United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.O., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RAVENWOOD 

STATION, Chicago, IL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1830 

Issued: January 6, 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 September 8, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 8, 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 established permanent impairment of the lower 

extremities. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 4, 2005 appellant, then a 30-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a pinched nerve or carpal tunnel syndrome 

causally related to factors of her federal employment. OWCP accepted this claim for bilateral 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

carpal tunnel syndrome, assigned file number xxxxxx196. Appellant underwent a right carpal 

tunnel release on July 19, 2006.2

OWCP also accepted that appellant sustained lumbar sprain and a sprain of the left 

shoulder and upper arm at the acromioclavicular (AC) joint due to a March 12, 2009 traumatic 

injury in file number xxxxxx772. On July 1, 2010 OWCP doubled case file number xxxxxx772 

into the current file number xxxxxx196. 

By decision dated May 29, 2009, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for six 

percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity and four percent permanent 

impairment of the left upper extremity. The period of the award ran for 31.2 weeks from April 5 

through November 9, 2007. 

On October 26, 2012 appellant filed a claim for an increased schedule award. 

In a report dated October 25, 2013, Dr. Mark Sokolowski, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, found that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement on October 4, 2013. 

He diagnosed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, a left AC joint sprain, and lumbar sprain. 

Dr. Sokolowski discussed appellant’s prior schedule award for carpal tunnel syndrome. Citing 

Table 15-5 on page 403 of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2008) (A.M.A., Guides), he found that appellant had five percent 

left upper extremity impairment due to her AC joint injury. Dr. Sokolowski further determined 

that a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan study of the lumbar spine showed degenerative 

changes at L5-S1 with retrolisthesis and foraminal stenosis. He opined that, under Table 17-4 on 

page 572 of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had 14 percent whole person impairment due to 

degenerative spondylolisthesis with radiculopathy. 

On March 24, 2014 an OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Sokolowski’s October 25, 

2013 report and opined that appellant had one percent left arm impairment due to impingement 

syndrome according to Table 15-5 on page 402 of the A.M.A., Guides. He considered 

Dr. Sokolowski’s finding of 14 percent whole person impairment due to spondylolisthesis but 

noted the claim was accepted only for lumbar sprain. The medical adviser further indicated that 

the March 21, 2013 MRI scan study revealed a disc bulge without spinal slippage. He found that 

appellant had no ratable permanent impairment of the legs. 

By decision dated April 17, 2014, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for an 

additional one percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity. It determined that she 

did not have a ratable impairment of the lower extremities. 

In a progress report dated April 28, 2014, Dr. Sokolowski disagreed with OWCP’s 

medical adviser’s finding that the diagnostic studies did not show instability of the lumbar spine. 

On examination he found a positive straight leg raise and strength that was “symmetrically intact 

 2

 In a decision dated August 28, 2008, OWCP found that appellant had not established an employment-related 

recurrence of disability beginning May 24, 2008. On May 26, 2009 it accepted that she sustained a recurrence of 

disability beginning March 14, 2009. 
3

throughout [appellant’s] bilateral lower extremities in all muscle groups with sensation intact to 

light touch in all dermatomal distributions.” 

A May 20, 2014 lumbar MRI scan study showed a small disc protrusion at L4-5 possibly 

contacting a nerve root, mild bilateral foraminal stenosis, and advanced endplate degeneration at 

L5-S1. 

On June 16, 2014 Dr. Sokolowski reviewed the May 20, 2014 MRI scan study. He 

advised, “The examiner who reviewed my calculation on permanent impairment did not see 

instability mentioned on the study report. I reviewed the actual films. There is clear listhesis 

present.” Dr. Sokolowski found normal sensation and strength of the lower extremities. 

On July 30, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s April 17, 2014 denial 

of her schedule award for the back and lower extremities. 

On October 20, 2014 an OWCP medical adviser reviewed the additional medical 

evidence submitted. He opined that the x-rays did not show spondylolisthesis and that the MRI 

scan study did not show listhesis. The medical adviser noted that OWCP accepted appellant’s 

claim for lumbar sprain rather than disc degeneration at L5-S1. He concluded that she had no 

objective evidence of any lower extremity impairment. 

By decision dated October 28, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its April 17, 2014 

decision. 

In a report dated October 29, 2014, Dr. Sokolowski noted that OWCP denied appellant’s 

claim for a schedule award for the lumbar spine because the accepted condition was a lumbar 

sprain. He related, “She clearly has over time developed a consequential injury of lumbar 

spondylosis, and lumbar radiculopathy.” Dr. Sokolowski indicated that diagnostic studies 

supported these diagnoses. 

