United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.E., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hartly, DE, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1618 

Issued: May 23, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant1

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 August 8, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an April 29, 

2016 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (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 more than one percent permanent impairment of the 

right upper extremity, for which she previously received a schedule award. 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 16, 2004 appellant, then a 39-year-old postmaster, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 1, 2004 she developed right arm pain, swelling, and 

carpal tunnel syndrome. She stopped work on July 8, 2004 and worked intermittently thereafter. 

On April 27, 2005 OWCP accepted aggravation of right arm lymphedema and later expanded her 

claim to include right carpal tunnel syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome/myofascial pain 

syndrome and thoracic outlet syndrome. 

Appellant was treated by Dr. Joel M. Rutenberg, a neurologist, from August 31, 2004 to 

February 16, 2015, for right arm pain and digit numbness. Her history was significant for breast 

cancer in 2002 with two excisional biopsies and radiation therapy to the right breast. Appellant 

reported swelling of the right arm diffusely. Dr. Rutenberg diagnosed lymphedema in the right 

arm related to radiation therapy for breast cancer, and lower trunk radiation-induced brachial 

plexopathy due to radiation therapy. He opined that appellant had not sustained a specific injury, 

but was forced to do work which exceeded her limitations set by other physicians which 

aggravated her pain syndrome. 

On March 28, 2006 appellant filed a claim for recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) 

alleging that on March 10, 2006 she had pain and swelling of her right shoulder while 

performing her duties. She stopped work on March 12, 2006. Appellant later submitted a 

May 5, 2006 report from Dr. Rutenberg who treated her for right arm discomfort, intermittent 

swelling, numbness of the hand and arm provoked by repetitive movements, lifting, and 

prolonged driving. Dr. Rutenberg diagnosed mild radiation-induced brachial plexopathy 

associated with median neuropathy at the wrist, possible superimposed mild complex regional 

pain syndrome, and myofascial pain syndrome. On June 15, 2006 OWCP denied appellant’s 

claim for a recurrence of disability. Appellant requested a hearing and on August 16, 2006 an 

OWCP hearing representative set aside the June 15, 2006 decision and instructed OWCP to 

develop the recurrence claim as a claim for new occupational disease. OWCP developed this 

under File No. xxxxxx494.3

In decisions dated December 11, 2006, August 13, 2007, June 13, 2008, and December 7, 

2009, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation under File No. xxxxxx494. Appellant 

appealed to the Board and in an order dated August 5, 2009, the Board set aside the June 13, 

2008 decision and remanded the claim to OWCP to combine File Nos. xxxxxx209 and 

xxxxxx494 and issue a merit decision.4

 

In a January 9, 2013 decision, OWCP changed the accepted conditions to include 

temporary aggravation of the right arm lymphedema resolved, temporary aggravation of right 

carpal tunnel syndrome resolved, temporary aggravation of complex regional pain syndrome 

resolved, and temporary aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome, resolved. It based its decision 

on the opinion of Dr. Zohar Stark, a second opinion Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, who 

concluded the aggravation of her medical conditions resolved when she stopped wearing a 

shoulder harness at work. 

 3

 Appellant was separated from employment on March 9, 2007. 

4

 Docket No. 08-2529 (issued August 5, 2009). 
3

On March 26, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). She 

submitted an August 20, 2013 report from Dr. David Weiss, an osteopath, who provided an 

impairment rating under the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment5 (A.M.A., Guides). Dr. Weiss advised that appellant had reached 

maximum medical improvement (MMI) on August 20, 2013. Appellant’s history was significant 

for right breast cancer and a right lumpectomy with radiation. Dr. Weiss diagnosed cumulative 

and repetitive trauma disorder superimposed upon preexisting breast cancer diagnosed in 2002, 

occupational cervical spine syndrome, aggravation of preexisting brachial plexopathy secondary 

to radiation therapy, right carpal tunnel syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome to the right 

arm, cumulative and repetitive trauma disorder with aggravation of preexisting lymphedema of 

the right arm, and subsequent motor vehicle accident in 2008 with aggravation of cervical spine 

pathology and right arm pathology. He noted that the duties of her employment were the 

competent producing factor for her subjective and objective findings. Dr. Weiss evaluated carpal 

tunnel syndrome at the right medial nerve at the wrist under Table 15-23, page 449 of the 

A.M.A., Guides and opined that appellant had six percent permanent impairment of the right 

arm. For right brachial plexus of the upper trunk (C5 and C6), he calculated 19 percent right arm 

permanent impairment. For right brachial plexus of the middle trunk (C7), Dr. Weiss determined 

right upper extremity permanent impairment of three percent. For motor strength deficit for the 

right biceps (C5 and C6), he found right arm permanent impairment of 25 percent. For motor 

strength deficit for the right triceps (C7), Dr. Weiss calculated nine percent permanent 

impairment of the right arm. He noted a final combined right upper extremity permanent 

impairment of 49 percent. 

