United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Federal Way, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1949 

Issued: April 28, 2015 

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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 8, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 25, 2014 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

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 When filing this appeal before the Board, appellant also noted July 22 and August 14, 2014 as dates of OWCP 

decisions being appealed. The Board notes that OWCP’s August 14, 2014 decision approved her request for 

reimbursement of expenses for 646 miles of travel to Olympia, Washington on July 8 and 9, 2013. As appellant’s 

travel expenses were approved, the appeal of the August 14, 2014 decision is moot. The Board further notes that 

there has been no applicable decision by OWCP on July 22, 2014. Appellant filed an appeal of OWCP’s July 22, 

2014 advice letter which was informing her of evidence required to obtain authorization for travel expenses beyond 

100 miles for her medical appointment on August 4, 2014. The Board notes that the record does not contain a final 

decision on appeal as OWCP’s July 22, 2014 advice letter was not a decision. Therefore, the Board does not have 

jurisdiction over that issue. The Board has jurisdiction only over appeals from a final decision of OWCP and thus, 

no jurisdiction where OWCP has not issued such a decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c) (the Board has jurisdiction to 

consider and decide appeals from final decisions; there shall be no appeal with respect to any interlocutory matter 

disposed of during the pendency of the case). On appeal, appellant argues that she was denied travel reimbursement 

for treatment with Dr. Kurt Anderson, a Board-certified hand and orthopedic surgeon, because the claims examiner 

did not preapprove the travel for the following dates: September 10 and 11; October 21 and 22; December 1 to 3 

and 8 and 9, 2013; and February 1 to 3, 2014. As noted above, the record does not contain a final decision with 

respect to reimbursement of travel expenses on these dates. Thus, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this 

issue. Id.
2

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant is entitled to a schedule award for permanent 

impairment of the right and left upper extremities; and (2) whether OWCP properly declined 

appellant’s reimbursement of travel expenses to obtain medical treatment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board. By decision dated May 12, 2014, the 

Board remanded a July 3, 2013 OWCP merit decision, which denied appellant’s claim for 

reimbursement of travel expenses for medical treatment during the dates of July 8 and 9, 2013.3 

The findings of fact and conclusions of law from the prior decision and order are hereby 

incorporated by reference. 

On July 11, 2011 appellant, then a 51-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and 

osteoarthritis in her wrists and fingers as a result of her federal employment duties. OWCP 

accepted the claim for bilateral hand osteoarthritis and bilateral trigger finger. 

In September 2011, appellant began treatment with Dr. Anderson, who performed various 

surgical procedures pertaining to her accepted employment-related conditions which were 

approved by OWCP. She continued seeking treatment with him over the course of her treatment. 

On February 12, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

By letter dated February 14, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant submit a report from 

her attending physician addressing her work-related conditions, the date of maximum medical 

improvement (MMI), objective findings, subjective complaints, and an impairment rating 

rendered according to the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides) (6th ed. 2009). It informed her that it was her 

responsibility to find a qualified physician who would perform the required examination if her 

treating physician declined to do so. 

Appellant submitted reports dated July 9 to December 2, 2013 from Dr. Anderson 

recommending various surgical procedures. 

The only current medical evidence received was Dr. Anderson’s February 3, 2014 report, 

which noted that appellant was doing well postoperatively and could return to normal active duty 

despite mild complaints of pain. Dr. Anderson diagnosed successful bilateral thumb 

interphalangeal joint arthrodesis, successful bilateral carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty, and 

successful left hand index finger A1 pulley release. He concluded that appellant required an 

independent medical examination and a disability rating to close her workers’ compensation 

claim. 

By decision dated March 25, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award 

finding that the medical evidence failed to demonstrate a measurable impairment of bilateral 

trigger finger and bilateral osteoarthritis of the hands. 

