United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.K., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Greenfield, IN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0737

Issued: September 20, 2019

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 12, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 6, 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 the case.2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment of her bilateral upper extremities, warranting a schedule award.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure

provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the 

time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.”

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on 

appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 2, 2017 appellant, then a 57-year-old rural carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that same date she was bitten by a dog on her left upper arm

while in the performance of duty. She stopped work on September 2, 2017 and received 

continuation of pay through October 17, 2017. OWCP initially accepted her claim for open bite 

of the left forearm, and subsequently expanded the claim to include unspecified open wound of 

the right little finger and right small finger contracture. Beginning October 18, 2017, it paid 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation for temporary total disability on the supplemental rolls. 

OWCP also authorized February 8 and June 14, 2018 right small finger surgical procedures, which 

were performed by Dr. William B. Kleinman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. It continued 

to pay wage-loss compensation for temporary total disability in connection with appellant’s 

authorized surgeries. Effective July 23, 2018, Dr. Kleinman released appellant to resume her fulltime, regular-duty work without restrictions.

In a July 23, 2018 report, Dr. Kleinman noted he released appellant from his care with a 40 

percent partial impairment of her right small finger.

On September 5, 2018 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7).

In a development letter dated September 11, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

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

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

Guides).3 It indicated that Dr. Kleinman’s July 23, 2018 report was insufficient to support her 

claim for a schedule award because he had not provided a final impairment rating with a discussion 

of the rationale for calculation with references to tables in the A.M.A., Guides. OWCP further 

noted that if her physician was unable or unwilling to provide the required report she should advise 

it in writing and if the case met the essential elements for a schedule award, and the medical 

evidence of record was insufficient to determine permanent impairment, they would refer her to a 

second opinion physician. It afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In a September 20, 2018 note, Dr. Kleinman advised that he did not work with the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides. He recommended that appellant be referred to a physical therapist 

for an impairment rating and once the report was received he would review the findings.

By a decision dated December 6, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule 

award. 

 

3 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009). 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA4and its implementing regulations5set 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. FECA, however, does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss of a member 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 and the Board has concurred in such 

adoption.6 As of May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009, is used 

to calculate schedule awards.7

In addressing impairment for the upper extremities under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides, an evaluator must establish the appropriate diagnosis for each part of the upper extremity 

to be rated.8 After a class of diagnosis (CDX) is determined (including identification of a default 

grade value), the impairment class is then adjusted by grade modifiers based on functional history 

(GMFH), physical examination (GMPE), and clinical studies (GMCS).9 The net adjustment 

formula is (GMFH – CDX) + (GMPE – CDX) + (GMCS – CDX).10 

OWCP procedures provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file 

should be routed to OWCP’s DMA for an opinion concerning the nature and percentage of 

impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with the DMA providing rationale for the 

percentage of impairment specified.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish entitlement 

permanent impairment of her bilateral upper extremities, warranting a schedule award. 

In his July 23, 2018 report, Dr. Kleinman noted that appellant had 40 percent impairment 

of the right small finger. He returned her to full activities without restriction. However,

 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

6

Id. at 10.404(a); see also Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 139 (2002). 

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

2.808.5(a) (March 2017); see also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter

3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

8 T.T., Docket No. 18-1622 (issued May 14, 2019).

9 A.M.A., Guides 383-492; see M.P., Docket No. 13-2087 (issued April 8, 2014).

10 Id. at 411.

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

Chapter 2.808.6; R.M., Docket No. 18-1313 (issued April 11, 2019); C.K., Docket No. 09-2371 (issued 

August 18, 2010).
4

Dr. Kleinman did not adequately explain how his determination was reached in accordance with 

the relevant standards of the A.M.A., Guides.

12

 In his report, he provided no findings on 

examination or a diagnosis. Although Dr. Kleinman noted that appellant sustained 40 percent 

impairment of the right small finger he failed to provide his calculations in support of this 

determination. Additionally, he did not cite to tables or charts for an impairment rating 

determination. Therefore, the Board finds that Dr. Kleinman did not properly follow the A.M.A., 

Guides, and an attending physician’s report is of little probative value where the A.M.A., Guides

were not properly followed.13 

In a development letter dated September 11, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

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

A.M.A., Guides.

14

 It further noted that if her physician was unable or unwilling to provide the 

required report to advise it in writing, and if the case met the essential elements for a schedule 

award and the medical evidence of record was insufficient to determine permanent impairment,

they would refer her to a second opinion physician. Appellant did not submit a medical report that 

specifically addressed the criteria for rating purposes, nor did she notify OWCP that her physician 

was unable or unwilling to provide an impairment rating pursuant to the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides.

The Board finds that there is no medical evidence of record utilizing the appropriate tables 

of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides demonstrating permanent impairment. OWCP 

explained that Dr. Kleinman’s rating of 40 percent permanent impairment was erroneous under 

the A.M.A., Guides because he failed to properly assign a class or grade modifiers in his

calculations. The Board has held that when the attending physician fails to provide an estimate of 

impairment conforming to the A.M.A., Guides, or does not discuss how he arrives at the degree of 

impairment based on physical findings, his or her opinion is of diminished probative value in 

establishing the degree of impairment.

15

There is no probative medical evidence of record, in conformance with the sixth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides, establishing that appellant has permanent impairment of the bilateral upper 

extremities. 

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.

 

12 See Tonya R. Bell, 43 ECAB 845, 849 (1992).

13 See Paul R. Evans, Jr., 44 ECAB 646 (1993); John Constantin, 39 ECAB 1090 (1988) (medical report not 

explaining how the A.M.A., Guides are utilized is of little probative value).

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

15 Supra note 13.
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment of her bilateral upper extremities, warranting a schedule award.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 6, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 20, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board