United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Richmond, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0703 

Issued: May 23, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 7, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 20, 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has established that she has more than three percent 

permanent impairment of the right leg for which she previously received a schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 27, 2016 appellant, then a 49-year-old tax examination technician, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 25, 2016 she fractured her right 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

knee in the performance of duty.2

 She stopped work on January 25, 2016. OWCP accepted the 

claim for a tear of the right lateral meniscus. 

On March 9, 2016 Dr. Kevin E. Coates, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed 

a right knee arthroscopy with loose body excision. He found an intact posterior and anterior 

cruciate ligament and medial meniscus, no “articular lesions of the lateral compartment or the 

lateral meniscus,” and grade 3 chondromalacia of the medial femoral condyle. 

Appellant returned to modified full-time employment on April 4, 2016 and to regular 

full-duty employment on June 3, 2016. On July 26, 2016 she filed a claim for a schedule award 

(Form CA-7). 

In a July 11, 2016 impairment evaluation, Dr. Coates opined that appellant reached 

maximum medical improvement (MMI) on July 1, 2016 following surgery to remove a loose 

body in the patellofemoral joint. On examination he found a trace of effusion in the right knee, 

but with full strength. Dr. Coates measured 120 degrees flexion and zero degrees extension of 

the right knee. Citing the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides),3 he identified the diagnosis as 

patellofemoral arthritis using Table 16-3 on page 511, noting that there was no diagnosis 

provided for a loose body. Dr. Coates applied a grade modifier of one for functional history, 

physical examination, and clinical studies, which yielded a net adjustment of zero from the 

default value of three percent. 

An OWCP medical adviser reviewed the record on September 15, 2016 and concurred 

with the impairment rating of Dr. Coates. 

By decision dated October 20, 2016, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for three 

percent permanent impairment of the right leg. The period of the award ran for 8.64 weeks from 

July 11 to September 9, 2016. 

On appeal appellant contends that due to multiple incisions from her right knee surgery 

she can no longer get down on that knee. She requests a greater award due to her pain and 

limitations on daily activities. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA,4

 and its implementing federal regulations,5 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 

 2

 At the time of her injury, appellant was walking through a module to the cafeteria to get breakfast. Her injury 

occurred at 7:30 a.m. and her duty hours were from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. 

3

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

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 
3

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.6

 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.7

The sixth edition requires identifying the impairment Class of Diagnosis (CDX) 

condition, which is then adjusted by grade modifiers based on Functional History (GMFH), 

Physical Examination (GMPE), and Clinical Studies (GMCS).8 The net adjustment formula is 

(GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX). 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a tear of the right lateral meniscus due to a 

January 25, 2016 employment injury. Dr. Coates performed a loose body excision on 

March 9, 2016. He indicated that the anterior and posterior cruciate ligament and medial 

meniscus were intact and that there were no articular lesions of the lateral meniscus or lateral 

compartment. Dr. Coates found grade 3 chondromalacia. 

In an impairment evaluation dated July 11, 2016, Dr. Coates opined that appellant had 

reached MMI after her surgery to remove a loose body in the patellofemoral joint. He measured 

range of motion and found no loss of strength and minimal effusion of the right knee. 

Dr. Coates, using the knee regional grid set forth at Table 16-3 on page 511 of the A.M.A., 

Guides, identified the diagnosis as class 1 patellofemoral arthritis as there was no provision in 

the grid for the diagnosis of a loose body. The A.M.A., Guides provides that, if “a specific 

diagnosis is not listed in the diagnosis-based impairment grid, the examiner should identify a 

similar listed condition to be used as a guide to the impairment calculation.”9

 Dr. Coates applied 

grade modifiers of one for functional history, physical examination, and clinical studies, to find 

no adjustment from the default value of three percent.10 An OWCP medical adviser reviewed 

Dr. Coates’ opinion and concurred with his impairment rating. There is no medical evidence 

showing greater impairment. 

On appeal appellant argues that the schedule award is inadequate as she can no longer get 

down on her knee due to her pain and limitations. Under the schedule, Congress has defined the 

number of weeks of compensation payable for loss of use of a member.11 For 100 percent 

impairment, or total loss of use, of a leg, FECA provides 288 weeks of compensation.12 As 

 6 Id. at § 10.404(a). 

7

 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). 

8

 A.M.A., Guides 494-531. 

9 Id. at 499. 

10 Utilizing the net adjustment formula discussed above, (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX), or 

(1-1) + (1-1) + (1-1) = 0, yielded a zero adjustment. 

11 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

12 Id. at § 8107(c)(2). 
4

explained, appellant has three percent impairment of the right leg which would equate to 8.64 

weeks of compensation. Factors such as limitations on daily activities or recreational activities 

do not go into the determination of impairment under a schedule award.13 The record does not 

contain any medical evidence to establish greater impairment in accordance with the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant thus has not established that she sustained more than 

three percent impairment of the right lower extremity.14

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 has more than three percent 

permanent impairment of the right leg for which she previously received a schedule award. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 20, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 23, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 13 See E.L., 59 ECAB 405 (2008); Dennis R. Stark, 57 ECAB 306 (2006). 

14 See generally C.I., Docket No. 15-1320 (issued December 15, 2015).