 3

 Docket No. 14-150 (issued May 12, 2014). 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

The schedule award provision of FECA and its implementing regulations 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.4 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 (6th ed. 2009) has been adopted by the implementing 

regulations as the appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.5

It is the claimant’s burden to establish that he or she has sustained a permanent 

impairment of the scheduled member or function as a result of any employment injury.6 OWCP 

procedures provide that, to support a schedule award, the file must contain competent medical 

evidence which shows that the impairment has reached a permanent and fixed state and indicates 

the date on which this occurred (date of MMI), describes the impairment in sufficient detail so 

that it can be visualized on review and computes the percentage of impairment in accordance 

with the A.M.A., Guides.

7

The sixth edition requires identifying the impairment class for the Class of Diagnosis 

(CDX), which is then adjusted by grade modifiers based on Functional History (GMFH), 

Physical Examination (GMPE), and Clinical Studies (GMCS).8

 The Net Adjustment Formula is 

GMFH - CDX + GMPE - CDX + GMCS - CDX. 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral hand osteoarthritis and bilateral trigger 

finger. On February 12, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award. By decision dated 

March 25, 2014, OWCP denied her schedule award claim finding that she had not submitted an 

impairment evaluation to establish that she sustained a permanent impairment resulting from her 

work injury. 

The Board concludes that appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish 

that, as a result of her employment injury, she sustained any permanent impairment to a 

scheduled member such that she would be entitled to a schedule award. By letter dated 

February 14, 2014, OWCP informed her of the type of evidence necessary to establish her 

schedule award claim and specifically requested that she submit an impairment evaluation from 

her attending physician in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant 

submitted a February 3, 2014 report from Dr. Anderson who noted that she was doing well 

postoperatively and could return to normal active duty despite mild complaints of pain. 

 4

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

5 K.H., Docket No. 09-341 (issued December 30, 2011). For decisions issued after May 1, 2009, the sixth edition 

will be applied. B.M., Docket No. 09-2231 (issued May 14, 2010). 

6

 Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001). 

7

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

Chapter 2.808.5 (February 2013). 

8

 A.M.A., Guides 494-531. 
4

Dr. Anderson diagnosed successful bilateral thumb interphalangeal joint arthrodesis, successful 

bilateral CMC arthroplasty, and successful left hand index finger A1 pulley release. He 

concluded that appellant required an independent medical examination and a disability rating to 

close her workers’ compensation claim. 

The Board finds that Dr. Anderson’s report is insufficient to establish that appellant is 

entitled to a schedule award. OWCP procedures provide that MMI must be reached before a 

schedule award can be made.9

 Dr. Anderson failed to state that MMI had been reached and 

provided no impairment rating for the upper extremities.10 Thus, his report is insufficient to 

establish that appellant reached MMI and sustained a permanent impairment of her bilateral 

trigger finger or bilateral hand osteoarthritis. 

The Board notes that it is appellant’s burden of proof to establish that she sustained a 

permanent impairment of a scheduled member as a result of an employment injury.11 The 

medical evidence must include a description of any physical impairment in sufficient detail so 

that the claims examiner and others reviewing the file would be able to clearly visualize the 

impairment with its resulting restrictions and limitations.12 Appellant did not submit such 

evidence and thus, OWCP properly denied her schedule award claim.13 

On appeal, appellant argues that she was not provided enough time to obtain the required 

medical evidence. The Board finds this argument without merit as she was provided more than 

30 days from the date of the February 14, 2014 development letter to the March 25, 2014 

decision denying her claim for a 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. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

a schedule award for permanent impairment. 

 9

 FECA Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.3(a)(1) (January 2010). 

10 E.D., Docket No. 10-967 (issued January 7, 2011). 

11 Supra note 6. 

12 See A.L., Docket No. 08-1730 (issued March 16, 2009). 

13 L.F., Docket No. 10-343 (issued November 29, 2010); V.W., Docket No. 09-2026 (issued February 16, 2010). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 25, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 28, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board