United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

F.J., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-610 

Issued: May 8, 2015 

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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 26, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from the December 4, 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 this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she has 

permanent impairment entitling her to schedule award compensation. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 30, 2005 appellant, then a 43-year-old mail handler, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained injury to her neck and the back of her 

head due to performing her work duties over a period of time. OWCP accepted her claim for 

cervical and thoracic strains. It had previously accepted that she sustained a right shoulder sprain 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

on March 7, 2003 due to pushing mail containers and lifting mail. Appellant also filed a separate 

claim for a traumatic injury in 2007, which was accepted for bilateral ankle sprains. Under that 

claim, she was released to return to full-duty work on February 14, 2008 with no additional need 

for medical care. The case file for appellant’s occupational claim is the master file for all of her 

accepted injuries. 

In May 2009, appellant filed a claim of recurrence noting that her employing 

establishment had withdrawn her limited-duty work. OWCP then began to pay total disability 

compensation. 

In March 2012, OWCP referred appellant for vocational rehabilitation and a plan was 

developed for employment as an information clerk, receptionist, or customer complaint clerk. In 

February 2013, appellant informed OWCP that she had retired and was electing Office of 

Personnel Management benefits effective February 15, 2013. 

On February 26, 2013 appellant filed a claim alleging that she was entitled to schedule 

award compensation due to her accepted injuries. 

By letter dated March 18, 2013, OWCP advised appellant of the medical evidence 

necessary to establish her claim for a schedule award. 

Appellant submitted a medical report dated December 19, 2005, in which Dr. Jin Xiao, an 

attending Board-certified occupational medicine physician, asserted that she sustained a 

permanent work-related aggravation of an underlying cervical disc disease due. Dr. Xian posited 

that she had five percent whole person impairment as a result of her cervical spine condition. 

In a September 17, 2013 report, Dr. Richard Rogachefsky, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon serving as an OWCP referral physician, posited that appellant did not have a ratable 

impairment under the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides) (6th ed. 2009). He indicated that the 

medical evidence did not show that she had any sensory or motor deficits to establish a 

permanent impairment under Table 15-20 of the sixth edition. 

By report dated December 12, 2013, 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 opinion of Dr. Rogachefsky. Dr. Harris concurred that 

appellant did not have any ratable permanent impairment. 

By decision dated February 6, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim 

because she did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish her claim. 

Appellant requested a hearing with an OWCP hearing representative. During the hearing 

held on September 16, 2014 she advised that she had neck and arm pain that interfered with her 

ability to use her right upper extremity. Appellant was asked if she ever had an 

electromyogram/nerve conduction velocity test to support any deficit and she responded that she 

had one for her ankles. She was advised that OWCP required additional medical evidence 

explaining the permanent impairment caused by her accepted medical conditions. 
3

Appellant submitted a medical disability slip containing multiple diagnoses for her 

cervical spine and right arm. This medical evidence did not contain an impairment rating under 

the standards of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

In a December 4, 2014 decision, the hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s February 6, 

2014 decision denying appellant’s schedule award claim.2

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 

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 A schedule award is not payable under section 8107 of 

FECA for an impairment of the whole person.7

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant did not submit sufficient medical evidence to establish that 

she has a permanent impairment of schedule member which would entitle her to schedule award 

compensation. She submitted a medical report from December 19, 2005 in which Dr. Xiao, an 

attending Board-certified occupational medicine physician, posited that she had a five percent 

whole person impairment as a result of her cervical spine condition. However, this report is of 

no probative value on the relevant issue of this case because a schedule award is not payable 

under section 8107 of FECA for an impairment of the whole person.8

 

Moreover, other medical evidence of record shows that appellant did not have a ratable 

permanent impairment under the sixth edition of A.M.A., Guides. In a September 17, 2013 

report, Dr. Rogachefsky, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon serving as an OWCP referral 

 2

 On December 12, 2014 OWCP issued a decision reducing appellant’s entitlement to wage-loss compensation to 

reflect her ability to work in the constructed position of customer complaint clerk. Appellant did not appeal that 

decision. 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

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

Claims, Chapter 2.808.6 (January 2010); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, 

Chapter 3.700.2 (January 2010). 

6 Id. at, Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013). 

7 See Gordon G. McNeill, 42 ECAB 140, 145 (1990). 

8 Id. 
4

physician, posited that she did not have a ratable impairment under the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides. He indicated that the medical evidence did not show that appellant had any 

sensory or motor deficits to establish a permanent impairment under Table 15-20 of the sixth 

edition. By report dated December 12, 2013, Dr. Harris, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon 

serving as an OWCP medical adviser, concurred that she did not have any ratable permanent 

impairment pursuant to the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

While appellant did discuss her accepted ankle injury with the hearing representative, no 

medical evidence was received supporting a permanent impairment due to that injury. Under the 

claim file for that injury, she was released to full duty on February 14, 2008 with no additional 

need for medical care. 

For these reasons, appellant did not establish that she has permanent impairment entitling 

her to schedule award compensation and OWCP properly denied her schedule award claim. She 

may request a 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 did not meet her burden of proof to establish that she has 

permanent impairment entitling her to schedule award compensation. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 4, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 8, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board