United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL BASE 

KITSAP, Bangor, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1448 

Issued: October 29, 2014 

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 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 9, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the December 27, 2013 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which denied an additional schedule 

award. Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to review the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established entitlement to an additional schedule 

award. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 OWCP denied a merit review of appellant’s case on June 2, 2014, but it is not clear that she requested 

reconsideration. The record shows an appeal request form completed before OWCP’s December 27, 2013 decision, 

not after. Further, appellant did not sign the form and the record shows no authorization of representation. 

Nonetheless, the Board has jurisdiction to review OWCP’s December 27, 2013 decision and will review the merits 

of her case. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 10, 2007 appellant, a 50-year-old engineering technician, alleged a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty when she slipped in an icy parking lot and fell. OWCP 

accepted her claim for right knee sprain, right knee contusion and right elbow contusion. In a 

February 2, 2009 decision, appellant received a schedule award for a 24 percent impairment of 

her right upper extremity.3 

In 2013, appellant claimed an additional schedule award. In support thereof, she 

submitted an October 29, 2013 evaluation from Dr. Michael S. McManus, Board-certified in 

occupational medicine, who determined that appellant had a total right upper extremity 

impairment of 15 percent under the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2009).4 

In a decision dated December 27, 2013, OWCP denied an additional schedule award. It 

explained that the medical evidence appellant submitted showed an impairment rating of only 15 

percent and thus “does not support an increase in the impairment already compensated.” 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA5

 and the implementing regulations6 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 shall be determined. The method used in 

making such a determination is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of OWCP.7

For consistent results and to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants, good 

administrative practice necessitates the use of a single set of tables so that there may be uniform 

standards applicable to all claimants. OWCP has adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate 

standard for evaluating schedule losses.8 As of May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.9

 3

 The award indicated that appellant previously received a schedule award for a five percent impairment of her 

right upper extremity under OWCP File No. xxxxxx774. OWCP therefore subtracted the 5 percent previously paid 

from her 24 percent total impairment of the right upper extremity, to result in a 19 percent total impairment. 

4

 Dr. McManus found a nine percent impairment due to post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the right elbow and a 

seven percent impairment based on ulnar neuropathy at the right elbow. 

5

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

7 Linda R. Sherman, 56 ECAB 127 (2004); Danniel C. Goings, 37 ECAB 781 (1986). 

8 Supra note 6; Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 130 (2001). 

9

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, 

Chapter 2.808.6.6a (January 2010). 
3

ANALYSIS 

To support her claim that she was entitled to an additional schedule award, appellant 

submitted an October 29, 2013 impairment evaluation from Dr. McManus, a specialist in 

occupational medicine, who determined that she had a 15 percent total impairment of her right 

upper extremity. 

The record shows, however, that appellant previously received schedule awards for a 24 

percent total impairment of her right upper extremity. She received an award for a 5 percent 

impairment under another claim number and she received an award for an additional 19 percent 

under the present case. Evidence from Dr. McManus indicating that appellant currently has 

reduced impairment does not, on its face, support appellant’s claim for additional compensation. 

Appellant’s 2009 schedule award provided 59.28 weeks of compensation, which expired 

on November 24, 2009. The fact that she continues to suffer from permanent physical 

impairment to her right upper extremity, whether that impairment is 15 percent or 19 percent or 

24 percent, does not mean she is entitled to continuing schedule compensation. FECA strictly 

limits compensation for the total loss of an upper extremity, as with amputation at the shoulder, 

to 312 weeks.10 Once that compensation is paid, a claimant is entitled to no further schedule 

compensation for that extremity, despite the fact that the physical impairment is permanent and 

the claimant will have to live with it the rest of his or her life. Partial losses are compensated 

proportionately.11 Thus, a 19 percent impairment of appellant’s right upper extremity entitles her 

to 19 percent of 312 weeks of compensation or 59.28 weeks of compensation, which is what she 

received. Unless a physician offers an impairment rating that is higher than the 24 percent for 

which she has already received schedule compensation, she may not receive an additional 

schedule award. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied an additional schedule award. 

The Board will affirm the December 27, 2013 decision. 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 entitlement to an additional schedule 

award. 

 10 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(1). 

11 Id. at § 8107(c)(19). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 27, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 29, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board