United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.A., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Greensboro, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0458 

Issued: April 7, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 11, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 10, 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 more than three percent permanent impairment of her 

left upper extremity, for which she received a schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 16, 2015 appellant, then a 54-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 16, 2015 she sustained a left wrist injury due to a fall 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

at work. OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a left closed fracture at the lower end of the 

radius with the ulna.2

Appellant was treated conservatively for her left wrist fracture and she underwent a 

functional capacity evaluation on October 9, 2015. 

In an October 22, 2015 report, Dr. Benjamin Graves, an attending Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, reported the findings of his physical examination of appellant. He indicated 

that appellant was able to flex and extend her wrists with near symmetric range of motion. 

Appellant’s left hand showed no gross deformity or lesions and light sensation was present in her 

left upper extremity. Dr. Graves indicated that the September 17, 2015 left wrist x-rays showed 

a healed fracture with no obvious bony abnormality and he diagnosed “other closed extraarticular fracture of distal end of left radius with routine healing.” He noted that, under the North 

Carolina Commission Rating Guide, appellant had five percent permanent impairment of her left 

hand. 

On November 18, 2015 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) claiming a 

schedule award due to her accepted employment injury. 

On November 30, 2015 Dr. Arthur S. Harris, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon 

serving as an OWCP medical adviser, indicated that he had reviewed the medical evidence of 

record, including the October 22, 2015 examination findings of Dr. Graves. He found that, under 

the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (6th ed. 2009) (A.M.A., Guides), appellant had three percent permanent impairment 

of her left upper extremity. Dr. Harris indicated that appellant reached maximum medical 

improvement on October 22, 2015 and noted, “For purposes of calculating [s]chedule [a]ward 

utilizing [the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides], the claimant has three percent upper extremity 

impairment for residual problems status post fracture left distal radius [Class of Diagnosis 1C] 

(Table 15-3/Page 396).” 

By decision dated December 10, 2015, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 

three percent permanent impairment of her left upper extremity. It was based on the 

November 30, 2015 impairment rating of Dr. Harris, the OWCP medical adviser who reviewed 

the medical findings of record, including the October 22, 2015 examination findings of 

Dr. Graves. The award ran for 9.36 weeks from October 22 to December 26, 2015. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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 

 2

 Appellant stopped work after her April 16, 2015 injury and received disability compensation on the daily rolls 

beginning June 5, 2015. 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 
3

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

 The effective date of the sixth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides is May 1, 2009.6

In determining impairment for the upper extremities under the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides, an evaluator must establish the appropriate diagnosis for each part of the upper 

extremity to be rated. With respect to the wrist, the relevant portion of the arm for the present 

case, reference is made to Table 15-3 (Wrist Regional Grid) beginning on page 395. After the 

Class of Diagnosis (CDX) is determined from the Wrist Regional Grid (including identification 

of a default grade value), the net adjustment formula is applied using the grade modifier for 

Functional History (GMFH), grade modifier for Physical Examination (GMPE), and grade 

modifier for Clinical Studies (GMCS). The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE 

- CDX) + (GMCS - CDX).7 Under Chapter 2.3, evaluators are directed to provide reasons for 

their impairment rating choices, including choices of diagnoses from regional grids and 

calculations of modifier scores.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that on April 16, 2015 appellant sustained a left closed fracture at the 

lower end of the radius with the ulna. On November 18, 2015 appellant filed a claim for 

compensation (Form CA-7) claiming a schedule award due to her accepted employment injury. 

By decision dated December 10, 2015, OWCP granted her a schedule award for three percent 

permanent impairment of her left upper extremity. The award was based on the November 30, 

2015 impairment rating of Dr. Harris, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon serving as an OWCP 

medical adviser. Dr. Harris reviewed the medical findings of record, including the October 22, 

2015 examination findings of Dr. Graves, an attending Board-certified orthopedic surgeon.9

On November 30, 2015 Dr. Harris indicated that he had reviewed the medical evidence of 

record, including the October 22, 2015 examination findings of Dr. Graves. He found that, under 

the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had three percent permanent impairment of her 

left upper extremity. Dr. Harris noted, “For purposes of calculating [s]chedule [a]ward utilizing 

 5 Id. See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability 

Claims, Chapter 2.808.6 (January 2010); and Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 (January 2010). 

6

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 id. at Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013). 

7 See A.M.A., Guides 401-11 (6th ed. 2009). Table 15-3 also provides that, if motion loss is present for a claimant 

who has certain wrist conditions denoted by an asterisk on the table, impairment may alternatively be assessed using 

section 15.7 (range of motion impairment). Such a range of motion impairment stands alone and is not combined 

with a diagnosis-based impairment. Id. at 397, 475-78. 

8 Id. at 23-28. 

9

 The Board notes that Dr. Graves provided an impairment rating but that it was not calculated under the relevant 

standards of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. See supra note 6. 
4

[the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides], the claimant has three percent upper extremity 

impairment for residual problems status post fracture left distal radius [Class of Diagnosis 1C] 

(Table 15-3/Page 396).” 

The Board notes that Dr. Harris chose a diagnoses-based impairment (wrist fracture) for 

appellant’s left upper extremity and assigned her condition the default value of three percent 

impairment under Table 15-3 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

10 However, Dr. Harris 

did not perform a complete impairment rating evaluation in that he did not derive any grade 

modifiers (including those for functional history, physical examination, and clinical studies) or 

apply the net adjustment formula for appellant’s left upper extremity condition.11 

While the claimant has the burden to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP 

shares responsibility in the development of the evidence.12 Accordingly, once OWCP undertakes 

to develop the medical evidence, it has the responsibility to do so in the proper manner.13 

Therefore, the case shall be remanded to OWCP to address the above-mentioned aspects of the 

OWCP medical adviser’s rating of appellant’s left upper extremity impairment. After carrying 

out such development, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision regarding appellant’s left upper 

extremity impairment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision regarding whether appellant 

has more than three percent permanent impairment of her left upper extremity, for which she 

received a schedule award. The case is remanded to OWCP for further development. 

 10 A.M.A., Guides 396, Table 15-3. 

11 See supra notes 7 and 8. 

12 Russell F. Polhemus, 32 ECAB 1066 (1981). 

13 See Robert F. Hart, 36 ECAB 186 (1984). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 10, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: April 7, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board