United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Kansas City, MO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0247 

Issued: February 19, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 12, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of a July 25, 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has more than four percent impairment of her left upper 

extremity for which she received a schedule award. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 By decision dated June 26, 2014 OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation benefits. No appeal was 

filed from the June 26, 2014 decision and therefore the issue of the termination of appellant’s compensation benefits 

is not before the Board. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 25, 2012 appellant, then a 46-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed pain lifting trays and pulling down mail. 

She underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan on October 29, 2012 which 

demonstrated in the right shoulder mild-to-moderate rotator cuff tendinopathy with mild 

degenerative arthrosis at the glenohumeral joint. In the left shoulder, appellant’s MRI scan 

demonstrated rotator cuff tendinopathy with probable high-grade tear of the anterior 

supraspinatus footplate. OWCP accepted her claim for bilateral tendinitis of the rotator cuff and 

partial tear of the left rotator cuff on January 25, 2013. It authorized compensation benefits. 

Appellant accepted light-duty work four hours a day on March 22, 2013. 

Appellant underwent a second left shoulder MRI scan on May 15, 2013 which 

demonstrated mild intra-articular biceps tendinosis and mild acromioclavicular osteoarthritis. In 

a decision dated June 5, 2013, OWCP corrected her accepted conditions to bilateral bicipital 

tendinosis and sprain of the left shoulder, upper arm, and rotator cuff. On July 1, 2013 appellant 

underwent a left shoulder arthroscopy with debridement with biceps tenotomy and subacromial 

decompression with partial acromioplasty. OWCP authorized compensation benefits for 

temporary total disability following her surgery. Appellant returned to light duty for four hours a 

day on July 23, 2013. Her work restrictions were no overhead work, no lifting more than 15 

pounds, and working four hours a day. On September 9, 2013 appellant’s attending physician, 

Dr. Tyler Fox, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, released appellant to return to full duty with 

no restrictions. Appellant returned to full-duty work on September 11, 2013. 

In a report dated November 6, 2013, Dr. Fox confirmed that appellant had returned to 

full-duty work. Appellant reported lingering discomfort lifting her arm out to the side behind the 

plane of her chest. She stated that she performed this maneuver repetitively at work. Dr. Fox 

found that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement and could continue to work 

without restrictions. 

On December 26, 2013 Dr. Fox indicated that appellant was totally disabled from 

December 20, 2013 through January 2, 2014. In a report dated January 3, 2014, he indicated that 

appellant could not perform overhead lifting, lifting over five pounds, or repetitive motions with 

the left arm. 

On January 3, 2014 appellant filed a claim (Form CA-7) requesting a schedule award. In 

a letter dated January 10, 2014, OWCP requested that she provide a narrative report addressing 

her permanent impairment in accordance with the sixth edition of the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.

3

In reports dated January 8 and February 3, 2014, Dr. Fox noted that appellant aggravated 

her shoulder at work with repetitive reaching and lifting activities. Appellant reported pain when 

reaching overhead or reaching out to lift. Dr. Fox found Neer and Hawkin’s impingement 

maneuvers were positive and diagnosed subacromial bursitis. He noted, “I have discussed with 

[appellant] frankly that a job in which she performed repetitive lifting and reaching maneuvers 

 3

 A.M.A., Guides, 6th ed. (2009). 
3

with her left arm is not likely in her best interest given her past experiences.” Dr. Fox indicated 

that she could return to modified duty on February 7, 2014 with no lifting over five pounds with 

her left arm, no overhead activity, no repetitive reaching, pushing, or pulling with the left arm. 

On March 6, 2014 Dr. Fox opined that appellant had reached maximum medical 

improvement. He noted her work restrictions and found that appellant had full range of motion. 

Dr. Fox found good strength in all planes of rotator cuff testing. He noted that Neer and 

Hawkin’s maneuvers were positive and seemed to reproduce appellant’s symptoms. 

Appellant underwent a functional capacity evaluation which determined that she could 

work at the light level eight hours a day lifting up to 20 pounds occasionally and up to 10 pounds 

frequently. Dr. Fox completed a work restriction evaluation form and indicated that appellant 

could work eight hours a day with restrictions on pushing, pulling, and lifting as well as reaching 

and reaching above the shoulder. He confirmed that she had reached maximum medical 

improvement. 

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation on May 29, 2014 with Dr. Kala 

Danushkodi, a physician Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation. 

Dr. Danushkodi completed a report on June 19, 2014 and reviewed appellant’s medical 

history. She found that appellant’s range of motion in her left shoulder was 110 degrees of 

abduction and forward flexion, 70 degrees of external rotation, and 80 degrees of internal 

rotation. Dr. Danushkodi diagnosed a left rotator cuff tear. She applied the A.M.A., Guides and 

found that appellant had a class 1 impairment with a midgrade of three percent in accordance 

with Table 15-5. Dr. Danushkodi noted that appellant’s physical examination grade modifier 

was 2, moderate problem with tenderness and limited range of motion. She found that 

appellant’s clinical findings were not applicable as this was the basis of the diagnosis. 

Dr. Danushkodi found that appellant’s functional history grade modifier was 1, a mild problem, 

pain with strenuous activities. Applying the net adjustment formula, she concluded that 

appellant had four percent impairment of the left upper extremity. 

An OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Danushkodi’s report on July 7, 2014 and found 

that it comported with the standards of the A.M.A., Guides. He agreed with the impairment 

rating of four percent of the left upper extremity. 

By decision dated July 25, 2014, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for four 

percent impairment of her left upper extremity. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA4

 and its implementing regulations5 set forth the 

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

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

 4 Supra note 1. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 
4

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.

6

 

In addressing upper extremity impairments, the sixth edition requires identification of 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). The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX).7

ANALYSIS 

Appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Fox, found that she reached maximum medical 

improvement regarding her accepted left shoulder conditions on March 6, 2014. However, he 

did not provide an impairment rating in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Danushkodi. In her 

June 19, 2014 report, Dr. Danushkodi provided findings on physical examination of appellant 

and applied the A.M.A., Guides. She diagnosed a left rotator cuff tear and applied the regional 

grid to reach a class 1 impairment with a default value of 3.8 Dr. Danushkodi found that a 

clinical studies grade modifier was not applicable as this was the basis of the diagnosis.9 She 

noted that the physical examination grade modifier was 2, moderate problem with tenderness and 

limited range of motion.10 Dr. Danushkodi found that appellant’s functional history grade 

modifier was 1, a mild problem, pain with strenuous activities.11 Applying the net adjustment 

formula (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) or (1-1) + (2-1) she concluded that appellant had 

grade D or four percent impairment of the left upper extremity.12 The medical adviser agreed 

with Dr. Danushkodi’s findings and conclusions. As there is no medical opinion evidence 

supporting more than four percent impairment of appellant’s left upper extremity, the Board 

finds that she has not established greater than four percent impairment. 

 6

 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. (2009); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Award and 

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

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

7

 A.M.A., Guides 411. 

8 Id. at 403, Table 15-5. 

9 Id. at 407, 15.3c Adjustment Grid: Clinical Studies. 

10 Id. at 408, Table 15-8. 

11 Id. at 406, Table 15-7. 

12 Id. at 403, Table 15-5. 
5

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 four percent impairment of her left upper 

extremity for which she has received a schedule award. 

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.13

Issued: February 19, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 13 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015 and did not participate in the preparation of this order.