United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0026 

Issued: February 22, 2016 

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 September 30, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 3, 2015 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 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 the case.3

 1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of the last OWCP 

decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. § 

501.3(e)-(f). The Board notes 180 days from April 3, 2015, the date of OWCP’s merit decision was 

September 30, 2015. Since using October 7, 2015, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Board, 

would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. As the postmark 

was September 30, 2015, it was timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

3

 The Board notes that as appellant filed an appeal from the April 3, 2015 merit decision of OWCP, the Board’s 

jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the evidence that was before OWCP at the time of that decision. Therefore, any 

additional evidence submitted to OWCP cannot be considered by the Board. 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established permanent impairment for more than five 

percent permanent impairment of her left leg, for which she received a schedule award. 

On appeal, appellant contends that her treating physician determined a greater degree of 

permanent impairment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 25, 2011 appellant, then a 27-year-old transportation security officer (screener) 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on April 10, 2011, while lifting a lot of 

heavy objects in a short amount of time, she suffered lower back pain/left leg pain. On May 31, 

2011 OWCP accepted her claim for sprain of the lumbar region of the back. It subsequently 

accepted appellant’s claim for disc herniation at L4-5, lumbosacral radiculopathy, and acquired 

left foot drop. OWCP paid intermittent compensation benefits until March 10, 2013, when she 

began receiving total disability benefits on the periodic rolls. 

In a December 3, 2014 report, Dr. James L. Chappuis, appellant’s treating Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, noted that appellant was status post lumbar fusion L3 to S1 and had chronic 

L5 radiculopathy on the left with greatly improving left muscular weakness and resolved foot 

drop. He noted that appellant continued to complain of back pain and had occasional numbness 

that traveled from her left knee to her left foot. Dr. Chappuis noted that appellant had 5/5 

strength in all muscles of her lower extremities with the exception of 4+/5 strength in her left 

peroneus. He further indicated that appellant had normal gait and was able to dorsiflex her foot 

with relative ease. Dr. Chappuis opined that appellant was at maximum medical improvement 

following her recovery from her lumbar fusion surgery and that pursuant to the fifth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides, she had a permanent partial disability rating of 20 percent. 

On January 13, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

On March 12, 2015 OWCP asked its medical adviser to evaluate appellant’s permanent 

impairment. OWCP’s medical adviser responded on March 13, 2015 that appellant had zero 

percent impairment of her upper extremities and her right lower extremity. He noted that 

appellant had chronic low back pain and left leg pain from her accepted employment injury, and 

that imaging confirmed lumbar disc herniation at L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1. The medical adviser 

also noted an interbody fusion L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1, with decompression spinal canal and 

neuroforamen and instrumental fusion L3-S1 performed on March 12, 2013. He stated that 

based on The Guides Newsletter, July/August 2009, page 6, Table 2, mild motor deficit of the L5 

nerve root equaled five percent permanent impairment of the left leg.4

 The medical adviser 

noted that no adjustment was made for functional history or clinical studies. 

By decision dated April 3, 2015, OWCP issued a schedule award for five percent 

permanent impairment of the left leg. 

 4

 Specifically, the medical adviser referred to the American Medical Association (A.M.A.,) The Guides 

Newsletter, July/August 2009 edition. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A schedule award can be paid only for a condition related to an employment injury. The 

claimant has the burden of proof to establish that the condition for which a schedule award is 

sought it causally related to his or her employment.5

Section 8107 of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the 

permanent loss of use of specified members, functions, and organs of the body.6

 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.7

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

appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.8

 Effective May 1, 2009, schedule awards 

are determined in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

9

 

Although the A.M.A., Guides include guidelines for estimating impairment due to 

disorders of the spine, a schedule award is not payable under FECA for injury to the spine.10 In 

