United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0334 

Issued: May 11, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

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 15, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

July 24, 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish permanent impairment 

of his right lower extremity entitling him to a schedule award. 

Appellant, through counsel, contends on appeal that OWCP’s decision is contrary to fact 

and law. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 5, 2012 appellant, then a 51-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he injured his right knee, hip, and ankle when he stepped in a 

hole while delivering mail on that date. On April 3, 2012 OWCP accepted his claim for sprain of 

unspecified sites in the right knee, sprain of hip, right iliofemoral, right ankle sprain, and sprain 

of the lumbar region of the back. It paid compensation and medical benefits. 

By decision dated January 9, 2014, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and 

compensation benefits, effective January 11, 2013, as appellant no longer had any residuals 

related to his January 5, 2012 employment injury. Appellant requested a hearing before an 

OWCP hearing representative. In a decision dated September 30, 2014, the hearing 

representative affirmed the termination of benefits and found that appellant had not provided 

evidence to warrant reinstatement of those benefits or for further development of the evidence. 

On April 13, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). In support 

of his claim, he submitted a March 13, 2015 note from Dr. Venkat R. Rapuri, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, found that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement. 

By letters dated April 20, 2015 (letter returned by post office) and June 24, 2015, OWCP 

requested that appellant submit additional medical evidence in support of a schedule award. 

Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit this additional evidence. No response was received. 

By decision dated July 24, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award, 

finding that the submitted evidence was not sufficient to establish permanent impairment to a 

scheduled member resulting from the employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA2

 and its implementing regulations3 set forth the 

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

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 single set of tables so that here may be uniform standards applicable to all 

claimants. The American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (6th edition 2009) (“A.M.A., Guides”) has been adopted by the implementing 

regulations as the appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.4 The effective date of the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is May 1, 2009.5

 2

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

4 Id. 

5

 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). 
3

Not all medical conditions accepted by OWCP result in permanent impairment to a 

scheduled member.6

 It is the claimant’s burden to establish that he or she sustained a permanent 

impairment of a scheduled member or function as a result of an employment injury.7 OWCP 

procedures provide that, to support a schedule award, the file must contain competent medical 

evidence which shows that the impairment has reached a permanent and fixed state and indicates 

the date on which this occurred. An impairment description must be in sufficient detail so the 

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

with its restrictions and limitations.8

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of unspecified sites of the right knee; sprain 

of the hip, right iliofemoral; right ankle sprain; and sprain of the lumbar region of the back. It 

paid compensation and medical benefits, but terminated these benefits effective January 11, 2013 

for the reason that appellant no longer had any residuals related to the accepted January 5, 2012 

employment injury. 

On April 13, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award. OWCP procedures and 

Board precedent provide that termination of a claim for all benefits due to a finding of no 

residuals of the accepted condition does not bar a subsequent schedule award. Rather the claims 

examiner should consider the schedule award matter separately from the termination of benefits.9

 

This is because a claimant may have an employment-related condition that results in a permanent 

impairment under the A.M.A., Guides without any disability for work or the need for continuing 

medical treatment.10 If a claimant applies for a schedule award after termination and submits

sufficient medical evidence reflecting a permanent impairment as a result of the work-related 

injury exposure, the claims examiner should develop the claim further, even if a finding of no 

residuals has previously been made.11 

To support a schedule award, the file must contain competent medical evidence that 

shows that the impairment has reached maximum medical improvement and the date this 

occurred, describes the impairment in sufficient detail for the claims examiner to visualize the 

character and degree of disability, and gives a percentage of impairment based on a specific 

diagnosis.12 If a claimant requests a schedule award, but has not submitted such evidence, the 

claimant should be requested to submit it.13 If the claimant does not provide an impairment 

 6 G.E., Docket No. 09-1412 (issued February 17, 2010). 

7 Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 130 (2001). 

8 C.A., Docket No. 13-762 (issued April 1, 2014). 

9 See B.K., 59 ECAB 228 (2007); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and 

Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.11 (February 2013). 

10 B.K., id. 

11 Supra note 9 at Chapter 2.808.11(a) (February 2013). 

12 Id. at Chapter 2.808.5(b). 

13 Id. at Chapter 2.808.6(a). 
4

evaluation form his physician when requested, and there is no indication of permanent 

impairment in the medical evidence of file, the claims examiner may proceed with a formal 

denial of the award. If in doubt, the claims examiner should obtain an opinion from an OWCP 

medical adviser prior to such a denial.14

The only evidence appellant submitted in support of his schedule award claim was a note 

wherein Dr. Rapuri found that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement. This 

evidence does not address any impairment or give any information to visualize the character and 

degree of disability. Accordingly, appellant has not established a schedule award. Thus, has not 

met his burden of proof. 

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment of his right lower extremity entitling him to a schedule award. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated July 24, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: May 11, 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 

 14 Id. at Chapter 2.808.6(c).