United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NORFOLK 

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Portsmouth, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0604 

Issued: July 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 23, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 14, 2016 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 has more than seven percent permanent impairment of his 

right lower extremity, for which he previously received a schedule award. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board.2 The facts of the case as presented in the 

prior appeal are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are set forth below. 

On November 6, 2012 appellant, then a 52-year-old marine machinery mechanic, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) for a twisted right ankle due to stepping into a pothole and 

rail track on November 2, 2012. 

By decision dated February 28, 2013, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for right ankle 

sprain. Appellant received intermittent payments of wage-loss compensation on the periodic 

compensation rolls from March 22, 2013 through May 2, 2014. 

Appellant underwent an authorized arthroscopic debridement of the right ankle and 

chondropasty on July 10, 2013. He returned to light-duty work on September 4, 2013. 

On November 5, 2014 OWCP proposed to terminate appellant’s medical and wage-loss 

compensation benefits, finding that the weight of the medical evidence established no continuing 

residuals of his accepted work-related condition.3 

On July 28, 2016 appellant requested a schedule award in a claim for compensation 

(Form CA 7). 

By letter dated July 29, 2016, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

establish entitlement to a schedule award. It afforded him 30 days to submit such evidence. 

In a report submitted by appellant dated May 25, 2016, Dr. Arthur W. Wardell, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, provided a permanent impairment rating for appellant’s right lower 

extremity based upon the sixth edition American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation 

of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides). On examination he noted 0 degrees dorsiflexion, 

20 degrees plantar flexion, inversion to 6 degrees, and eversion to 10 degrees. Dr. Wardell found 

that appellant had 7 percent permanent impairment of the lower extremity due to hind-foot 

stiffness and 7 percent impairment due to ankle motion impairment, for a total of 14 percent. He 

cited Table 16-20 and Table 16-22 of the A.M.A., Guides for calculating these percentages of 

impairment. Dr. Wardell noted a further seven percent permanent impairment due to ankle 

arthritis, which he calculated using Table 16-2. The final total permanent impairment rating 

provided by him for the right lower extremity was 21 percent. 

 2

 Docket No. 15-1726 (issued January 19, 2016). 

3

 By letter dated November 21, 2014, appellant responded to the proposal to terminate his medical and wage-loss 

compensation benefits. He argued that there was an unresolved conflict of medical opinion. By decision dated 

March 4, 2015, OWCP terminated appellant’s medical and wage-loss compensation benefits effective 

March 4, 2015. Appellant filed a timely appeal to the Board on August 17, 2015. By decision dated January 19, 

2016, the Board reversed the termination of appellant’s compensation benefits, finding that OWCP had not met its 

burden of proof to terminate his benefits because there remained an unresolved conflict of medical opinion. Id.
3

OWCP forwarded the case record and a statement of accepted facts to a district medical 

adviser (DMA) on August 25, 2016. In a report dated September 12, 2016, the DMA calculated 

seven percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity based on ankle sprain. He 

noted that his total permanent impairment of the right lower extremity differed from 

Dr. Wardell’s because the hind-foot motion loss was not associated with appellant’s ankle sprain 

and because ankle arthritis was not an accepted condition. Therefore, basing his calculation 

solely on Table 16-22 for appellant’s ankle sprain, the DMA noted a mild motion deficit, 

corresponding to seven percent right lower extremity permanent impairment. He noted that 

appellant’s date of maximum medical improvement was May 25, 2016. 

By decision dated September 14, 2016, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 

seven percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity. It found that the weight of the 

medical evidence rested with the DMA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA4 and its implementing federal regulations5 set 

forth the number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent 

impairment from loss or loss of use, of scheduled members, functions and organs of the body. 

FECA, however, does not specify the manner by which the percentage loss of a member, 

function or organ shall be determined. To ensure consistent results and equal justice for all 

claimants under the law, good administrative practice requires the use of uniform standards 

applicable to all claimants.6

 The A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by the implementing 

regulations as the appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.7 For decisions issued after 

May 1, 2009, the sixth edition is used to calculate schedule awards.8

 It is well established that in 

determining the amount of a schedule award for a member of the body that sustained an 

employment-related permanent impairment, preexisting impairments of the body are to be 

included.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

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

6 Ausbon N. Johnson, 50 ECAB 304, 311 (1999). 

7 Id.

8

 For new decisions issued after May 1, 2009, OWCP began using the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 

3.700, Exhibit 1 (January 2010); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Award and 

Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013). 

