs of the body. 

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 for all 

claimants under the law, good administrative practice requires the use of uniform standards 

applicable to all claimants.6 The A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by the implementing 

regulations as the appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.7 For decisions issued after 

May 1, 2009, the sixth edition is used to calculate schedule awards.8 It is well established that in 

determining the amount of a schedule award for a member of the body that sustained an 

employment-related permanent impairment, preexisting impairments of the body are to be 

included.9

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).10 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 Functional 

 5 Supra note 1. 

6 Ausbon N. Johnson, 50 ECAB 304, 311 (1999). 

7 Id. 

8

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

2.808.5(a) (February 2013). 

9 See Dale B. Larson, 41 ECAB 481, 490 (1990); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule 

Awards, Chapter 3.700.3.a.3 (January 2010). This portion of OWCP procedures provide that the impairment rating 

of a given scheduled member should include any preexisting permanent impairment of the same member or 

function. 

10 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2008), page 3, section 1.3, The International Classification of Functioning, Disability 

and Health (ICF): A Contemporary Model of Disablement. 
7

History (GMFH), Physical Examination (GMPE) and Clinical Studies (GMCS).11 The net 

adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX).12 

Although the diagnosis-based approach is the preferred method of evaluating permanent 

impairment under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides,

13 Table 15-2 through Table 15-5 

provide that, if loss of motion is present, the impairment may alternatively be assessed under 

section 17-7, range of motion impairment.14 A range of motion impairment stands alone and is 

not combined with a diagnosis-based impairment.15

Impairment due to carpal tunnel syndrome is evaluated under the scheme found in Table 

15-23 (Entrapment/Compression Neuropathy Impairment) and accompanying relevant text.16 In 

Table 15-23, grade modifiers levels (ranging from 0 to 4) are described for the categories test 

findings, history and physical findings. The grade modifier levels are averaged to arrive at the 

appropriate overall grade modifier level and to identify a default rating value. The default rating 

value may be modified up or down by one percent based on functional scale, an assessment of 

impact on daily living activities.17

OWCP procedures provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file 

should be routed to a medical adviser for an opinion concerning the nature and percentage of 

impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides with the medical adviser providing rationale 

for the percentage of impairment specified.18 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral wrist tendinitis and right carpal tunnel 

syndrome. The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish more than 

19 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity and one percent of the left upper 

extremity. 

The December 28, 2011 report from Dr. Chmell, appellant’s attending physician, is of 

diminished probative value on the issue presented. Dr. Chmell found 37 percent impairment of 

the right arm, based on loss of range of motion (12 percent), and diagnosis-based impairment of 

25 percent to the right wrist. The Board notes that the A.M.A., Guides clearly state that a range 

 11 Id. at 383-419. 

12 Id. at 411. 

13 Id. at 461, section 15.7. 

14 Id. at 391-05. 

15 Id. at 405. 

16 Id. at 449. 

17 Id. at 448-50. 

18 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, 

Chapter 2.808.6(f) (February 2013). 
8

of motion impairment is not to be combined with the diagnosis-based impairment. A range of 

motion impairment stands alone.19 Therefore, a finding based on the addition or combination of 

a range of motion impairment rating with a diagnosis-based impairment rating cannot be 

accepted as valid. 

Regarding appellant’s left arm impairment, Dr. Chmell, in the April 18, 2014 report, 

disagreed with OWCP’s issuance of a schedule award for one percent impairment. He related 

that appellant had not undergone an appropriate examination to rate impairment for her workrelated left carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board notes that OWCP has not accepted left carpal 

tunnel syndrome. For conditions not accepted by OWCP as being employment related, it is the 

employee’s burden to provide rationalized medical evidence sufficient to establish causal 

relation, not OWCP’s burden to disprove such relationship.20 Dr. Chmell did not provide any 

medical rationale explaining how the diagnosed left wrist condition was causally related to the 

accepted employment injuries. The Board has long held that a medical opinion not fortified by 

medical rationale is of little probative value.21 Dr. Chmell also did not explain how appellant’s 

accepted left wrist tendinitis caused more than one percent left arm impairment pursuant to the 

A.M.A., Guides. Thus, Dr. Chmell’s report is of diminished probative value and is insufficient 

to establish an increased left arm impairment. 

