United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Chattanooga, TN, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1475 

Issued: November 3, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 29, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 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 five percent left arm and two percent right 

arm permanent impairments, for which she has received schedule awards. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

The case was before the Board on a prior appeal.2 As the Board noted, OWCP had 

accepted appellant’s occupational disease claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and 

ulnar nerve lesion resulting from her duties as a mail handler. With respect to a permanent 

impairment to a scheduled member, it issued a decision dated March 26, 2014 finding that 

appellant had three percent left arm permanent impairment and no right arm impairment. 

Appellant requested reconsideration. By decision dated September 8, 2014, OWCP denied 

modification of the schedule award decision. 

In the prior appeal, the Board set aside the September 8 and March 26, 2014 OWCP 

decisions. Appellant had submitted reports from Dr. Carl Dyer, Jr., a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon.3 The Board found that the determination of three percent permanent left arm 

impairment, with no right arm impairment, was not based on an adequate medical background. 

As to the left arm, the Board found an OWCP medical adviser had not properly explained how 

Table 15-23 of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (sixth edition) had been applied, particularly with respect to grade modifiers. For the 

right arm, the medical adviser did not discuss the relevant evidence or explain the opinion that 

appellant had no right arm permanent impairment. The Board remanded the case to OWCP to 

properly develop the medical evidence. The history of the case as provided by the Board in the 

February 3, 2015 decision is incorporated herein by reference. 

On September 10, 2014 OWCP received a September 3, 2014 report from Dr. Dyer, who 

opined that appellant had five percent permanent impairment of each arm under the A.M.A., 

Guides. Dr. Dyer referred to his prior reports and enclosed a March 9, 2012 electromyogram 

report (EMG).4 He found appellant had reached maximum medical improvement as of 

September 3, 2014. 

OWCP referred medical evidence to an OWCP medical adviser for an opinion as to the 

degree of permanent impairment. In a report dated February 5, 2015, the medical adviser 

identified Table 15-23 of the A.M.A., Guides and opined that he agreed with Dr. Dyer that 

appellant had five percent permanent impairment to each arm. He discussed the grade modifiers 

and found for test findings a grade modifier one, and for history and physical findings a grade 

modifier two. The medical adviser also found a grade modifier two for functional scale, 

resulting in a bilateral five percent permanent impairment under Table 15-23. He opined the date 

of maximum medical improvement was September 3, 2014. 

By decision dated March 10, 2015, OWCP issued a schedule award for an additional two 

percent for a total of five percent permanent impairment to the left arm and two percent 

 2

 Docket No. 14-2034 (issued February 3, 2015). 

3

 The record indicated that appellant underwent right carpal tunnel release on February 13, 2013 and a left carpal 

tunnel release on May 6, 2013. 

4

 Dr. Dyer had opined in a February 11, 2014 report that appellant had five percent permanent right arm 

impairment, and opined that appellant had five percent permanent left arm impairment in an April 24, 2014 report. 
3

permanent impairment for the right arm. The period of the award was 12.48 weeks to run for the 

period September 3 to November 29, 2014. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

5 U.S.C. § 8107 provides that, if there is permanent disability involving the loss or loss of 

use of a member or function of the body, the claimant is entitled to a schedule award for the 

permanent impairment of the scheduled member or function.5

 Neither FECA nor the regulations 

specify the manner in which the percentage of impairment for a schedule award shall be 

determined. For consistent results and to ensure equal justice for all claimants OWCP has 

adopted the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment

as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants.6

 For schedule awards after May 1, 2009, the 

impairment is evaluated under the sixth edition.7

 

Impairment due to carpal tunnel syndrome is evaluated under the scheme found in Table 

15-23 (Entrapment/Compression Neuropathy Impairment) and accompanying relevant text.8

 In 

Table 15-23, grade modifier levels (ranging from zero to four) are described for the categories 

test findings, history, and physical findings. The grade modifier levels are averaged to arrive at 

the appropriate overall grade modifier level and to identify a default rating value. The default 

rating value may be modified up or down by one percent based on functional scale, an 

assessment of impact on daily living activities.9 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, both the attending orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Dyer, and OWCP medical 

adviser, opined that under the A.M.A., Guides appellant had five percent permanent impairment 

to each arm. As noted above, the application of Table 15-23 involves the determination of the 

appropriate grade modifiers for test findings, history, and physical findings. These grade 

modifiers are averaged to determine the overall grade modifier level and the appropriate default 

impairment. Once the default impairment is determined, it may be adjusted up or down by one 

percent based on the functional scale. 

OWCP medical adviser explained that for each arm he would assign a grade modifier one 

based on the March 9, 2012 EMG form mild conduction delay, a grade modifier two for history 

based on appellant’s symptoms, and a grade modifier two for physical findings of decreased 

 5

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. This section enumerates specific members or functions of the body for which a schedule 

award is payable and the maximum number of weeks of compensation to be paid; additional members of the body 

are found at 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(a). 

6 A. George Lampo, 45 ECAB 441 (1994). 

7 See 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, Exhibit 1 

(January 2010). 

8

 A.M.A., Guides 448-50. 

9 Id. 
4

sensation. This is in accord with Table 15-23 and the average grade modifier is 1.66, rounded up 

to a grade modifier 2. The default impairment is five percent under Table 15-23 for grade 

modifier 2.10 There is no adjustment based on functional scale, as the medical adviser found the 

functional scale was also grade modifier two (moderate). 

The Board finds that the opinion of OWCP medical adviser who, based on the findings of 

Dr. Dyer, found that appellant had five percent permanent impairment to each arm represents the 

weight of the medical evidence. It is consistent with Dr. Dyer’s opinion and provides a clear 

explanation as to how Table 15-23 was applied. 

The March 10, 2015 decision, however, failed to properly reflect the weight of the 

medical evidence regarding the right arm. Appellant had previously received a schedule award 

for three percent left arm permanent impairment on March 26, 2014. Therefore appellant would 

be entitled to an additional two percent for the left arm,11 but for the right arm, appellant had not 

previously received a schedule award. The March 10, 2015 decision finds appellant has only 

two percent right arm impairment. It is not clear whether OWCP erroneously had determined 

appellant previously received a schedule award for three percent impairment to the right arm. 

Since the medical evidence establishes a five percent right arm permanent impairment, 

the case will be remanded to OWCP for proper issuance of a schedule award for an additional 

three percent impairment to the right arm in accord with the probative medical evidence of 

record. On return of the case record, OWCP should properly issue the schedule award for the 

right arm. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds the evidence does not establish more than five percent left arm 

impairment. The case is remanded to OWCP for proper issuance of a schedule award for an 

additional three percent permanent impairment to the right arm in accord with the medical 

evidence of record. 

 10 Id. at 449, Table 15-23. 

11 It is well established that benefits payable under 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c) are reduced by the period of compensation 

paid under a prior schedule award if the current impairment duplicates the prior impairment rating. T.S., Docket No. 

09-1308 (issued December 22, 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(c). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated March 10, 2015 is affirmed with respect to the left arm. As to the 

right arm, the decision is set aside and the case remanded for further action consistent with this 

decision of the Board. 

Issued: November 3, 2015 

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