United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Spokane, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0816 

Issued: July 8, 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 February 26, 2015 appellant timely appealed the September 5, 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 the claim.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has a ratable impairment of the right upper extremity. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (2006). 

2

 The case record provided to the Board includes evidence received after OWCP issued its September 5, 2014 

decision. The Board is precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP 

rendered its final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1) (2014). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a then 54-year-old letter carrier, filed a claim for traumatic injury alleging that 

he was struck by a motor vehicle on November 1, 2012 while delivering mail on foot. He was 

crossing a two-lane road when he was “grazed” on his right side by a truck traveling 

approximately 20 miles per hour. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right shoulder 

contusion, right knee contusion/abrasions, and aggravation of right shoulder sprain. Appellant 

had a prior history of right shoulder injury, including at least three right shoulder arthroscopic 

procedures performed on April 19, 2001, February 7 and October 18, 2002. With respect to his 

latest injury, OWCP authorized a September 17, 2013 right shoulder/arm arthroscopic 

procedure.3

 

On October 21, 2013 appellant accepted a full-time, limited-duty assignment as a city 

carrier. Effective January 29, 2014, his surgeon, Dr. Michael D. McDonald, Board-certified in 

orthopedic surgery, released him to return to work without restrictions. He determined that 

appellant had reached “maximal improvement.” 

On July 30, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). At the time, 

he did not submit any medical evidence of permanent impairment. 

On August 4, 2014 OWCP sent appellant a development letter requesting that he submit 

an upper extremity impairment rating in accordance with the sixth edition of the American 

Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (2008). It afforded 

him 30 days to submit the required medical evidence in support of his schedule award claim. 

In a September 5, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award 

because the current medical evidence failed to demonstrate a measurable impairment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8107 of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the 

permanent loss of use of specified members, functions and organs of the body.4

 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 under the law, good 

administrative practice requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The 

implementing regulations have adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate standard for 

 3

 The September 17, 2013 surgery included subacromial decompression/bursectomy, biceps tendon release, and 

subpectoralis mini open biceps tenodesis. 

4

 For a complete loss of use of an arm, an employee shall receive 312 weeks’ compensation. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8107(c)(1). 
3

evaluating schedule losses.5

 Effective May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in 

accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides (2008).6

ANALYSIS 

Appellant’s accepted conditions include right shoulder contusion and aggravation of right 

shoulder sprain. Additionally, OWCP authorized a September 17, 2013 right shoulder/arm 

arthroscopic procedure. Approximately one month after surgery, appellant returned to work in a 

full-time, limited-duty capacity. Dr. McDonald released appellant to resume full, unrestricted 

duties effective January 29, 2014. Several months later, appellant filed a claim for a schedule 

award (Form CA-7). However, he did not submit recent medical evidence describing the extent 

of any right upper extremity impairment. On August 4, 2014 OWCP instructed appellant to have 

his physician prepare an upper extremity rating in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 

2008). As OWCP correctly indicated, it was appellant’s responsibility to furnish the required 

medical evidence to support his claim for schedule award benefits.7

 It afforded him a reasonable 

amount of time to submit the requested medical evidence. However, OWCP did not receive a 

recent examination report and/or impairment rating within the allotted 30-day time frame. 

Accordingly, OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award. The Board finds 

that he failed to establish that he has a ratable impairment of the right upper extremity 

impairment. 

CONCLUSION 

Appellant has not demonstrated a ratable impairment of his right upper extremity. 

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

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

(January 2010); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards & Permanent Disability 

Claims, Chapter 2.808.6a (February 2013). 

7

 At the time, the record did not include a sufficiently detailed description of impairment such that one could 

visualize the character and degree of appellant’s right upper extremity condition. See Federal (FECA) Procedure 

Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards & Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.5b(2). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 5, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 8, 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