United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-1908 

Issued: May 23, 2014 

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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 16, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from the March 1 and April 15, 2013 

merit decisions 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. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she 

has reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) regarding her accepted condition of 

bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, warranting consideration of a schedule award pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8107; and (2) whether OWCP properly suspended appellant’s compensation benefits 

effective April 7, 2013 due to her failure to submit a Form CA-1032 when requested. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 17, 1998 appellant, then a 52-year-old distribution clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that she sustained carpal tunnel syndrome in the performance of duty. By 

decision dated October 9, 1998, OWCP accepted the claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome 

and carpal tunnel release. Appellant underwent surgery for her condition on January 20 and 

June 16, 1999. 

OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation on November 15, 2000. It noted 

that the medical evidence of record indicated that she was capable of performing the duties of her 

position as a distribution clerk, as she had returned to limited-duty work. 

In an attending physician’s report dated November 20, 2000, Dr. Hampton Jackson, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted that he advised appellant to return to light-duty work 

on November 17, 2000. He stated that it was undetermined at that time whether there were any 

permanent effects as a result of her condition. 

Appellant requested a schedule award on March 6, 2001. 

By report dated April 13, 2001, Dr. Jackson stated that appellant had reached MMI on 

that date. He recommended an impairment rating of 30 percent of her right and left upper 

extremities. Dr. Jackson noted that there was additional impairment of the right and left arms 

due to weakness, atrophy, pain or discomfort, which he rated bilaterally at 60 percent, stating 

that it was grade 2 and referring to Table 16-10 and Table 16-15 of the American Medical 

Association, Guides to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (A.M.A., Guides) fifth edition. 

On June 15, 2001 OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record was insufficient 

to support her claim for a schedule award. It stated that she should submit a detailed narrative 

medical report giving findings and an explanation as to how her permanent impairment resulted 

from her employment injury, as well as a completed impairment evaluation sheet. 

Described in an impairment evaluation sheet dated July 13, 2001, Dr. Jackson noted that 

appellant had grade 2 sensory deficits or pain and using the A.M.A., Guides, fifth edition, he 

calculated a 25.4 percent bilateral upper extremity impairment. He stated that she had normal 

range of motion with both wrists. Dr. Jackson calculated appellant’s bilateral impairment due to 

weakness or atrophy to be 30 percent. He asserted that her date of MMI was July 13, 2001. 

Dr. Jackson reiterated these results in a narrative report of the same date. 

On November 5, 2001 OWCP forwarded appellant’s case to a district medical adviser 

(DMA) to determine whether she had reached MMI; whether she was eligible for a schedule 

award; which part of her body was impaired; and the percentage of impairment. The DMA 

responded on November 7, 2001, noting that an updated electromyogram (EMG) nerve 

conduction velocity (NCV) from an independent examiner was required. 

Dr. Jackson continued to submit progress reports regarding appellant’s condition. 

Dr. Salim Y. Mansoor, a physician of physical medicine and rehabilitation, reported on 

August 16, 2002 that he had performed an EMG/NCV test on appellant. He noted that there was 

no history of any specific injury: she had work-related numbness and tingling in her hands since 
3

1993, which became worse in 1995. Dr. Mansoor diagnosed appellant with status-post 

decompression of the median nerve at the wrist bilaterally for carpal tunnel syndrome, with 

normal distal motor and sensory latencies for the median nerve at the wrist bilaterally. 

By report dated December 31, 2002, Dr. Jackson noted that appellant had weakness and 

dysesthesias in her hands and that she had developed proximal radiation as well as distal 

radiation. On examination, he noted a positive Tinel’s sign on the left and right. Dr. Jackson 

diagnosed appellant with classical residual carpal tunnel syndrome, greater on the left than the 

right and recommended that she see a hand surgeon for evaluation, followed by another 

EMG/NCV test. On May 23, 2003 Dr. Jackson noted that appellant had no progressive atrophy 

of the tendons, but that she was very weak both in pinch and grip. He noted progressing 

tenosynovitis and Dupuytren’s fasciitis. 

On October 17, 2003 a claims examiner documented a conversation she had with 

appellant regarding her schedule award, after appellant had arrived at the office with 

Dr. Jackson’s July 13, 2001 evaluation of permanent impairment. The claims examiner 

explained to appellant that she could not receive a schedule award and regular compensation at 

the same time, advising her that she could elect the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

benefits, at which time OWCP could pay a schedule award. Appellant indicated that she did not 

want to process her schedule award at that time and that she had heard that the employing 

establishment would be reopening, so that she hoped to return to work. The claims examiner 

noted that her schedule award would remain pending on the file until appellant decided to pursue 

it. 