On December 12, 2013 Dr. Rutenberg reviewed Dr. Weiss’ report of August 20, 2013 

and agreed with his finding that appellant had 49 percent permanent impairment of the right 

upper extremity. 

In a January 17, 2014 report, an OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Weiss’ report and 

noted that he had found deficits with upper extremity motor weakness and sensory deficit which 

were a significant variance from other physician’s findings on physical examination. The 

medical adviser recommended a second opinion referral. 

On April 8, 2014 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Stephen F. Penny, a Board-certified 

neurologist, for a second opinion regarding whether she had permanent impairment attributable 

to her accepted conditions. In a June 11, 2014 report, Dr. Penny noted that appellant’s history 

was significant for brachial plexopathy, breast cancer, carpal tunnel syndrome, hypertension, and 

recurrent major depression. Appellant’s surgical history included a breast biopsy and lymph 

node removal. Current symptoms included pain and swelling in the right arm, specifically the 

right shoulder as well as in the right forearm, wrist, and thumb, difficulty lifting the right arm, 

and pain radiating down her right arm to the forearm and wrist. Dr. Penny noted findings of pain 

with passive range of motion (ROM) of the right shoulder above 70 degrees, pain with internal 

and external rotation of the right shoulder, pain with passive ROM of the right wrist, tenderness 

over the right lateral epicondyle, Tinel’s sign at the right wrist, full right elbow ROM, and full 

right wrist ROM. He noted that assessment of right arm strength was difficult due to 

submaximal effort caused by pain, but appeared to be 4+/5 in proximal and distal muscles, 

 5

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

decreased light touch sensation in the entire right arm. Dr. Penny opined that appellant had 

developed a radiation induced right brachial plexopathy related to her treatment for breast cancer 

and lymphedema. He indicated that musculoskeletal pain involving the shoulder and upper arm 

and regional pain syndrome contributed to her ongoing symptoms. Dr. Penny noted that 

appellant had evidence of mild carpal tunnel syndrome by electromyogram (EMG). He noted 

that appellant had reached maximal medical improvement. Dr. Penny agreed with 

Dr. Rutenberg’s finding that appellant had 49 percent impairment of the right upper extremity. 

In a September 19, 2014 report, an OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Penney’s report. 

He indicated that Dr. Penny had provided nonspecific findings of a brachial plexus lesion and 

4+/5 right arm strength, but did not mention what muscles were impacted, what nerves 

innervated, or how this related to the brachial plexus. He further noted that Dr. Penny had 

agreed with the 49 percent right arm permanent impairment by Dr. Weiss. However, he had not 

performed a rating examination with calculations. Dr. Penny was asked to perform his own 

calculations, based upon his own clinical findings, but he failed to do so. The medical adviser 

recommended that OWCP refer appellant to another second opinion physician with complete 

documentation of all clinical findings and calculations. 

On October 7, 2014 OWCP advised appellant that the second opinion report from 

Dr. Penny failed to contain an independently derived impairment rating consistent with the 

A.M.A., Guides, as requested and the medical adviser recommended appellant be sent for 

another second opinion evaluation to determine impairment. 

In letters dated October 15 and 20, 2014, counsel indicated that the OWCP referral 

physician, Dr. Penny, agreed with Dr. Weiss’ impairment determination and therefore appellant 

should be granted a schedule award for 49 percent permanent impairment of the right upper 

extremity. 

