United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

C.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SECRET SERVICE, New York, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0945 

Issued: June 26, 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 March 28, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 17, 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 more than three percent permanent impairment of the 

left upper extremity for which he previously received a schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On October 19, 2015 appellant, then a 43-year-old special agent, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 21, 2015 he dislocated his left shoulder, tore his 

labrum, and fractured his shoulder participating in required physical fitness training. OWCP 

accepted the claim for a superior glenoid labrum lesion of the left shoulder and an anterior 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

dislocation of the left humerus. On October 22, 2015 appellant underwent a left shoulder 

arthroscopy with Bankart repair. 

Appellant, on May 17, 2016, filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). By letter 

dated June 2, 2016, OWCP requested that he submit an impairment evaluation from his attending 

physician addressing the extent of any employment-related impairment in accordance with the 

sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides). 

Appellant advised OWCP on August 30, 2016 that his physician did not provide 

impairment ratings. 

On December 29, 2016 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Surya Raguthu, a Board-certified 

physiatrist, for a second opinion examination. In a report dated January 5, 2017, Dr. Raguthu 

noted that appellant complained of weakness and pain in the left shoulder. On examination of 

the left shoulder he found tenderness at the biceps and range of motion “grossly within normal 

limits.” Dr. Raguthu diagnosed a left shoulder superior glenoid labrum lesion and anterior 

dislocation of the left humerus. He found that appellant obtained maximum medical 

improvement on January 5, 2017. Using the shoulder regional grid set forth at Table 15-5 on 

page 404 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, Dr. Raguthu identified the diagnosis as a 

class 1 anterior dislocation of the left humerus and SLAP (superior labral tear from anterior to 

posterior) lesion, which yielded a default value of three percent. He applied grade modifiers of 

one for functional history and physical examination and a grade modifier of two for clinical 

studies to find an adjustment of one from the default value, or four percent permanent 

impairment of the left upper extremity. 

An OWCP medical adviser reviewed the evidence on March 2, 2017. He found that 

Dr. Raguthu erred in applying a grade modifier for clinical studies as it was used to identify the 

diagnosis in the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) grid. The medical adviser determined that 

appellant had three percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity due to his superior 

glenoid labrum lesions using Table 15-5 on page 404 of the A.M.A., Guides. 

By decision dated March 17, 2017, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for three 

percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity. The period of the award ran for 9.36 

weeks from January 5 to March 11, 2017. 

On appeal appellant contends that the opinion of Dr. Raguthu is entitled to more weight 

than that of OWCP’s medical adviser as he performed an examination. He further maintains that 

he does not have normal motion of the shoulder. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8149 of FECA delegates to the Secretary of Labor the authority to prescribe rules 

and regulations for the administration and enforcement of FECA. The Secretary of Labor has 

vested the authority to implement the FECA program with the Director of OWCP.2 Section 8107 

of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the permanent loss of 

 2 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-1.4. 
3

use of specified members, functions, and organs of the body.3

 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 under the law, good administrative practice 

requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all claimants. Through its implementing 

regulations, OWCP adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate standard for evaluating 

schedule losses.4 

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides was first printed in 2008. Within months of the 

initial printing, the A.M.A. issued a 52-page document entitled “Clarifications and Corrections, 

Sixth Edition, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.” The document included 

various changes to the original text, intended to serve as an erratum/supplement to the first 

printing of the A.M.A., Guides. In April 2009, these changes were formally incorporated into 

the second printing of the sixth edition. 

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

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

ANALYSIS 

The issue on appeal is whether appellant has more than three percent permanent 

impairment of the left upper extremity. 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

The Board has found that OWCP has inconsistently applied Chapter 15 of the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides when granting schedule awards for upper extremity claims. No 

consistent interpretation had been followed regarding the proper use of the DBI or the range of 

motion (ROM) methodology when assessing the extent of permanent impairment for schedule 

award purposes.7 The purpose of the use of uniform standards is to ensure consistent results and 

to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants.8 In T.H., the Board concluded that OWCP 

physicians are at odds over the proper methodology for rating upper extremity impairment, 

having observed attending physicians, evaluating physicians, second opinion physicians, 

impartial medical examiners, and district medical advisers use both DBI and ROM 

 3

 For a complete loss of use of an arm, an employee shall receive 312 weeks’ compensation. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8107(c)(1). 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. See also Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 130 (2001). 

5 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 (February 2013). 

6 Isidoro Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961). 

7 T.H., Docket No. 14-0943 (issued November 25, 2016). 

8 Ausbon N. Johnson, 50 ECAB 304, 311 (1999). 
4

methodologies interchangeably without any consistent basis. Furthermore, the Board observed 

that physicians interchangeably cite to language in the first printing or the second printing when 

justifying use of either ROM or DBI methodology. Because OWCP’s own physicians are 

inconsistent in the application of the A.M.A., Guides, the Board found that OWCP could no 

longer ensure consistent results and equal justice under the law for all claimants.9

 

In order to ensure a consistent result and equal justice under the law for cases involving 

upper extremity impairment, the Board will set aside the March 17, 2017 decision. Utilizing a 

consistent method for calculating permanent impairment for upper extremities to be applied 

uniformly, and such other development as may be deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a 

de novo decision on appellant’s claim for an upper extremity schedule award. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 17, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: June 26, 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 

 9 Supra note 7.