United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.V., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

FORT BLISS TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0731 

Issued: June 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 14, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 20, 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 more than 12 percent 

permanent impairment of the left lower extremity and one percent impairment of the right lower 

extremity for which he received a schedule award. 

On appeal appellant contends that he is entitled to an additional 10 percent left lower 

extremity permanent impairment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 27, 2012 appellant, then a 47-year-old supervisory firefighter, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he injured his left knee when he was tripped during 

physical training. OWCP accepted left knee sprains of the lateral collateral, medial collateral, 

and cruciate ligaments, unspecified internal derangement of the left knee, and osteochondritis 

dissecans, left. Appellant received wage-loss compensation and was placed on the periodic rolls. 

He had left knee arthroscopic reconstruction on October 23, 2012. 

Appellant returned to modified part-time work on January 23, 2013. On April 9, 2013 

OWCP additionally accepted traumatic arthropathy of the left lower leg. Appellant began fulltime modified duty on July 29, 2013. While participating in work hardening, he injured his back 

and groin. OWCP additionally accepted pain in pelvic region and thigh, sprain of pelvis, lumbar 

sprain, thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, sciatica, and unspecified sprain of hip and 

thigh. 

On July 29, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). He 

submitted a June 6, 2014 report in which Dr. Andrew Palafox, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, provided examination findings and advised that, in accordance with Table 16-3, Knee 

Regional Grid, of the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (hereinafter A.M.A., Guides),2 appellant had a class 1 

impairment. After applying modifiers for functional history and physical examination, he 

concluded that appellant had 12 percent left lower extremity due to his knee injury. Dr. Palafox 

also found that, in accordance with Table 16-4, Hip Regional Grid, appellant had an additional 

1 percent impairment, for a total 13 percent permanent impairment, due to soft tissue injury to 

his right hip. He concluded that maximum medical improvement (MMI) had been reached on 

June 6, 2014. Dr. Ronald Blum, an OWCP medical adviser and Board-certified orthopedist, 

agreed with Dr. Palafox’s analysis that appellant had 1 percent right lower extremity permanent 

impairment, and 12 percent left lower extremity permanent impairment. 

In a February 5, 2015 decision, appellant was granted a schedule award for 1 percent 

right lower extremity permanent impairment and 12 percent left lower extremity permanent 

impairment.3

 

On January 19, 2016 appellant underwent an authorized lumbar discectomy at L3-4. He 

stopped work, received wage-loss compensation, and returned to full duty May 27, 2016. 

On October 18, 2016 appellant filed an additional schedule award claim (Form CA-7). In 

an August 30, 2016 report, Dr. Michael Boone, a Board-certified physiatrist, noted the history of 

injury and described appellant’s medical and surgical care and his complaints of left knee and 

right leg discomfort. He advised that, in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

 2

 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009). 

3

 Appellant began part-time work on June 4, 2015. He returned to full duty on July 10, 2015. By decision dated 

October 6, 2015, OWCP found appellant at fault for the creation of an overpayment of compensation of $2,580.86 

that occurred because he continued to receive FECA compensation after he returned to full-time work. 
3

Guides, appellant had a class 1 left lower extremity impairment for cruciate ligament injury, 

which had a default value of 10 percent.4 He found modifiers of 1 for functional history, 

physical examination, and clinical studies. After applying the net adjustment formula, Dr. Boone 

concluded that appellant had a total of 10 percent left lower extremity permanent impairment. 

He also noted that the lumbar spine was not ratable under FECA and found that August 30, 2016 

was the date of MMI. 

In a report dated October 27, 2016, Dr. Arthur S. Harris, an OWCP medical adviser and 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, noted his review of the record including Dr. Boone’s report. 

He advised that appellant had no additional right leg permanent impairment. Dr. Harris agreed 

with Dr. Boone’s assessment that appellant had a total of 10 percent permanent impairment of 

the left leg. He noted that, as appellant had previously received a schedule award for 12 percent 

left lower extremity impairment, he was not entitled to an additional schedule award. 

By decision dated December 20, 2016, OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to an 

additional schedule award because the medical evidence of record did not establish additional 

impairment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

It is the claimant’s burden of proof to establish that he sustained a permanent impairment 

of a scheduled member or function as a result of any employment injury.5 

The schedule award provision of FECA6 and its implementing federal regulations,7 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. 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 for all claimants, OWCP has adopted 

the A.M.A., Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants.8 For decisions issued 

after May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.9

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides provides a diagnosis-based method of evaluation 

utilizing the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability 

 4

 Although Dr. Boone did not specifically identify Table 16-3, Knee Regional Grid, it is clear from his analysis 

that he used this table. 

