United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.V., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAIN POST OFFICE, 

Alexandria, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0656

Issued: March 13, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 31, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 14, 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.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has established permanent impairment to a scheduled

member entitling him to a schedule award.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 Following issuance of the October 24, 2015 OWCP decision, appellant submitted new evidence to OWCP. The 

Board is precluded from reviewing evidence which was not before OWCP at the time of its final decision. 

Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.2(c)(1).
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 14, 2013 appellant, then a 43-year-old carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he injured his right ankle in the performance of duty.3 

OWCP accepted the claim for a right ankle sprain.

Appellant stopped work on March 13, 2013. His physician released him to resume his 

usual work on March 18, 2013.

On May 11, 2016 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). By letter 

dated May 20, 2016, OWCP requested that he submit a report from his attending physician 

addressing whether he had reached maximum medical improvement and the extent of any 

employment-related impairment in accordance with the sixth edition of the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).

4

By decision dated October 14, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule 

award. It noted that he had not submitted evidence supporting a permanent impairment as 

requested.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provision of FECA,5and its implementing federal regulation,6set 

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.7 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.8

A claimant has the burden of proof under FECA to establish a permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member or function as a result of his employment injury entitling him to a schedule 

award.9 Before the A.M.A., Guides can be utilized a description of impairment must be obtained 

from his physician. In obtaining medical evidence required for a schedule award, the evaluation 

made by the attending physician must include a description of the impairment including, where 

 

3 Subsequent to the employment injury the employing establishment properly executed a Form CA-16.

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

5 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

7

Id. at § 10.404(a).

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

Chapter 2.808.5(a) (February 2013); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 

(January 2010). 

9 See D.H., 58 ECAB 358 (2007); Annette M. Dent, 44 ECAB 403 (1993).
3

applicable, the loss in degrees of active and passive motion of the affected member or function, 

the amount of any atrophy or deformity, decrease in strength or disturbance of sensation or other 

pertinent descriptions of the impairment. This description must be in sufficient detail so that the 

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

with its resulting restrictions and limitations.10

ANALYSIS

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a right ankle sprain due to a March 14, 2013 

employment injury. On May 11, 2016 he filed a schedule award claim.

OWCP, on May 20, 2016, requested that appellant submit an impairment evaluation from 

his physician addressing the extent of any employment-related permanent impairment using the 

A.M.A., Guides. Appellant did not, however, submit an impairment evaluation or other medical 

evidence establishing permanent impairment. As noted, he must submit an evaluation from a 

physician that includes a description of impairment in sufficient detail so that the claims 

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

resulting restrictions and limitations.11 Appellant failed to submit any medical evidence 

establishing a permanent impairment due to his accepted right ankle sprain and thus has not met 

his burden of proof.12

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 has not established permanent impairment to a scheduled 

member entitling him to a schedule award.

 

10 D.M., Docket No. 11-0775 (issued October 11, 2011); Peter C. Belkind, 56 ECAB 580 (2005).

11 See C.B., Docket No. 16-0060 (issued February 2, 2016).

12 See P.L., Docket No. 13-1592 (issued January 7, 2014).
4

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 14, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.13

Issued: March 13, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

13 The record contains a Form CA-16 dated March 14, 2013 and signed by the employing establishment. The 

Board has held that where an employing establishment properly executes a Form CA-16, which authorizes medical 

treatment as a result of an employee’s claim for an employment-related injury, it creates a contractual obligation, 

which does not involve the employee directly, to pay the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the 

action taken on the claim. See D.M., Docket No. 13-0535 (issued June 6, 2013); Val D. Wynn, 40 ECAB 

666 (1989). See also 20 C.F.R. § 10.300; Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Authorizing 

Examination and Treatment, Chapter 3.300.3(a)(3) (February 2012).