9 See Dale B. Larson, 41 ECAB 481, 490 (1990); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. at Chapter 3.700.3.a.3 

(January 2010). This portion of OWCP’s procedure provides that the impairment rating of a given scheduled 

member should include any preexisting permanent impairment of the same member or function. 
4

and Health (ICF).10 Under the sixth edition, the evaluator identifies the impairment class for the 

diagnosed condition (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

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.13

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not established greater than seven percent right lower 

extremity impairment. OWCP accepted that he sustained a right ankle sprain. Appellant 

submitted a report from Dr. Wardell, which calculated a total 21 percent impairment rating for 

his right lower extremity, based on adding 7 percent for ankle motion impairment, 7 percent for 

ankle arthritis, and 7 percent for hind-foot stiffness. 

The Board has previously found that OWCP’s procedures provide that impairment 

ratings for schedule awards should include those conditions accepted by OWCP as work related, 

and any preexisting permanent impairment of the same member or function. If the work-related 

injury has affected any residual usefulness in whole or in part, a schedule award may be 

appropriate.14 Dr. Wardell did not explain whether appellant’s ankle arthritis was preexisting, 

nor did he provide actual measurements of cartilage intervals such that any preexisting arthritis 

could be rated. The diagnosis of ankle arthritis is dependent on x-ray studies demonstrating a 

cartilage interval of three millimeters as well as mild osteophytes with impingement.15 Finally, 

Dr. Wardell did not explain how appellant’s hind foot stiffness was causally related to the 

accepted injury.16 Therefore, his report did not support a finding of more than seven percent 

permanent impairment of the right lower extremity. 

OWCP forwarded Dr. Wardell’s report along with a statement of accepted facts to a 

DMA. The DMA calculated seven percent permanent impairment rating for appellant’s right 

lower extremity, noting that the seven percent impairment rating for ankle motion impairment 

 10 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009), page 3, section 1.3, The International Classification of Functioning, Disability 

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

11 Id. at 383-419. 

12 Id. at 411. 

13 See supra note 7 at Chapter 2.808.6(f) (February 2013). 

14 K.S., Docket No. 15-1082 (issued April 18, 2017). See also supra note 8. 

15 See J.C., Docket No. 16-0156 (issued August 16, 2016). 

16 Supra note 13. 
5

was appropriate. He based his calculation on Table 16-22 for appellant’s ankle sprain.17 The 

DMA properly found a mild motion deficit, based upon Dr. Wardell’s findings of 0 degrees 

dorsiflexion, 20 degrees plantar flexion, inversion to 6 degrees, and eversion to 10 degrees 

corresponding to seven percent right lower extremity impairment rating. The Board finds that 

the DMA’s rating represents the weight of medical opinion. The DMA explained the differences 

between his impairment rating calculations with citations to the A.M.A., Guides, and explained 

why his rating differed from Dr. Wardell’s, noting the areas in which Dr. Wardell’s reports did 

not comport with the A.M.A., Guides. When an attending physician’s report does not comport 

with the A.M.A., Guides, OWCP may rely on the opinion of its medical adviser to apply the 

Guides to the findings of the attending physician.18 Thus, OWCP properly relied on the DMA’s 

final lower right extremity impairment rating of seven percent, based upon appellant’s ankle 

motion impairment. There is no other medical evidence of record containing an impairment 

rating as calculated according to the A.M.A., Guides. 

Therefore, the Board finds that appellant has no more than seven percent permanent 

impairment of his right lower extremity, for which he previously received a schedule award. 

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 no more than seven percent impairment of his right 

lower extremity, for which he received a schedule award. 

 17 Supra note 9 at page 549. 

18 Linda Beale, 57 ECAB 429 (2006). 
6

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 7, 2017 

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