United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

V.P., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0702 

Issued: July 15, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 26, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 28, 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 met his burden of proof to establish permanent impairment 

causally related to the December 8, 1987 employment injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 14, 1987 appellant, then a 35-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 8, 1987 he experienced severe back pain when he 

lifted heavy bags and bundles of mail, and placed mail in mailboxes. He began to work full-time 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

light duty. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for degeneration of lumbar or lumbosacral 

intervertebral disc and lumbosacral sprain. It paid leave buyback compensation. Appellant 

continued to receive medical treatment. The record does not contain evidence of medical 

treatment from January 3, 2011 to December 30, 2014. 

On January 9, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). He 

submitted a December 30, 2014 narrative report from Dr. Frank Seinsheimer, III, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon specializing in hand surgery, who related that appellant continued to 

have constant low back pain since a 1987 work-related injury. Upon examination, 

Dr. Seinsheimer observed that appellant’s thoracic spine, lumbar spine, costovertebral angles, 

posterior superior iliac spines, and sciatic notches were nontender. He reported that appellant’s 

hips had full, painless range of motion. Straight leg raise testing was negative at 60 degrees 

bilaterally and muscle strength was normal. Trendelenburg’s test was negative. Dr. Seinsheimer 

reported that new x-rays of the lumbar spine showed slight decreased height at L3-4 with grade 1 

retrolisthesis at L3-4. He also noted some calcification just posterior to his intervertebral space. 

Dr. Seinsheimer diagnosed chronic lumbar pain. 

In a letter dated March 16, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish his schedule award claim. It requested that he provide a medical 

report from his treating physician addressing whether he reached maximum medical 

improvement and whether his accepted conditions caused permanent impairment pursuant to the 

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

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides). Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit this evidence. 

On June 22, 2015 appellant returned the development letter with handwritten notations. 

He indicated that his diagnosis was degenerative disease, lumbar sprain, and chronic lumbar 

pain. Appellant also noted an impairment rating of five percent of the whole body. 

In a decision dated August 27, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule 

award. It found that the medical evidence of record failed to establish that he sustained 

permanent impairment under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides causally related to the 

December 8, 1987 employment injury. 

On November 10, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s request for reconsideration. 

Appellant noted that he was enclosing a September 17, 2015 medical report by Dr. Seinsheimer 

that contained the information OWCP requested and constituted competent medical evidence. 

Appellant submitted a September 17, 2015 medical report from Dr. Seinsheimer who 

related that appellant had received medical treatment since 1987 for degenerative disc disease 

and chronic lumbar strain. Dr. Seinsheimer explained that appellant’s condition had reached 

maximum medical improvement many years ago. He opined that according to the sixth edition 

of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had five percent whole body impairment for his chronic lumbar 

sprain. Dr. Seinsheimer indicated that appellant’s permanent impairment was due to his 

persistent low back pain. 

By decision dated January 28, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the August 27, 2015 

decision. It determined that Dr. Seinsheimer’s September 17, 2015 medical report failed to 
3

establish that appellant sustained a compensable permanent impairment as a result of his 

December 8, 1987 employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA2

 and its implementing regulations 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. FECA, however, does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss of a member shall be determined. The 

method used in making such determination is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of 

OWCP. For consistent results and to ensure equal justice, the Board has authorized 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 OWCP as the appropriate standards for evaluating schedule 

losses.3

Although the A.M.A., Guides includes guidelines for estimating impairment due to 

disorders of the spine, under FECA a schedule award is not payable for injury to the spine.4

 In 

1960, amendments to FECA modified the schedule award provisions to provide for an award for 

permanent impairment to a member of the body covered by the schedule regardless of whether 

the cause of the impairment originated in a scheduled or nonscheduled member. Therefore, as 

the schedule award provisions of FECA include the extremities, a claimant may be entitled to a 

schedule award for permanent impairment to an extremity even though the cause of the 

impairment originated in the spine.5

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide a separate mechanism for rating 

spinal nerve injuries as extremity impairment. The A.M.A., Guides for decades has offered an 

alternative approach to rating spinal nerve impairments.6 OWCP has adopted this approach for 

rating impairment of the upper or lower extremities caused by a spinal injury, as provided in 

section 3.700 of its procedures, which memorializes proposed tables as outlined in The Guides 

Newsletter, Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment (July/August 2009 edition) of the sixth 

edition.7

 

 2 Id.

3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404 (1999); see also Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 139 (2002). 