On April 8, 2014 OWCP referred appellant for a new second opinion examination with 

Dr. Willie E. Thompson, a Board-certified physiatrist, for a determination of whether appellant 

had permanent impairment due to her accepted conditions. In an October 21, 2014 report, 

Dr. Thompson noted that the underlying etiology of appellant’s complaints related to the 

mastectomy performed in 2002 with residuals of chronic lymphedema. He noted other accepted 

conditions included aggravation of right upper extremity lymphedema, right carpal tunnel 

syndrome, right complex regional pain syndrome with myofascial pain, and right thoracic outlet 

syndrome. Dr. Thompson noted that under the A.M.A., Guides there was no diagnosis for 

persistent aggravation of the chronic lymphedema to the right arm and, therefore, the impairment 

rating for a chronic lymphedema was zero percent. He advised that there was no clinical 

evidence to support a diagnosis of complex regional pain syndrome and myofascial pain. 

Dr. Thompson noted examination revealed normal appearing skin, there was no discoloration or 

alteration in the overall appearance of the skin with normal motion throughout. With regard to 

complex regional pain syndrome, pursuant to table 15-26, page 454, the class was zero which 

resulted in no impairment. Dr. Thompson indicated that the Allen’s test was normal and there 

was no evidence of any residuals of thoracic outlet syndrome. With regard to brachial plexus 

impairment, pursuant to Table 15-20, page 434 of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant was a class zero 

for no impairment. For entrapment neuropathy resulting in carpal tunnel syndrome, 

Dr. Thompson referenced Table 15-23, page 449 of A.M.A., Guides, and appellant was a grade 1 

modifier for an impairment rating of one percent for the right upper extremity. 
5

OWCP requested that Dr. Thompson provide clarification of his impairment rating and 

provide clinical findings and test results considered in reaching his conclusion. 

In a November 24, 2014 supplemental report, Dr. Thompson noted that appellant had an 

abnormal EMG and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) studies documenting carpal tunnel 

syndrome. He advised that, pursuant to the A.M.A., Guides, entrapment neuropathy, Table 15-

23, page 449, appellant was a grade modifier 1 based on conduction delay in the EMG/NCV 

studies with mild intermittent symptoms and essentially normal examination as it relates to 

entrapment neuropathy. Dr. Thompson noted this resulted in an upper extremity impairment 

rating of one percent. He indicated that, under Table 15-18, carpal tunnel syndrome, pages 449 

and 450, of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant was a grade modifier 1 as test findings on EMG/NCV 

studies were abnormal, her history revealed mild intermittent symptoms, but her examination 

was essentially within normal limits. 

On March 31, 2015 OWCP referred appellant’s file with a statement of accepted facts to 

an OWCP medical adviser. The referral letter indicated that the accepted conditions were 

temporary aggravation of the right arm lymphedema resolved, temporary aggravation of right 

carpal tunnel syndrome resolved, temporary aggravation of complex regional pain syndrome 

resolved, and temporary aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome, resolved. 

In a March 31, 2015 report, an OWCP medical adviser reviewed the medical evidence 

including Dr. Thompson’s reports dated October 21 and November 24, 2014 and concurred in 

his findings. He noted that the date of MMI was October 21, 2014. 

In a decision dated August 21, 2015, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for one 

percent permanent impairment of the right hand. On November 18, 2015 it reissued the 

August 21, 2015 decision. The period of the award was from October 21 to November 7, 2014 

for 2.44 weeks of compensation. 

On December 3, 2015 counsel requested an oral hearing, which was held on 

March 4, 2016. He asserted that OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Penny for an impairment rating 

and, in his report dated June 11, 2014, he concurred with Dr. Weiss’ rating of 49 percent 

impairment, but he failed to reference the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Counsel noted 

that, instead of requesting clarification from Dr. Penny, OWCP referred appellant to another 

second opinion physician, Dr. Thompson. After Dr. Thompson issued his report on October 21, 

2014, OWCP subsequently wrote to Dr. Thompson for clarification and he provided a 

November 24, 2014 addendum. However, it did not explain why it sought clarification from 

Dr. Thompson, but not from Dr. Penny. Counsel further expressed disagreement with the 

statement of accepted facts. He indicated that appellant’s claim was accepted for aggravation of 

right arm lymphedema, right carpal tunnel syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome/ 

myofascial pain syndrome, and thoracic outlet syndrome under File No. xxxxxx209 and 

temporary aggravation of the same conditions under File No. xxxxxx494. Counsel indicated that 

OWCP’s referral letter to the medical adviser noted appellant’s claim was only accepted for 

temporary aggravation of right arm lymphedema resolved, temporary aggravation of right carpal 

tunnel syndrome resolved, temporary aggravation of complex regional pain syndrome/ 

myofascial pain syndrome resolved, and temporary aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome 

resolved, which was erroneous and resulted in a calculation of a rating less than representative of 

appellant’s actual impairment. He noted that appellant’s preexisting state must be factored into 
6

the schedule award calculation. Counsel also noted that appellant’s award was erroneously 

based on one percent impairment of the hand which resulted in a lower award while the medical 

adviser calculated a rating based on one percent impairment of the right arm. 