By report dated March 3, 2006, Dr. Jackson stated that appellant had been back to work 

for five weeks and that her symptoms had worsened. He stated that she had tingling and 

dysesthesias in both hands. On examination, Dr. Jackson noted a positive Tinel’s sign and a 

positive Phalen’s test, but no worsening atrophy in either thenar eminence. 

In a claim for compensation dated March 21, 2006, appellant requested a schedule award. 

By letter dated April 6, 2006, OWCP requested that Dr. Jackson provide an assessment of 

appellant’s permanent impairment, including the date of MMI. 

On June 30, 2006 Dr. Jackson provided an assessment of appellant’s permanent 

impairment. He stated that she had reached her MMI for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, but 

did not specify a date. Dr. Jackson calculated appellant’s permanent impairment under the 

A.M.A., Guides at 38 percent bilaterally. 

In a Form CA-110 dated December 12, 2006, a claims examiner noted that appellant’s 

schedule award claim would be reviewed as soon as possible. 

On August 30, 2007 Dr. Jackson stated that appellant’s symptoms had worsened. 

Following appellant’s physical examination he noted a very active positive Tinel’s sign. 

Dr. Jackson treated appellant by blocking the median nerve of the left wrist. In a report dated 

September 27, 2007, Dr. Jackson noted improvement on the left carpal tunnel, but a positive 

Tinel’s sign on the right carpal tunnel. He treated appellant by blocking the median nerve of the 

right wrist. 
4

By report dated April 17, 2009, Dr. Jackson noted a positive Tinel’s sign and weak pinch 

and grip. He stated that appellant’s symptoms were stable. In a report dated November 18, 

2009, Dr. Jackson noted increased symptoms and worsening of appellant’s Tinel’s signs. 

On March 22, 2010 a claims examiner noted that appellant’s schedule award claim would 

be reviewed as soon as possible. 

In a report dated June 3, 2010, Dr. Jackson stated that appellant still had significant 

symptoms and that she complained of left elbow pain. He noted that there was tendinitis and 

epicondylitis related to her carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Appellant filed a notice of recurrence of disability on November 18, 2010 in which she 

noted continuing pain in both arms and low back. On December 31, 2010 she filed a revised 

notice of recurrence in which she related that since November 18, 2010 she had been unable to 

perform her usual work duties because she had been sent home due to the National Reassessment 

Process. 

In a supplemental rolls payment report dated January 4, 2011, OWCP noted that 

appellant was sent home by the employing establishment due to inability to accommodate her 

modified-duty assignment. It noted that it accepted her carpal tunnel syndrome recurrence 

effective November 18, 2010. The case record reflects that appellant received compensation 

benefits from November 20, 2010 until April 6, 2013. 

On May 10, 2011 Dr. Jackson noted that appellant’s symptoms remained, noting a strong 

Tinel’s sign on the left and an unchanged Phalen’s test. He stated that there was exacerbation of 

her carpal tunnel syndrome on the left. By report dated June 23, 2011, Dr. Jackson noted that 

appellant had a permanent nerve injury to her hands, making her incapable of gainful 

employment, because repeated use of her hands would increase her pain and aggravate her 

condition. He noted that there was no local Tinel’s sign in the area of her surgical incisions. 

In a work capacity evaluation sheet dated July 27, 2011, Dr. Jackson stated that appellant 

was permanently totally disabled from work. He checked a box indicating that MMI had not 

been reached. On October 20, 2011 Dr. Jackson noted that he had met with appellant’s assigned 

nurse and that her condition was permanent. He related that it was improbable that she could 

return to full duties, but that he would send her to Dr. Ignacio for treatment by parenteral vitamin 

therapy. By report dated December 6, 2011, Dr. Jackson noted that appellant’s condition 

remained stable. He stated that she did not want to have another surgery and explained to her 

that surgery could not reverse any nerve damage to her hands, but may prevent further 

worsening. Dr. Jackson found appellant fit for light duty, but noted that the employing 

establishment would not accommodate her. 

On May 14, 2012 Dr. George H. Drakes, a Board-certified physician of physical 

medicine and rehabilitation, noted that appellant had carpal tunnel syndrome and scheduled an 

EMG/NCV of the upper extremities. 

In a diagnostic report dated July 12, 2012, Dr. Ai Huong Phu stated his impression that 

the EMG/NCV testing revealed no evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome or peripheral neuropathy. 