On November 18, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a report dated January 26, 2015, an OWCP medical adviser opined that appellant had 

not submitted evidence showing a lower extremity permanent impairment. He found that the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides at Table 17-4 on page 570 and 571, relevant to determining 

impairments of the spine and pelvis, provided a rating for herniated discs, spondylolisthesis, 

fractures, or dislocations or the lumbar spine. The medical adviser opined that May 20, 2014 

MRI scan study did not show a disc herniation but instead a protrusion. He further found that 

appellant did not have spondylolisthesis. The medical adviser determined that she had not met 

any of the criteria set forth in the A.M.A., Guides for a schedule award for the lower extremities. 

By decision dated February 5, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its October 28, 2014 

decision. It found that the January 26, 2015 report from OWCP’s medical adviser constituted the 

weight of the evidence and established that appellant had no objective evidence of a permanent 

impairment of the lower extremities. 

In a report dated February 9, 2015, Dr. Sokolowski disagreed with OWCP’s medical 

adviser’s finding that a disc herniation differed from a disc protrusion. He asserted that appellant 
4

had a disc herniation and thus an impairment under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. On 

examination, Dr. Sokolowski found a positive straight leg raise and back pain with radiation to 

the buttocks with extension. He related, “Strength is intact throughout [appellant’s] bilateral 

lower extremities in all muscle groups with sensation intact to light touch in all dermatomal 

distributions.” 

On February 11, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a report dated June 26, 2015, an OWCP medical adviser applied The Guides 

Newsletter, Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment Using the Sixth Edition

(July/August 2009) (The Guides Newsletter) to Dr. Sokolowski’s clinical findings. He noted 

that Dr. Sokolowski found intact sensation with no loss of strength of the bilateral lower 

extremities in his February 9, 2015 report. The medical adviser used Proposed Table 2 of The

Guides Newsletter to find a class 0 diagnosis for sensory and motor loss, which yielded zero 

percent impairment rating. He noted that Dr. Sokolowski had based his impairment on the 

lumbar spine rather than the lower extremities and did not use The Guides Newsletter as 

appropriate. 

By decision dated July 8, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the February 5, 2015 

decision. It determined that the June 26, 2015 report from its medical adviser represented the 

weight of the evidence and established that appellant did not have a work-related lower extremity 

impairment. 

On appeal appellant disagrees with the finding of OWCP’s medical adviser. She argues 

that Dr. Sokolowski diagnosed a disc herniation and noted that appellant experienced numbness 

and tingling in her feet and toes bilaterally with radiating pain down her right side into her foot. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA,3 and its implementing federal regulations,4 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 for all claimants, OWCP has adopted 

the A.M.A., Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants.5

 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.6

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

5 Id. at § 10.404(a). 

6

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

Chapter 2.808.5(a) (February 2013); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 

(January 2010). 
5

Neither FECA nor its regulations provide for a schedule award for impairment to the 

back or to the body as a whole.7

 Furthermore, the back is specifically excluded from the 

definition of organ under FECA.8 The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide a 

separate mechanism for rating spinal nerve injuries as impairments of the extremities. 

Recognizing that FECA allows ratings for extremities and precludes ratings for the spine, The 

Guides Newsletter offers an approach to rating spinal nerve impairments consistent with sixth 

edition methodology. For peripheral nerve impairments to the upper or lower extremities 

resulting from spinal injuries, OWCP procedures indicate that The Guides Newsletter is to be 

applied.9

 

A schedule award can be paid only for a condition related to an employment injury. The 

claimant has the burden of proving that the condition for which a schedule award is sought is 

causally related to his or her employment.10

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome under file number 

xxxxxx196 and a sprain of the left AC joint and lumbar sprain under file number xxxxxx772. It 

doubled file number xxxxxx772 into master file number xxxxxx196. 

On May 29, 2009 OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for six percent permanent 

impairment of the right arm and four percent permanent impairment of the left arm. On 

April 17, 2014 it granted a schedule award for an additional one percent permanent impairment 

of the left arm, but found that she had not established impairment in the lower extremity. 

Appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s finding and in decisions dated 2014 and 2015, 

OWCP denied modification of its prior determination that the medical evidence was insufficient 

to establish lower extremity impairment. 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a ratable permanent impairment of 

either leg under the A.M.A., Guides. 

In a report dated October 25, 2013, Dr. Sokolowski diagnosed degenerative changes of 

the lumbar spine at L5-S1, foraminal stenosis, and retrolisthesis. Citing Table 17-4 on page 572 

of the A.M.A., Guides, he opined that appellant had 14 percent whole person impairment due to 

degenerative spondylolisthesis with radiculopathy. On March 24, 2014 an OWCP medical 

adviser opined that diagnostic studies did not show a disc herniation or spinal slippage and thus 

there was no objective basis for using Table 17-4. The use of Table 17-4, however, is applicable 

in determining impairments of the spine and pelvis and thus it not appropriate for use under 

 7 See N.D., 59 ECAB 344 (2008); Tania R. Keka, 55 ECAB 354 (2004). 

8 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(19); Francesco C. Veneziani, 48 ECAB 572 (1997). 

