United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

N.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

West Sacramento, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0696 

Issued: July 19, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 6, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 10, 2017 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 has established permanent impairment due to her workrelated injuries. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 15, 2015 appellant, then a 57-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that on May 12, 2014 she sustained a work-related lumbar sprain, neck sprain, 

and thoracic sprain. She explained that she was lifting the door of an over the road (OTR) 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

container for a limited-duty clerk. However, the safety latch was not in a proper position and she 

had to release the door and lift it a second time. Appellant explained that she then felt a pull in 

her neck and back. She did not stop work and first received medical care on May 14, 2014. 

By decision dated September 26, 2014, OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of neck, 

sprain of back thoracic region, and sprain of back lumbar region. 

In an August 18, 2015 medical report, Dr. San Joaquin, Board-certified in family 

medicine, provided a history of injury, review of prior medical reports, and findings on physical 

examination. He diagnosed myofascial strain of the cervical spine, lumbar spine sprain/strain, 

and cervical spine disc extrusion. Dr. Joaquin determined that appellant had reached maximum 

medical improvement (MMI) without surgery and her condition was permanent and stationary. 

In accordance with Chapter 15, Table 15-6 of the fifth edition of the American Medical 

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

that appellant had zero percent whole body impairment based on cervical category 1. 

On November 25, 2016 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

By letter dated November 30, 2016, OWCP requested that appellant submit a report from 

her attending physician addressing her work-related condition, the date of MMI, objective 

findings, and subjective complaints. It also advised that the medical report should provide an 

impairment rating rendered according to the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

2

 Appellant was 

afforded 30 days to provide the requested information. She did not respond. 

By decision dated November 30, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule 

award as the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that she sustained permanent 

impairment to a scheduled member or function of the body. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA and its implementing regulations 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.3

 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 to all claimants, good administrative practice 

necessitates the use of a single set of tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to 

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

appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.4

 2

 A.M.A., Guides (2009). 

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107; 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

4 K.H., Docket No. 09-341 (issued December 30, 2011). For decisions issued after May 1, 2009, the sixth edition 

will be applied. B.M., Docket No. 09-2231 (issued May 14, 2010). 
3

As of May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in accordance with the sixth edition 

of the A.M.A., Guides.

5

 The Board has approved the use by OWCP of the A.M.A., Guides for 

the purpose of determining the percentage loss of use of a member of the body for schedule 

award purposes.6

It is the claimant’s burden of proof to establish that he or she has sustained permanent 

impairment of the scheduled member or function as a result of any employment injury7

. OWCP 

procedures provide that, to support a schedule award, the file must contain competent medical 

evidence which shows that the impairment has reached a permanent and fixed state and indicates 

the date on which this occurred (date of MMI), describes the impairment in sufficient detail so 

that it can be visualized on review, and computes the percentage of impairment in accordance 

with the A.M.A., Guides.

8

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

disorders of the spine, a schedule award is not payable under FECA for injury to the spine.9

 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 scheduled 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.10

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

spinal nerve injuries as extremity impairment.11 For peripheral nerve impairments to the upper 

or lower extremities resulting from spinal injuries, OWCP procedures indicate that The Guides 

Newsletter, Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment Using the Sixth Edition 

(July/August 2009) is to be applied.12 FECA approved methodology is premised on evidence of 

radiculopathy affecting the upper and/or lower extremities.13

 5 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January 2010); Federal Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, 

Chapter 2.808.6a (February 2013). CAH: cannot remember, but shouldn’t this be 808.5a? 

6 Isidoro Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961). 

7

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

8

 Federal Procedure Manual, supra note 5 at Chapter 2.808.5 (February 2013). 

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

10 Thomas J. Engelhart, 50 ECAB 319 (1999). 

11 Federal Procedure Manual supra note 5 at Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 4 (January 2010). 

12 See G.N., Docket No. 10-850 (issued November 12, 2010); see also id. at Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1, note 5 

(January 2010). The Guides Newsletter is included as Exhibit 4. 

13 Supra note 8 at Chapter 2.808.5c(3).
4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of neck, sprain of back thoracic region, and 

sprain of back lumbar region. The Board notes that a schedule award is not payable under FECA 

for injury to the spine14 or based on a whole person permanent impairment.15 However, 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.16 The issue is whether appellant 

sustained permanent impairment as a result of her employment-related work injuries. The Board 

finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that, as a result of her 

employment injury, she sustained any permanent impairment to a scheduled member such that 

she would be entitled to a schedule award.17 

The only evidence received in support of appellant’s schedule award claim was an 

August 18, 2015 medical report from Dr. Joaquin. The Board finds that Dr. Joaquin’s report 

does not support appellant’s schedule award claim. 

While Dr. Joaquin determined that appellant had reached MMI, he opined that she 

sustained zero percent whole body impairment. There is no statutory basis for the payment of a 

schedule award for whole body impairment under FECA. Payment is authorized only for the 

permanent impairment of specified members, organs, or functions of the body.18 The Board 

further notes that Dr. Joaquin improperly utilized the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides when 

providing his impairment rating. On March 15, 2009 the Director exercised authority to advise 

that as of May 1, 2009 all schedule award decisions of OWCP should reflect use of the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

19 The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide a 

separate mechanism for rating spinal nerve injuries as extremity impairment.20 For peripheral 

nerve impairments to the upper or lower extremities resulting from spinal injuries, OWCP 

procedures indicate that The Guides Newsletter, Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment 

Using the Sixth Edition (July/August 2009) is to be applied.21

Appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that, as a result of her 

employment injury, she sustained any permanent impairment to a scheduled member warranting 

a schedule award. By letter dated November 30, 2016, OWCP informed her of the type of 

evidence necessary to establish her schedule award claim and specifically requested that she 

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

15 N.M., 58 ECAB 273 (2007). 

16 Thomas J. Engelhart, 50 ECAB 319 (1999). 

17 W.R., Docket No. 13-492 (issued June 26, 2013). 

18 Tania R. Keka, 55 ECAB 354 (2004). 

19 Supra note 5.

20 Federal Procedure Manual supra note 5 at Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 4 (January 2010). 

21 See supra note 12. 
5

submit an impairment evaluation from her attending physician in accordance with the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant did not respond. It is appellant’s burden of proof to 

establish permanent impairment of a scheduled member as a result of an employment injury.22 

The medical evidence of record must include a description of any physical impairment in 

sufficient detail so that the claims examiner and others reviewing the file would be able to clearly 

visualize the impairment with its resulting restrictions and limitations.23 As appellant did not 

submit such evidence, OWCP properly denied her schedule award claim.24 

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 that she is entitled to a schedule award. 

 22 Supra note 7. 

23 See A.L., Docket No. 08-1730 (issued March 16, 2009). 

24 V.W., Docket No. 09-2026 (issued February 16, 2010); L.F., Docket No. 10-343 (issued November 29, 2010). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

decision dated January 10, 2017 is affirmed. 

Issued: July 19, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board