In accordance with its procedures,22 OWCP properly referred the evidence of record to 

Dr. Hellman, a medical adviser, who reviewed the clinical findings of Dr. Chmell on October 29, 

2014 and determined that appellant had no more than 19 percent permanent impairment of the 

right arm and one percent impairment of the left arm, for which she received schedule awards.23 

Regarding her right upper extremity, Dr. Hellman used the diagnosis-based impairments 

set forth in section 15.2, page 387 and identified the diagnosis as nonspecific wrist pain rather 

than section 15.4f, page 432, to rate her accepted right carpal tunnel syndrome because an 

April 23, 2014 EMG was normal.24 Based on section 15.3f, page 419, he used the most 

impairing diagnosis of de Quervain’s tenosynovitis which represented a class 1, grade C 

impairment which yielded a default value of one percent under Table 15-3, page 395. 

Dr. Hellman applied grade modifiers for functional history of 2, physical examination of 1, and 

clinical studies of 0. Applying the net adjustment formula, (GMFH-CDX) + (GMPE-CDX) + 

(GMCS-CDX), or (2-1) + (1-1) + (0-1) = 0, yielded grade C default impairment of one percent. 

 19 A.M.A., Guides 500. 

20 G.A., Docket No. 09-2153 (issued June 10, 2010); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); Alice J. Tysinger, 

51 ECAB 638 (2000). 

21 Brenda L. Dubuque, 55 ECAB 212, 217 (2004); Donald W. Long, 41 ECAB 142 (1989). 

22 See supra note 18. 

23 W.M., Docket No. 11-1156 (issued January 27, 2012). 

24 A.M.A., Guides 445-46. The A.M.A., Guides provides that if conduction testing does not meet the diagnostic 

criteria or have not been performed, there is no ratable impairment due to entrapment neuropathy; however, an 

impairment may be rated using the diagnosis-based impairments set forth in section 15.2. 
9

Regarding appellant’s left upper extremity impairment, Dr. Hellman found that her 

de Quervain’s tenosynovitis yielded a class 1, grade C impairment which had a default value of 

one percent under Table 15-3, page 395. He applied grade modifiers for functional history of 1, 

physical examination of 1, and clinical studies of 0. Applying the net adjustment formula 

(GMFH-CDX) + (GMPE-CDX) + (GMCS-CDX), or (1-1) + (1-1) + (0-1) = -1. Dr. Hellman 

found this resulted in grade B impairment which resulted in one percent impairment of the left 

arm under Table 15-3. 

The Board finds that Dr. Hellman’s opinion represents the weight of the evidence and 

establishes that appellant has no more than 19 percent impairment of the right upper extremity 

and one percent impairment of the left upper extremity. He properly applied the appropriate 

provisions of the A.M.A., Guides to the clinical findings of record.25 

On appeal, appellant contends that she is entitled to a greater percentage of permanent 

impairment because OWCP improperly relied on the medical reports of its medical advisers 

which were not based on an accurate medical background. She states that Dr. Hellman 

incorrectly read the April 23, 2014 EMG related to her right upper extremity. Appellant asserts 

that this diagnostic test only addressed her left upper extremity. The Board notes, however, that 

the EMG in question specifically stated that a motor nerve conduction study found that the right 

medium ulnar nerve was normal and that a sensory nerve conduction study found that the right 

palmar nerve was normal. Appellant further states that Dr. Hellman’s medical opinion is not 

entitled to the weight of the medical opinion evidence because he is a resident in training while 

Dr. Chmell is a Board-certified specialist. As noted herein, Dr. Hellman is a physician in the 

relevant field of orthopedic injuries. Moreover, Dr. Chmell’s opinion is of diminished probative 

value as he failed to properly utilize the A.M.A., Guides in determining that appellant had 37 

percent right arm impairment and he failed to provide a rationalized opinion to establish that she 

sustained left carpal tunnel syndrome and any resultant impairment due to her accepted 

employment-related injuries. The Board finds, therefore, that appellant’s contentions have not 

been established. 

Appellant further contends on appeal that Dr. Shukla incorrectly believed that she had a 

temporary exacerbation of her symptoms due to crutch use for her right ankle surgery. She 

denies using a crutch. The Board notes, however, that OWCP did not rely on Dr. Shukla’s 

opinion in its final decision regarding the extent of appellant’s bilateral upper extremity 

impairment. Consequently, appellant has not demonstrated that OWCP erred in denying her 

request for an increased schedule award. 

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. 

 25 See W.M., Docket No. 11-1706 (issued March 20, 2012). 
10

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish more 

than 19 percent impairment of the right upper extremity and one percent impairment of the left 

upper extremity, for which she received schedule awards. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 15, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 5, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board