United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.B., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TEMPLE HILLS 

POST OFFICE, Temple Hills, MD, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0060 

Issued: February 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 13, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 14, 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 met her burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment to a scheduled member. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 9, 2005 appellant, then a 45-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on November 21, 2005 she injured her right shoulder carrying a 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

heavy satchel. OWCP accepted the claim for a sprain of the right shoulder and upper arm, a 

sprain of the right rotator cuff, a right lipoma, and a right localized superficial mass or lump. 

On September 18, 2007 appellant underwent repair of a torn right rotator cuff. She 

underwent a second shoulder surgery on March 9, 2009. 

On December 19, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-1). By 

letter dated January 8, 2015, OWCP requested that she submit an impairment evaluation from 

her attending physician indicating whether she had reached maximum medical improvement and 

providing the extent of any permanent impairment in accordance with the sixth edition of the 

American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., 

Guides). It allotted appellant 30 days to submit the requested medical evidence. Appellant did 

not respond within the time allotted. 

By decision dated February 23, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule 

award as she had failed to submit any medical evidence supporting a permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member or function. 

In a March 3, 2015 duty status report, a physician found that appellant had reduced 

motion and pain, diagnosed right shoulder strain, and listed work restrictions. In a May 5, 2015 

duty status report, a physician diagnosed right shoulder sprain and tendinitis and provided 

physical limitations.2

On May 18, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration.3 In an accompanying May 7, 2015 

statement, she questioned the denial of her schedule award, noting that she carried mail for more 

than 20 years and sustained a work injury. Appellant submitted a February 3, 2015 magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) scan report of her right shoulder. The MRI scan report revealed severe 

osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint, loose bodies, and a full-thickness or near full-thickness 

tear in the supraspinatus tendon. 

By decision dated August 14, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its February 23, 2015 

decision. It found that appellant had not submitted an impairment evaluation in support of her 

claim. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA,4

 and its implementing federal regulations,5 set 

forth the number of weeks of compensation payable to an employee sustaining permanent 

impairment from loss, or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. However, 

 2

 The names of the physicians are not legible. 

3

 Appellant listed two OWCP file numbers on her request for reconsideration. However, OWCP considered the 

evidence from the current file number xxxxxx054. 

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 
3

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.6

 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.7

Appellant has the burden under FECA to establish that she sustained a permanent 

impairment of a scheduled member or function as a result of her employment injury entitling her 

to a schedule award.8

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

must be obtained from her physician. In obtaining medical evidence required for a schedule 

award, the evaluation made by the attending physician must include a description of the 

impairment including, where applicable, the loss in degrees of active and passive motion of the 

affected member or function, the amount of any atrophy or deformity, decrease in strength or 

disturbance of sensation or other pertinent descriptions of the impairment. This 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

 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a sprain of the right shoulder and upper arm, a 

sprain of the right rotator cuff, a right lipoma, and a right localized superficial mass or lump due 

to a November 21, 2005 employment injury. Appellant had surgery to repair a torn right rotator 

cuff on September 18, 2007, and a subsequent shoulder surgery on March 9, 2009. 

On December 19, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award, but did not submit 

an impairment evaluation or other medical evidence establishing permanent impairment. She 

has the burden of proof to submit medical evidence supporting that she has a permanent 

impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body.10 Appellant provided 2015 duty 

status reports finding that she had work limitations and a right shoulder MRI scan report. 

Neither the duty status reports nor the MRI scan report addressed the relevant issue of whether 

she has a permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. As noted, appellant must submit 

an evaluation of an attending physician that includes a description of impairment that is 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.11 Moreover, as the 

 6 Id. at § 10.404(a). 

7

 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). 

8 See D.H., 58 ECAB 358 (2007); Annette M. Dent, 44 ECAB 403 (1993). 

9 D.M., Docket No. 11-775 (issued October 11, 2011); Peter C. Belkind, 56 ECAB 580 (2005). 

10 See A.C., Docket No. 13-1408 (issued November 15, 2013); D.H., supra note 8. 

11 See supra note 9. 
4

authors of the duty status reports cannot be identified as physicians, they do not constitute 

competent medical evidence and are of no probative value.12

Appellant failed to provide probative medical evidence establishing a permanent 

impairment due to her accepted right shoulder condition and thus has not met 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 has not met her burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment of a scheduled member. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 14, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: February 2, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 See I.M., Docket No. 15-1318 (issued December 10, 2015); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572 (1988). 

13 See P.L., Docket No. 13-1592 (issued January 7, 2014).