In an April 29, 2016 decision, the hearing representative affirmed, as modified, the 

November 18, 2015 decision, finding that appellant’s one percent permanent impairment was to 

the arm rather than the right hand.6

 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA7 and its implementing federal regulations8 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.9 For decisions after 

February 1, 2001, the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.10 

For decisions issued beginning May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides will be 

used.11 

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 

and Health (ICF).12 Under the sixth edition, for lower extremity impairments the evaluator 

identifies the impairment for the Class of Diagnosis (CDX) condition, which is then adjusted by 

grade modifiers based on Functional History (GMFH), Physical Examination (GMPE), and 

Clinical Studies (GMCS).13 The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + 

 6

 On September 30, 2016 OWCP issued a decision which granted appellant a schedule award for one percent 

permanent impairment to the right upper extremity less the prior one percent impairment to the right hand issued on 

November 18, 2015. This decision, however, is null and void as the Board and OWCP may not simultaneously have 

jurisdiction over the same case. OWCP may not issue a decision regarding the same issue on appeal before the 

Board, in this instance, a schedule award for right upper extremity impairment. See Russell E. Lerman, 43 ECAB 

770, 772 (1992); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 880 (1990). 

7

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

9 Id. at § 10.404(a). 

10 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 4 

(January 2010). 

11 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 (February2013). 

12 A.M.A., Guides 3, section 1.3, The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): A 

Contemporary Model of Disablement. 

13 Id. at 385-419. 
7

(GMCS - CDX).14 The grade modifiers are used on the net adjustment formula described above 

to calculate a net adjustment. The final impairment grade is determined by adjusting the grade 

up or down the default value C, by the calculated net adjustment.15 

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

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

percentage of impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides with OWCP’s medical 

consultant providing rationale for the percentage of impairment specified.16 

OWCP procedures further provide that, when an OWCP medical adviser, second opinion 

specialist, or referee physician renders a medical opinion based on a SOAF which is incomplete 

or inaccurate, or does not use the SOAF as the framework in forming his or her opinion, the 

probative value of the opinion is seriously diminished or negated altogether.17

ANALYSIS 

Appellant’s claim was accepted by OWCP for aggravation of right arm lymphedema, 

right carpal tunnel syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome/myofascial pain syndrome, and 

thoracic outlet syndrome. It was later accepted for temporary aggravation of the right arm 

lymphedema resolved, temporary aggravation of right carpal tunnel syndrome resolved, 

temporary aggravation of complex regional pain syndrome resolved, and temporary aggravation 

of thoracic outlet syndrome, resolved. 

On March 26, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award and submitted an 

August 20, 2013 report from Dr. Weiss, who found 49 percent permanent impairment of the right 

upper extremity under the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Rutenberg, 

concurred in Dr. Weiss’ impairment rating. 

On April 8, 2014 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion to Dr. Penny who 

reviewed appellant’s medical history and performed a physical examination on June 11, 2014. 

Dr. Penny noted findings of pain with passive ROM of the right shoulder and with internal and 

external rotation, pain with passive ROM of the right wrist, tenderness over the right lateral 

epicondyle, right arm strength was 4+/5 in proximal and distal muscles, decreased light touch 

sensation in the entire right arm compared to the left arm with normal left upper extremity 

strength. Dr. Penny noted that appellant had evidence of mild carpal tunnel syndrome. He 

agreed with Dr. Weiss’ findings that appellant had 49 percent impairment of the right arm. 

OWCP procedures provide that if a second opinion report is equivocal, lacks rationale, or 

fails to address the specific medical issues, the claims examiner should seek clarification or 

 14 Id. at 411. 

15 Id. at 387. 

16 See supra note 11 at Chapter 2.808.6(f) (February 2013). 

17 Id. at Chapter 2.809.4. See also A.C., Docket No. 07-2423 (issued May 15, 2008). 
8

further rationale from that physician.18 It is required to seek clarification from the second 

opinion physician and request a supplemental report to clarify inadequacies in the initial report.19 

Only if the second opinion physician does not respond or does not provide a sufficient response 

after being asked should the claims examiner request scheduling with another physician.20

Following the receipt of Dr. Penny’s report, OWCP determined that he provided 

nonspecific findings on examination and failed to adequately explain his impairment rating. 

