United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHICAGO 

NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Forest Park, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0864

Issued: October 9, 2018

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 14, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 21, 2018 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 a permanent impairment of either upper 

extremity entitling her to a schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 1, 2015 appellant, then a 49-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that on that date, while at work, she sustained swelling and tingling of the left 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

shoulder throwing sacks down from a keying station.2 She stopped work the next day on 

August 2, 2015. OWCP accepted the claim for a sprain of the left rotator cuff capsule, a sprain of 

the cervical spine ligaments, cervical radiculopathy, unspecified cervical disc displacement, 

cervical spinal stenosis, and left shoulder and upper arm acromioclavicular sprain. It paid appellant 

wage-loss compensation for total disability beginning September 15, 2015 as the employing 

establishment was unable to accommodate her work restrictions. 

On January 3, 2017 Dr. Kern Singh, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed a 

cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-6. 

Appellant underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) on August 17, 2017. The 

evaluator determined that she provided variable efforts on the evaluation and that as a result he 

was unable to determine her exact work abilities. 

In a report dated September 14, 2017, Dr. Singh reviewed the result of the FCE and found 

that appellant had full motor strength of the upper extremity. He diagnosed status post anterior 

cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-6. Dr. Singh released appellant to resume work without 

restrictions, noting that she provided inconsistent effort on the FCE. He opined that she had 

reached maximum medical improvement (MMI).

3

Appellant, on October 3, 2017, filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). On 

October 5, 2017 OWCP requested that she submit an impairment evaluation from her attending 

physician addressing the extent of any permanent impairment using the sixth edition of the 

American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., 

Guides).4 

On October 17, 2017 appellant advised OWCP that her physician did not provide 

impairment ratings and requested a second opinion examination.5 

By decision dated February 21, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule 

award. It found that she had not submitted any medical evidence demonstrating that she had a 

permanent impairment.

On appeal, appellant asserts that she has not reached MMI.

 

2 OWCP previously accepted that appellant sustained tendinitis of the left arm due to an August 21, 2002 work 

injury under File No. xxxxxx762, and right lateral epicondylitis due to an October 12, 2013 work injury under File 

No. xxxxxx822. 

3 Appellant resumed her usual employment on September 15, 2017. 

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

5 On October 25, 2017 appellant telephoned OWCP and indicated that her physician would perform a permanent 

impairment rating; however, on October 27, 2017 she related that he would not evaluate her impairment and again 

requested a second opinion examination. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provision of FECA,6and its implementing federal regulations,

7

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 

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.8 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.9

A claimant has the burden of proof under FECA to establish a permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member or function as a result of his or her employment injury entitling him or her to a 

schedule award.10 Before the A.M.A., Guides can be utilized a description of impairment must be 

obtained from his physician. In obtaining medical evidence required for a schedule award, the 

evaluation made by the attending physician must include a description of the impairment 

including, where applicable, the loss in degrees of active and passive motion of the affected 

member or function, the amount of any atrophy or deformity, decrease in strength or disturbance 

of sensation or other pertinent descriptions of the impairment. This description must be in 

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

visualize the impairment with its resulting restrictions and limitations.11

OWCP’s procedures provide that, if a claimant has not submitted an impairment 

evaluation, it should request a detailed report that “includes history of clinical presentation, 

physical findings, functional history, clinical studies or objective tests, analysis of findings, and 

the appropriate impairment based on the most significant diagnosis, as well as a discussion of how 

the impairment rating was calculated.”

12

 If the claimant does not provide an impairment 

evaluation, “and there is no indication of permanent impairment in the medical evidence of file, 

the [claims examiner] may proceed with a formal denial of the award.”

13

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not established a permanent impairment entitling her to 

a schedule award. OWCP accepted that she sustained a sprain of the left rotator cuff capsule, a 

 

6 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

7 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

8

Id. at § 10.404(a).

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

2.808.5(a) (March 2017); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010). 

10 See D.H., 58 ECAB 358 (2007); Annette M. Dent, 44 ECAB 403 (1993).

11 D.M., Docket No. 11-0775 (issued October 11, 2011); Peter C. Belkind, 56 ECAB 580 (2005).

12 Supra note 9 at Chapter 2.808.6(a) (February 2013).

13 Id. at Chapter 2.808.6(c).
4

sprain of the cervical spine ligaments, cervical radiculopathy, unspecified cervical disc 

displacement, cervical spinal stenosis, and a left shoulder and upper arm acromioclavicular sprain

due to an August 1, 2015 employment injury. Appellant underwent a cervical discectomy and 

fusion at C5-6 on January 3, 2017. Her attending physician, Dr. Singh, found on September 14, 

2017 that she had reached MMI and released her to return to her usual employment without 

restrictions.

On October 3, 2017 appellant filed a schedule award claim. OWCP, on October 5, 2017, 

requested that she submit an impairment evaluation from her physician addressing the extent of 

any employment-related permanent impairment using the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant did not, 

however, submit an impairment evaluation or other medical evidence establishing permanent 

impairment. Appellant failed to submit any medical evidence establishing a permanent 

impairment due to her accepted employment injury and thus has not met her burden of proof.14 

She requested that OWCP schedule a second opinion examination, however, as there was no 

indication of permanent impairment in the record, OWCP denied her claim in accordance with its 

procedures.

15

On appeal, appellant contends that she has not reached MMI. MMI means that the physical 

condition of the injured member of the body has stabilized and will not improve further.16 As 

noted, Dr. Singh found that appellant had obtained MMI in his September 14, 2017 report. Once 

an impairment has reached MMI, a permanent impairment rating may be performed.17 A schedule

award is not payable until MMI has been attained.

18

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 employment-related 

condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased impairment. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established a permanent impairment of either upper 

extremity entitling her to a schedule award.

 

14 See P.L., Docket No. 13-1592 (issued January 7, 2014).

15 See supra note 13.

16 See D.Y., Docket No. 16-0987 (issued September 8, 2016).

17 See G.G., Docket No. 16-1170 (issued November 14, 2016); Patricia J. Penny-Guzman, 55 ECAB 757 (2004).

18 See A.M.A., Guides 20, Table 2-1; see also Orlando Vivens, 42 ECAB 303 (1991).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 21, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 9, 2018

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