United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.Y., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, JOINT 

REGION MARIANAS, Yigo, Guam, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0045 

Issued: April 7, 2017 

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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 14, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 22, 2016 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 his burden of proof to establish more than six 

percent permanent impairment of his left ring finger, for which he previously received a schedule 

award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 22, 2015 appellant, then a 56-year-old operations and maintenance supervisor, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained a left ring finger injury in the 

performance of duty on August 25, 2014. He indicated that he had been working on the Air Force 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

base’s golf course in a drainage ditch trying to clear a grate when he slipped and caught his left 

ring finger in the drainage grate. 

On June 17, 2015 OWCP accepted acquired trigger finger of the left 4th digit (ring finger). 

On July 28, 2015 appellant underwent OWCP-approved surgery on his left ring finger, a 

tenovaginotomy procedure to ameliorate the condition of recurrent, severe Al pulley stenosing 

tenosynovitis. The procedure was performed by Dr. Jerone T. Landstrom, Board-certified in hand 

surgery and general surgery. 

On August 24, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

In a September 18, 2015 report, Dr. Landstrom found that appellant’s left ring finger 

tenosynovitis had resolved and that he had attained maximum medical improvement (MMI). 

On March 4, 2016 appellant underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE), which 

included, among other things, range of motion (ROM) measurements for the various finger and 

thumb joints on both hands. 

In an April 18, 2016 report, Dr. Landstrom found 10 percent permanent impairment of 

the left ring finger digit using the ROM method of impairment rating under the “most recent 

edition” of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).2

 

On June 19, 2016 OWCP’s district medical adviser (DMA), Dr. Morley Slutsky, Boardcertified in occupational medicine, reviewed the claim, and found that appellant had six percent 

permanent impairment of the left ring finger using the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) method 

under Table 15-2, Digit Regional Grid, A.M.A., Guides 392 (6th ed. 2008). The DMA based his 

impairment rating on a diagnosis of “finger sprain.” He took issue with Dr. Landstrom’s left ring 

finger rating using the ROM method, and relied on the “preferred” DBI methodology. 

By decision dated September 22, 2016, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for six 

percent permanent impairment for the left ring finger. The award covered a period of 1.5 weeks, 

from September 18 through 28, 2015. OWCP based the award on the DMA’s June 19, 2016 

impairment rating. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8149 of FECA delegates to the Secretary of Labor the authority to prescribe rules 

and regulations for the administration and enforcement of FECA. The Secretary of Labor has 

vested the authority to implement the FECA program with the Director of OWCP.3

 Section 8107 

of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the permanent loss of 

 2

 Although Dr. Landstrom mentioned that he relied on the “most recent edition” of the A.M.A., Guides, the 

included upper extremity evaluation record referenced Table(s) and/or Figure(s) from a prior edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides. 

3 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-1.4. 
3

use of specified members, functions, and organs of the body.4

 FECA, however, does not specify 

the manner by which the percentage loss of a member, function, or organ shall be determined. 

To ensure consistent results and equal justice under the law, good administrative practice 

requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all claimants. Through its implementing 

regulations, OWCP adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate standard for evaluating 

schedule losses.5 

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides was first printed in 2008. Within months of the 

initial printing, the A.M.A. issued a 52-page document entitled “Clarifications and Corrections, 

Sixth Edition, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.” The document included 

various changes to the original text, intended to serve as an erratum/supplement to the first 

printing of the A.M.A., Guides. In April 2009, these changes were formally incorporated into 

the second printing of the sixth edition. 

As of May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in accordance with the sixth edition 

of the A.M.A., Guides (2009).6

 The Board has approved OWCP’s use of the A.M.A., Guides for 

the purpose of determining the percentage loss of use of a member of the body for schedule 

award purposes.7

ANALYSIS 

The issue on appeal is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he has 

greater than six percent impairment of the left ring finger. The Board finds that this case is not in 

posture for decision. 

The Board has found that OWCP has inconsistently applied Chapter 15 of the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides when granting schedule awards for upper extremity claims. No 

consistent interpretation has been followed regarding the proper use of the DBI or the ROM 

methodology when assessing the extent of permanent impairment for schedule award purposes.8

 

The purpose of the use of uniform standards is to ensure consistent results and to ensure equal 

justice under the law to all claimants.9

 In T.H., the Board concluded that OWCP physicians are 

at odds over the proper methodology for rating upper extremity impairment, having observed 

attending physicians, evaluating physicians, second opinion physicians, impartial medical 

examiners, and district medical advisers use both DBI and ROM methodologies interchangeably 

without any consistent basis. Furthermore, the Board has observed that physicians 

interchangeably cite to language in the first printing or the second printing when justifying use of 

 4

 For a complete loss of use of the ring finger (3rd finger), an employee shall receive 25 weeks’ compensation. 

5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(10). 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404; see also Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 130 (2001). 

6 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January 2010); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards & Permanent Disability 

Claims, Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013). 

7 Isidoro Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961). 

8 T.H., Docket No. 14-0943 (issued November 25, 2016). 

9 Ausbon N. Johnson, 50 ECAB 304, 311 (1999). 
4

either ROM or DBI methodology. Because OWCP’s own physicians are inconsistent in the 

application of the A.M.A., Guides, the Board finds that OWCP can no longer ensure consistent 

results and equal justice under the law for all claimants.10 

In light of the conflicting interpretation by OWCP of the sixth edition with respect to 

upper extremity impairment ratings, it is incumbent upon OWCP, through its implementing 

regulations and/or internal procedures, to establish a consistent method for rating upper 

extremity impairment. In order to ensure consistent results and equal justice under the law for 

cases involving upper extremity impairment, the Board will set aside the September 22, 2016 

decision. Following OWCP’s development of a consistent method for calculating permanent 

impairment for upper extremities to be applied uniformly, and such other development as may be 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on appellant’s claim for an upper 

extremity schedule award. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds this case not in posture for decision. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 22, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside, and the case is remanded for further action 

consistent with this decision. 

Issued: April 7, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 10 Supra note 8.