The testing did reveal evidence of mild chronic C5 right radiculopathy. 
5

By Form CA-1032 dated February 22, 2013, OWCP requested that appellant provide 

information regarding any employment for which she had received a salary in the last 15 months, 

any volunteer work she had performed in the same period, information about dependents, other 

federal benefits, payments, third-party settlements or fraud offenses. 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award by decision dated March 1, 2013. 

It found that she had not submitted evidence supporting a finding that her condition had reached 

MMI. 

By decision dated April 15, 2013, OWCP suspended appellant’s compensation. It noted 

that she had not replied to a CA-1032 form dated February 22, 2013.2

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

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

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

loss or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. However, FECA does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. For consistent results 

and to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants, good administrative practice 

necessitates 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 the implementing regulations as the 

appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.5

 Effective May 1, 2009, OWCP adopted the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate edition for all awards issued after that 

date.6

It is a well-settled rule that MMI arises at the point at which the injury has stabilized and 

will not improve further. This determination is factual in nature and depends primarily on the 

medical evidence.7 The determination of MMI is not to be based on surmise or prediction of 

what may happen in the future.8

 A schedule award is appropriate where the physical condition 

of an injured member has stabilized, despite the possibility of an eventual change in the degree 

of functional impairment in the member.9

 2

 Appellant elected to receive benefits from OPM effective April 7, 2013 in lieu of compensation benefits under 

FECA. 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

5 Id.

6

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

(January 2010). 

7 Peter C. Belkind, 56 ECAB 580 (2005). 

8 See Delmer Jones, 28 ECAB 39, 41 (1976). 

9 See Santo Panzica, 15 ECAB 458, 460-61 (1964). 
6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

On March 1, 2013 OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award on the basis that 

she had not established that her condition had reached a fixed and permanent state. The Board 

affirms that the evidence of record does not establish MMI. 

Appellant first requested a schedule award on March 6, 2001. On October 17, 2003 she 

indicated that she did not want to process her schedule award at that time, after being informed 

that she could not receive both regular compensation and a schedule award at the same time. 

However, in the interim period, appellant submitted reports from Dr. Jackson containing dates of 

MMI. In a report dated April 13, 2001, Dr. Jackson stated that she had reached MMI on that 

date. In an impairment evaluation sheet dated July 13, 2001, he asserted that this was the date of 

MMI. Appellant requested a schedule award again on March 21, 2006. By letter dated June 30, 

2006, Dr. Jackson provided an assessment of her permanent impairment and stated that she had 

reached MMI. However, in a report dated July 27, 2011, he checked a box indicating that 

appellant had not reached MMI. Thus while Dr. Jackson in his earlier reports dating from 2001 

to 2006 indicated that MMI had been reached, in a work capacity evaluation sheet dated July 27, 

2011 he stated that she was permanently totally disabled from work, but checked a box 

indicating that MMI had not been reached. The most recent medical evidence received from him 

therefore did not support a finding of MMI. The other medical evidence of record, while 

substantiating a waxing and waning of appellant’s condition, does not address the issue of MMI. 

The Board concludes that OWCP properly determined that the medical evidence of 

record does not establish MMI. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

FECA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to require a partially disabled employee to report 

his or her earnings from employment or self-employment, by affidavit or otherwise, in the 

manner and at the times the Secretary specifies.10

Under section 10.528 of OWCP’s implementing federal regulations, an employee in 

receipt of compensation benefits must complete an affidavit as to any work or activity indicating 

an ability to work which the employee has performed for the prior 15 months.11 If an employee 

who is required to file such a report fails to do so within 30 days of the date of the request, his or 

her right to compensation for wage loss is suspended until OWCP receives the requested 

report.12 At that time, OWCP will reinstate compensation retroactive to the date of suspension if 

the employee remains entitled to compensation.13

 10 5 U.S.C. § 8106(b). 

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.528. 

12 See N.G., Docket No. 12-981 (issued December 4, 2012); Lucille A. Pettaway, 55 ECAB 228, 232 (2004); 

Demetrius Beverly, 53 ECAB 305, 307 (2002). 

13 Id. 
7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

OWCP requested that appellant submit a CA-1032 form with respect to any employment 

activity performed for the prior 15 months. It requested the information by letter dated 

February 22, 2013 and advised her to submit the form within 30 days or her compensation could 

be suspended. The record established that appellant did not respond prior to the April 15, 2013 

decision. 

Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that OWCP properly suspended 

appellant’s compensation effective April 15, 2013 pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.528. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she reached MMI regarding her 

accepted condition of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, warranting consideration of a schedule 

award pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8107. The Board further finds that OWCP properly suspended her 

compensation for failure to submit a CA-1032 form when requested. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated April 15 and March 1, 2013 are affirmed. 

Issued: May 23, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board