5 See Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001). 

6

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

8 Id. at § 10.404(a). 

9 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 and Permanent Disability 

Claims, Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013). 
4

and Health (ICF).10 Under the sixth edition, for lower extremity impairments the evaluator 

identifies the impairment class for the diagnosed condition is Class of Diagnosis (CDX), which 

is then adjusted by grade modifiers based on Functional History (GMFH), Physical Examination 

(GMPE) and Clinical Studies (GMCS).11 The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + 

(GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX).12 Under Chapter 2.3, evaluators are directed to provide 

reasons for their impairment rating choices, including choices of diagnoses from regional grids 

and calculations of modifier scores.13 Section 16.2a of the A.M.A., Guides, provides that if the 

class selected is defined by physical examination findings or clinical studies results, these same 

findings may not be used as grade modifiers to adjust the rating.14

OWCP procedures provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file 

should be routed to OWCP’s medical adviser for an opinion concerning the nature and 

percentage of impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with the medical adviser 

providing rationale for the percentage of impairment specified.15 In determining entitlement to a 

schedule award, preexisting impairment to the scheduled member is to be included.16

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to establish more than 12 percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity and 1 percent permanent impairment of the right lower 

extremity. The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides classifies the lower extremity impairment by 

diagnosis, which is then adjusted by grade modifiers.17 Section 16.2a includes instructions for 

performing an impairment analysis using the regional grids. This includes identifying a 

diagnosis and applying the grade modifiers.18 

By decision dated February 5, 2015, OWCP awarded 1 percent permanent impairment of 

the right lower extremity and 12 percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity. 

On October 18, 2016 appellant filed an additional schedule award claim. Dr. Boone, in 

his August 30, 2016 report, noted the history of injury and described appellant’s medical and 

surgical care and his complaints of left knee and right leg pain. He advised that, in accordance 

 10 A.M.A., Guides, supra note 2 at 4, section 1.3, “The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and 

Health (ICF): A Contemporary Model of Disablement.” 

11 Id. at 494-531. 

12 Id. at 521. 

13 Id. at 23-28. 

14 Id. at 500. 

15 See supra note 9 at Chapter 2.808.6f (February 2013). 

16 Peter C. Belkind, 56 ECAB 580 (2005). 

17 A.M.A., Guides, supra note 2 at 497-500. 

18 Id. at 499-500. 
5

with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had a class 1 left lower extremity 

impairment for cruciate ligament injury which had a default value of 10 percent. Dr. Boone 

found grade modifiers of 1 each for functional history, physical examination, and clinical studies. 

After applying the net adjustment formula, he concluded that had a total left lower extremity 

permanent impairment of 10 percent with August 30, 2016 the date of MMI. Dr. Boone found 

no additional right lower extremity permanent impairment. 

In a report dated October 27, 2016, Dr. Harris, an OWCP medical adviser and Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, noted his review of the record including Dr. Boone’s report. He 

advised that appellant had no additional right leg impairment. The medical adviser agreed with 

Dr. Boone’s assessment that appellant had 10 percent impairment of the left leg. 

The degree of functional impairment to a scheduled member is essentially a medical 

question that can only be established by probative medical opinion.19 Dr. Boone applied the 

appropriate sections of the A.M.A., Guides to the clinical findings of record20 and concluded that 

appellant had a total 10 percent left lower extremity permanent impairment. His opinion was 

supported by Dr. Harris, OWCP’s medical adviser. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly evaluated the permanent impairment consistent 

with the A.M.A., Guides. As appellant had previously received a schedule award for 12 percent 

left lower extremity impairment due to his knee condition, he was not entitled to an additional 

schedule award, based on Dr. Boone’s finding of 10 percent left lower extremity impairment due 

to his knee condition, which is less than the 12 percent previously awarded. Therefore, the 

December 20, 2016 decision denying an additional schedule award was proper under the law and 

facts of this case. 

Appellant may request a schedule award or increased schedule award at any time based 

on evidence of a new exposure or medical evidence showing progression of an employmentrelated condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased impairment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish more than 12 

percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity and 1 percent permanent impairment 

of the right lower extremity. 

 19 L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March 3, 2010). 

20 See W.M., Docket No. 11-1706 (issued March 20, 2012). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 20, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 7, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board