United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Portland, OR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0351 

Issued: May 2, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 18, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 19, 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 to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish a ratable permanent 

impairment of her left shoulder, entitling her to a schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 18, 2014 appellant, then a 49-year-old postal clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that repetitive lifting and arm motions involved in handling mail 

caused left shoulder pain and a possible “muscle tear.” She did not stop work. OWCP accepted 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

appellant’s claim by decision dated August 28, 2014 for disorder of the bursae and tendons in the 

left shoulder, unspecified, and other affections of the left shoulder region not clarified 

elsewhere.2

In a report dated July 7, 2014, Dr. Gregory Gramstad, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, noted a number of preexisting conditions.3 He found limited range of motion in all 

planes on cervical examination. With regard to the upper extremities, Dr. Gramstad found 

tenderness to the left shoulder on palpation, limited range of motion, and well-healed incisions 

over the bilateral elbows. He performed surgery on her left shoulder on January 5, 2015, 

consisting of a left arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and an arthroscopic acromioplasty and limited 

debridement. OWCP authorized the surgery and paid appellant wage-loss compensation benefits 

on the supplemental rolls from January 5 to April 3, 2015. 

A July 16, 2014 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the left shoulder interpreted 

by Dr. Joel Rubenstein, Board-certified in radiology, disclosed two partial thickness tears of the 

supraspinatus tendon, subscapularis tendinosis, and marked degeneration of the superior labrum 

probably extending into the biceps tendon. 

Appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7) on October 6, 2015. In 

support of her claim she submitted a September 15, 2015 report by Dr. Gramstad, in which he 

assessed appellant’s postsurgical condition. Dr. Gramstad found that appellant had reached 

maximum medical improvement (MMI). Based on the fifth edition of the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (fifth edition 2001) (hereinafter, 

A.M.A., Guides), he assigned nine percent permanent impairment resulting from loss of motion 

in the left shoulder, which he converted to five percent permanent impairment of the whole 

person. 

By letter dated October 8, 2015, OWCP acknowledged receipt of appellant’s claim for a 

schedule award. The letter noted that Dr. Gramstad had submitted a report describing appellant’s 

medical condition and function using the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides rather than the sixth 

edition. The letter explained that an impairment rating using the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides was needed. Appellant was afforded 30 days in which to provide the necessary 

information. 

The record reveals that appellant telephoned OWCP on November 4, 2015 to advise that 

she was looking for a physician who could provide an impairment rating under the sixth edition 

of the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant did not submit any additional medical evidence within the 

time allotted. 

 2

 Appellant has two prior FECA claims: OWCP File No. xxxxxx155 with a December 7, 2010 date of injury, and 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx249 with a July 27, 2000 date of injury. 

3

 Dr. Gramstad indicated that appellant had back surgery in 1991 and 1992, right shoulder surgery in 2011, left 

elbow surgery in 2008, a fracture of her right wrist in 1990, bilateral carpal tunnel release in 2000, left knee 

arthroscopy in 2013. 
3

By decision dated November 19, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim 

as the medical evidence submitted was insufficient to support a finding of ratable permanent 

impairment of her left shoulder, causally related to the accepted employment injuries. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA,4 and its implementing regulations5 set forth the 

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

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

consistent results and equal justice for all claimants under the law, good administrative practice 

requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all claimants.6

 The A.M.A., Guides has been 

adopted by the implementing regulations as the appropriate standard for evaluating schedule 

losses.7

 For decisions issued after May 1, 2009, the sixth edition is used to calculate schedule 

awards.8

 Before the A.M.A., Guides can be utilized, a description of the claimant’s impairment 

must be obtained from her physician. The description must be in sufficient detail so that the 

claims examiner and others reviewing the file will be able to clearly visualize the impairment 

with its resulting restrictions and limitations.9

FECA does not authorize schedule awards for permanent impairment of the whole 

person.10

ANALYSIS 

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

left shoulder, thereby warranting a schedule award. 

Dr. Gramstad concluded, based on his application of the fifth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides, that appellant had nine percent permanent impairment of the left shoulder, which he 

converted to five percent whole person impairment. As of May 1, 2009 the use of the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides is mandatory.11 Appellant did not provide an impairment rating 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

6 Ausborn N. Johnson, 50 ECAB 304, 311 (1999). 

7 Id. 

8

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

Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January 2010). 

9 A.A., 59 ECAB 726 (2008). 

10 D.J., 59 ECAB 620 (2008); N.D., 59 ECAB 344 (2008). 

11 Supra note 10. See also E.W., Docket No. 13-1277 (issued December 24, 2013). 
4

from her attending physician under that edition. Although OWCP explained the requirements for 

developing schedule award claims utilizing the sixth edition, appellant did not submit additional 

medical evidence within the allotted time. 

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish that she sustained permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member as a result of an employment injury.12 She did not submit such evidence and 

thus, she did not meet her burden of proof.13 

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 failed to establish that she had a ratable permanent 

impairment of her left shoulder entitling her to a schedule award. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated November 19, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: May 2, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 A.A., Docket No. 16-41 (issued February 11, 2016). 

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