However, it did not request a supplemental report from Dr. Penny and did not further develop the 

issue of whether appellant sustained permanent impairment of the right upper extremity causally 

related to her employment injuries. Rather, OWCP referred appellant to another second opinion 

physician. The Board finds that OWCP failed to properly develop the medical evidence in 

keeping with its procedures. 

As noted, OWCP subsequently referred appellant to Dr. Thompson for another second 

opinion evaluation regarding appellant’s claim for a schedule award for the right upper extremity 

due to her work injuries. In an October 21, 2014 report, Dr. Thompson opined that appellant had 

one percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity for carpal tunnel syndrome under 

the A.M.A., Guides. OWCP requested that Dr. Thompson clarify his impairment rating and, in a 

supplemental report dated November 24, 2014, Dr. Thompson again found that appellant had one 

percent permanent impairment of the right arm. On March 31, 2015 an OWCP medical adviser 

concurred in Dr. Thompson’s impairment rating. 

The Board finds that OWCP failed to adequately develop the medical evidence submitted 

by Dr. Penny, the initial second opinion physician. Because of this, OWCP has not adequately 

developed appellant’s claim and has not properly determined appellant’s entitlement to a 

schedule award.21 It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in 

nature and that while the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

compensation, OWCP shares responsibility in the development of evidence. OWCP has an 

obligation to see that justice is done.22 As it failed to follow its procedures to request a 

supplemental report from Dr. Penny, OWCP cannot rely on Dr. Thompson’s second opinion 

report to determine appellant’s entitlement to a schedule award.23

The Board further finds that OWCP’s medical adviser’s March 31, 2015 report is also of 

diminished probative value as the SOAF which OWCP provided to the medical adviser was 

incomplete. It is well established that a physician’s opinion must be based on a complete and 

accurate factual and medical background. When OWCP has accepted an employment condition 

as occurring in the performance of duty, the physician must base his opinion on the accepted 

 18 G.C., Docket No. 16-1109 (issued December 7, 2016); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Developing and Evaluating Medical Evidence, Chapter 2.810.9(j) (June 2015). 

19 Id., see also Ayanle A. Hashi, 56 ECAB 234 (2004). 

20 Supra note 17. 

21 See G.C., supra note 17. 

22 John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354, 358-360 (1989). 

23 Supra note 17. 
9

facts.24 On April 27, 2005 it accepted aggravation of right arm lymphedema and later expanded 

her claim to included right carpal tunnel syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome/myofascial 

pain syndrome, and thoracic outlet syndrome. On January 9, 2013 OWCP accepted temporary 

aggravation of the right arm lymphedema resolved, temporary aggravation of right carpal tunnel 

syndrome resolved, temporary aggravation of complex regional pain syndrome resolved, and 

temporary aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome, resolved, in claim number xxxxxx494 which 

was doubled with the current claim. As it had accepted the conditions of right carpal tunnel 

syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome/myofascial pain syndrome, and thoracic outlet 

syndrome, and they were not accurately included in the SOAF, the medical adviser’s opinion 

was based on an inaccurate SOAF.25 The Board has held that the accepted conditions must be 

included in a SOAF and that when a physician renders a medical opinion based on an incomplete 

or inaccurate history or does not use the SOAF as the framework in forming his or her opinion, 

the probative value of the opinion is diminished.26 

On remand OWCP should amend its SOAF to include all accepted conditions and refer 

the case back to Dr. Penny for a supplemental report to address the inadequacies in the original 

report. Following this and any necessary further development, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision.27 

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 the case is not in posture for decision. 

 24 V.C., Docket No. 14-1912 (issued September 22, 2015).

25 See A.R., Docket No. 11-692 (issued November 18, 2011); Willa M. Frazier, 55 ECAB 379 (2004); supra note 

11 at Chapter 3.600.3 (October 1990). 

26 See S.P., Docket No. 14-1053 (issued October 2, 2014). 

27 See T.H., Docket No. 14-0943 (issued November 25, 2016). 
10

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated April 29, 2016 is set aside and the case remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision. 

Issued: May 23, 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