9

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700 (January 2010). The 

Guides Newsletter is included as Exhibit 4. 

10 See Veronica Williams, 56 ECAB 367 (2005). 
6

FECA, which specifically excludes the back as an organ.11 Further, FECA does not provide for 

impairment of the whole person.12

On April 28, 2014 Dr. Sokolowski disagreed with the finding of OWCP’s medical 

adviser that appellant did not have lumbar spine instability. He found intact strength and 

sensation of the lower extremities. On June 16, 2014 Dr. Sokolowski again noted that he did not 

concur with OWCP’s medical adviser’s finding that there was no instability as a May 20, 2014 

MRI scan study showed listhesis. He did not, however, provide an impairment rating of the 

lower extremities and thus his reports are insufficient to support a schedule award for the 

claimed conditions. Additionally, OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a lumbar sprain and 

not lumbar instability or listhesis. 

In a report dated October 29, 2014, Dr. Sokolowski disagreed with OWCP’s denial of 

appellant’s schedule award claim for the spine because it had only accepted lumbar sprain. He 

diagnosed lumbar spondylosis and lumbar radiculopathy as consequential conditions due to her 

work injury. Where a claimant claims that a condition not accepted or approved by OWCP was 

due to her employment injury, she bears the burden of proof to establish that the condition is 

causally related to the employment injury through the submission of rationalized medical 

evidence.13 Dr. Sokolowski did not provide any rationale for his opinion that appellant’s work 

injury caused lumbar spondylosis and radiculopathy. Medical conclusions unsupported by 

rationale are of little probative value.14 On January 26, 2015 an OWCP medical adviser 

reviewed Dr. Sokolowski’s report and found that appellant did not meet the criteria set forth at 

Table 17-4 for rating an impairment of the spine or pelvis as she had a disc protrusion rather than 

a herniation. As previously noted, however, FECA does not provide a schedule award for the 

back.15

On February 9, 2015 Dr. Sokolowski opined that appellant had a herniated disc and thus 

an impairment under the A.M.A., Guides. On examination he found intact strength and 

sensation of the lower extremities. Dr. Sokolowski did not address whether appellant had lower 

extremity impairment but instead found an impairment due to a herniated disc. As discussed, no 

schedule award is payable for a member, function, or organ of the body not specified in FECA or 

in the implementing regulations.16 Because neither FECA nor OWCP regulations provide for the 

payment of a schedule award of the permanent loss of use of the back, a claimant is not entitled 

to such an award.17 

 11 Supra note 8. 

12 Supra note 7. 

13 See Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004). 

14 Willa M. Frazier, 55 ECAB 379 (2004); Jimmy H. Duckett, 52 ECAB 332 (2001). 

15 See supra note 8. 

16 See J.D., 58 ECAB 254 (2007). 

17 See R.S., 58 ECAB 362 (2007). 
7

On June 26, 2015 an OWCP medical adviser discussed Dr. Sokolowski’s finding of 

normal strength and sensation of the bilateral lower extremities. Citing Proposed Table 2 of The

Guides Newsletter, he found a class 0 diagnosis for sensory and motor loss, which yielded zero 

percent impairment rating. The medical adviser disagreed with Dr. Sokolowski’s impairment 

determination as he had rated appellant’s lumbar spine and did not use The Guides Newsletter. 

Under FECA, although there is no schedule award for the back, an impairment from a spinal 

nerve affecting the lower extremities can be determined using The Guides Newsletter. The 

Board finds that he properly applied the relevant standards in The Guides Newsletter to 

Dr. Sokolowski’s clinical findings. OWCP’s medical adviser’s opinion thus constitutes the 

weight of the evidence and establishes that appellant does not have a ratable employment-related 

impairment of either lower extremity. 

On appeal appellant notes that Dr. Sokolowski diagnosed a disc herniation. She relates 

that she experiences numbness and tingling throughout her lower extremities and pain in her 

right lower extremity. The issue, however, is whether the medical evidence establishes that 

appellant has a ratable impairment of the lower extremities under the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant 

has the burden to submit a medical opinion supporting permanent impairment.18 There is no 

probative medical evidence of record conforming to the A.M.A., Guides establishing a ratable 

impairment of the lower extremities causally related to her accepted lumbar sprain. 

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 that she is 

entitled to a schedule award for a permanent impairment of the lower extremities. 

 18 See K.S., Docket No. 15-0741 (issued August 10, 2015); D.H., 58 ECAB 358 (2007). 
8

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 8, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 6, 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