1960, amendments to FECA modified the schedule award provisions to provide for an award for 

permanent impairment to a member of the body covered by the schedule regardless of whether 

the cause of the impairment originated in a schedule or nonscheduled member. Therefore, as the 

schedule award provisions of FECA include the extremities, a claimant may be entitled to a 

schedule award for permanent impairment to an extremity even though the cause of the 

impairment originated in the spine.11

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide a separate mechanism for rating 

spinal nerve injuries as impairment of the extremities. Recognizing that FECA allows ratings for 

extremities and precludes ratings for the spine, The Guides Newsletter, July/August 2009, offers 

an approach to rating spinal nerve impairments consistent with sixth edition methodology.12 

 5 Veronica Williams, 56 ECAB 367 (2005). 

6

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

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

8

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

9

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

Chapter 2.808.6.6a (January 2010); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 

(January 2010); J.B., Docket No. 09-2191 (issued May 14, 2010). 

10 Pamela J. Darling, 49 ECAB 286 (1998). 

11 Thomas J. Englehart, 50 ECAB 319 (1999). 

12 L.J., Docket No. 10-1263 (issued March 3, 2011). 
4

OWCP has adopted this approach for rating impairment to the upper or lower extremities caused 

by a spinal injury.13

An opinion on permanent impairment is of limited probative value if it is not derived in 

accordance with the standards adopted by OWCP and approved by the Board as appropriate for 

evaluating schedule losses.14

In some instances, OWCP’s medical adviser’s opinion can constitute the weight of the 

medical evidence. This occurs in schedule award cases where an opinion on the percentage of 

permanent impairment and a description of physical findings is on the file from an examining 

physician, but the percentage estimate by the physician is not based on the A.M.A., Guides. In 

this instance, a detailed opinion by the medical adviser may constitute the weight of the medical 

evidence.15

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of the lumbar region of the back, disc 

herniation at L4-5, lumbosacral radiculopathy, and acquired left foot drop. On January 13, 2015 

OWCP issued a schedule award for five percent permanent impairment of appellant’s left leg. 

OWCP determined that appellant had five percent permanent impairment of her left leg 

based on the opinion of OWCP’s medical adviser. The medical adviser reviewed the medical 

evidence of record, including the reports of Dr. Chappuis, and determined that appellant did well 

following her surgery, but she had chronic residuals of left L5 radiculopathy with impairment for 

weakness of the left peroneus. He applied the The Guides Newsletter interpreting the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides, and noted that pursuant to Table 2, appellant’s residuals could be 

described as mild motor deficit of the L5 nerve root which equaled five percent impairment of 

the left lower extremity. The medical adviser noted that no adjustments were made for 

functional history or clinical studies. Accordingly, he provided a rationalized opinion that 

properly applied the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides and determined that appellant had five 

percent permanent impairment of her left leg. 

Appellant argues that her treating physician found that she was entitled to a greater 

schedule award. Dr. Chappuis, in a December 3, 2014 report, determined that appellant was 

entitled to a schedule award based on a permanent partial disability rating of 20 percent pursuant 

to the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Initially, the Board notes that the calculations of 

Dr. Chappuis under the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides are irrelevant as the sixth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides was the appropriate edition of the A.M.A., Guides to apply effective 

May 1, 2009.16 Dr. Chappuis did not provide any explanation as to how he arrived at the 20 

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

(January 2010). 

14 R.L., Docket No. 14-1479 (issued October 28, 2014). 

15 A.A., Docket No. 15-0898 (issued July 28, 2015). 

16 See supra note 8; see also D.M., Docket No. 13-2073 (issued March 18, 2014). 
5

percent impairment figure through application of the A.M.A., Guides. The Board also notes that 

FECA does not authorize the payment of schedule awards for the permanent impairment of the 

whole person.17 

Appellant argues on appeal that her treating physician later evaluated her under the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides. There was no probative medical evidence of record at the time of 

the April 3, 2015 schedule award decision, in conformance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides, establishing that appellant had more than five percent permanent impairment of his left 

leg. Accordingly, appellant has not established that she is entitled to a schedule award greater 

than that received. 

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 did not establish more than five percent permanent 

impairment of her left leg. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated April 3, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: February 22, 2016 

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 

 17 Y.M., Docket No. 13-1626 (issued November 13, 2013).