4 W.D., Docket No. 10-274 (issued September 3, 2010); Richard R. LeMay, 56 ECAB 341 (2005); Pamela J. 

Darling, 49 ECAB 286 (1998). 

5 K.H., Docket No. 09-341 (issued December 30, 2009); Thomas J. Engelhart, 50 ECAB 319 (1999). 

6 Rozella L. Skinner, 37 ECAB 398 (1986). 

7

 FECA Transmittal No. 10-04 (issued January 9, 2010); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, 

Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1, note 5 (January 2010); The Guides Newsletter is included as Exhibit 4. 
4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained degeneration of his lumbosacral intervertebral 

disc and a lumbosacral sprain as a result of a December 8, 1987 employment injury. Appellant 

worked full-time light duty. On January 9, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted several reports from Dr. Seinsheimer. In 

December 30, 2014 and September 17, 2015 reports, Dr. Seinsheimer related that appellant 

continued to have constant low back pain since a 1987 work-related injury and received medical 

treatment for degenerative disc disease and chronic lumbar pain. Upon examination, he 

observed that appellant’s thoracic spine, lumbar spine, costovertebral angles, posterior superior 

iliac spines, and sciatic notches were nontender. Straight leg raise testing was negative at 60 

degrees bilaterally and Trendelenburg’s test was negative. Dr. Seinsheimer reported that new xrays of the lumbar spine showed slight decreased height at L3-4 with grade 1 retrolisthesis at 

L3-4. He also noted some calcification just posterior to his intervertebral space. 

Dr. Seinsheimer diagnosed chronic lumbar pain. He explained that appellant’s condition had 

reached maximum medical improvement many years ago. Dr. Seinsheimer opined that 

according to the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had five percent whole body 

impairment8

 for his chronic lumbar sprain and persistent low back pain from which he suffered. 

Under OWCP procedures, medical evidence to support a schedule award should include a 

report that shows that the claimant has reached a date of MMI, describe the impairment in 

sufficient detail for the claims examiner to visualize the character and degree of disability, and 

give a percentage of impairment under the A.M.A., Guides.9

Although Dr. Seinsheimer noted that appellant had reached maximum medical 

improvement and opined that he had five percent whole body impairment according to the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides, he did not reference the appropriate tables for rating impairment 

for a spinal injury. As noted above, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide for 

a schedule award for injury to the spine.10 However, impairment of a scheduled member of the 

upper or lower extremities is payable under FECA, if it originates from the spine.11 The 

approach of rating impairment of the upper or lower extremities caused by a spinal injury is 

provided in section 3.700 of OWCP procedures, which memorializes proposed tables as outlined 

in a July/August 2009, The Guides Newsletter.

12 The Board notes that Dr. Seinsheimer did not 

reference or provide an evaluation in accordance with the July/August 2009, The Guides 

Newsletter. He did not rate appellant’s impairment pursuant to The Guides Newsletter, and his 

 8

 The Board notes that there is no statutory basis for the payment of a schedule award for whole body impairment 

under FECA. See S.R., Docket No. 14-1103 (issued September 4, 2014); N.M., 58 ECAB 273 (2007). 

9 See J.M., Docket No. 16-0224 (issued May 20, 2016). 

10 Supra note 4. 

11 Supra note 5. 

12 Supra note 7. 
5

rating is therefore insufficient to establish that appellant is entitled to a schedule award due to his 

accepted lumbar injury. 

Appellant bears the burden to prove permanent impairment for a schedule award based 

upon the proper rating practices.13 As he has not submitted probative medical opinion evidence 

from a physician addressing how his impairment correlated to the appropriate edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides nor did the evidence of record explain the causal relationship between these 

findings and his permanent impairment, the Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of 

proof to establish his claim to a schedule award.

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 established permanent impairment causally related 

to his December 8, 1987 employment injury. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 28, 2016 merit decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 15, 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 

 13 Veronica Williams, 56 ECAB 357 (2005).