United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Cleveland, OH, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0671

Issued: August 28, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 5, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 19, 2018 merit 

decision and a January 15, 2019 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.3

 

1 Appellant timely requested oral argument pursuant to section 501.5(b) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). By order dated July 16, 2020, the Board exercised its discretion and denied the request, finding 

that the arguments on appeal could adequately be addressed in a decision based on the case record. Order Denying 

Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 19-0671 (issued July 16, 2020).

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that following the January 15, 2019 nonmerit decision, OWCP received additional evidence.

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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP has met its burden of proof to establish that appellant 

received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $20,933.64, for which she was not at 

fault, because she received schedule award compensation for her right upper extremity to which 

she was not entitled; (2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for waiver of recovery 

of the overpayment; (3) whether OWCP properly required recovery of the overpayment by 

deducting $782.00 from appellant’s continuing compensation payments every 28 days; and 

(4) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for a hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8124(b).

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances of the case 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On January 19, 2012 appellant, then a 48-year-old mail processing clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 18, 2012 her right shoulder “popped” while in 

the performance of duty. OWCP accepted her traumatic injury claim for right shoulder sprain and 

right shoulder impingement syndrome. It authorized payment of intermittent wage-loss 

compensation as of March 6, 2012. Appellant worked limited duty until October 2013, when she 

stopped work due to a left shoulder condition. She ultimately retired on disability, effective 

August 8, 2014. 

By decision dated May 23, 2014, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for five 

percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. The period of the award ran for 15.6 

weeks of compensation from November 18, 2013 through March 7, 2014. 

On June 2, 2014 appellant requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. 

By decision dated March 19, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the May 23, 2014 

schedule award decision. On May 26, 2015 appellant appealed the March 19, 2015 decision to the 

Board. 

On April 28, 2016 OWCP expanded acceptance of the claim to include the additional 

condition of algoneurodystrophy, right shoulder. On May 31, 2017 it indicated that the accepted 

conditions of the claim also included unspecified rotator cuff tear or rupture of left shoulder (not 

specified as traumatic), incomplete rotator cuff tear or rupture of left shoulder (not specified as 

traumatic), impingement syndrome of left shoulder, right shoulder and upper arm sprain, other 

affections of right shoulder region, not elsewhere classified, and old disruption of posterior cruciate 

ligament.

 

4 Docket No. 15-1311 (issued July 21, 2017).
3

By decision dated July 21, 2017, the Board set aside the hearing representative’s March 19, 

2015 schedule award decision concerning the right upper extremity.5 The Board remanded the 

case for OWCP to utilize a consistent method for calculating upper extremity impairment ratings. 

Following further development, in a September 4, 2017 report, Dr. Herbert White, Jr., 

Board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation serving as a DMA, reviewed the medical 

evidence of record, including a November 18, 2013 permanent impairment evaluation from

Dr. Jeff C. Kirschman, a Board-certified family practitioner and Board-certified occupational 

medicine specialist.

6

 He opined that appellant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) 

on November 18, 2013, the date of Dr. Kirschman’s impairment examination and report. Utilizing 

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

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides),7the DMA opined that appellant had five percent right upper 

extremity impairment for right partial thickness rotator cuff tear under the diagnosed-based 

impairment (DBI) methodology. He further found that under the range of motion (ROM)

impairment methodology appellant had 16 percent right upper extremity impairment. Thus, the 

DMA opined that appellant had 16 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity as 

the ROM impairment methodology yielded the greatest impairment. As appellant was previously 

awarded 5 percent permanent impairment of her right upper extremity, the DMA indicated that 

she was entitled to an additional impairment award of 11 percent, for a total of 16 percent right 

upper extremity permanent impairment.

By decision dated September 18, 2017, OWCP granted appellant an additional schedule 

award for 11 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity, for a total of 16 percent 

permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. The period of the award ran for 34.32 weeks 

of compensation from May 2 through December 28, 2014 for a total of $25,585.56. 

In a May 8, 2018 report, Dr. Robert R. Reppy, an osteopath and family medicine specialist, 

indicated that appellant reached MMI for her bilateral upper extremities on May 4, 2018. For the 

right upper extremity, he found that appellant had one percent permanent impairment for grade C, 

class 1 nonspecific shoulder pain under Table 15-5, page 401 under the DBI methodology.8

On June 8, 2018 appellant filed a claim for an additional schedule award (Form CA-7). 

On July 10, 2018 OWCP forwarded appellant’s case record to a DMA to determine the 

extent of appellant’s permanent impairment. 

In a July 14, 2018 report, Dr. White, again serving as a DMA, reviewed the medical 

evidence of record and determined that appellant had reached MMI on May 8, 2018. He utilized

 

5 Docket No. 15-1311 (issued July 21, 2017).

6

In a November 18, 2013 report, Dr. Kirschman opined that appellant had 15 percent permanent impairment of the 

right upper extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

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

8 Dr. Reppy also found that the ROM methodology yielded 13 percent permanent impairment of the left upper 

extremity.
4

Dr. Reppy’s May 8, 2018 evaluation findings and set forth impairment ratings for the both upper 

extremities. For the right upper extremity, under the DBI methodology, the DMA opined that 

appellant had four percent permanent impairment for a grade D, class 1 partial-thickness rotator 

cuff tear under the Shoulder Regional Grid, Table 15-5 page 402. He set forth his calculations 

under the A.M.A., Guides. Under the ROM impairment rating method, the DMA indicated that 

he obtained a right upper extremity permanent impairment rating of 7 percent as opposed to

Dr. Reppy’s right upper extremity impairment rating of 13 percent. He indicated that Dr. Reppy 

properly recorded three separate ROM motion efforts. Using Dr. Reppy’s ROM findings and 

rounding to the nearest number ending in 0, the DMA calculated under Table 15-34, page 475: 

110 degrees flexion equaled three percent impairment; 40 (35) degrees extension equaled one 

percent impairment; 90 degrees abduction equaled three percent impairment; 80 degrees adduction 

equaled zero percent impairment; 80 degrees internal rotation equaled zero percent impairment; 

and 70 degrees external rotation equaled zero percent impairment, for a total upper extremity 

impairment of seven percent.9 Under Table 15-35, page 477, and Table 15-7, page 406, he 

assigned a grade modifier for physical examination (GMPE) of 1 and a grade modifier for 

functional history (GMFH) of 2. No grade modifier for clinical studies (GMCS) was utilized as 

the studies were used to define the CDX. The DMA then used Table 16-17, page 545, to find a 

ROM modifier adjustment of .35 percent (5 percent times 7 percent), which yielded a total 

permanent impairment of 7.35 percent rounded down to 7 percent. He concluded that the ROM 

methodology of 7 percent impairment represented appellant’s right upper extremity impairment as 

it produced the higher rating over the 4 percent DBI methodology. As appellant’s previous right 

upper extremity impairment totaled 16 percent, the DMA concluded that appellant had no 

additional impairment. 

By decision dated July 18, 2018, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 12 percent 

permanent impairment of the left upper extremity. Appellant subsequently requested a review of 

the written record by a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

By decision dated November 13, 2018, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

July 18, 2018 decision regarding appellant’s left upper extremity permanent impairment. The 

hearing representative noted that the July 18, 2018 decision was silent with regard to appellant’s 

right upper extremity permanent impairment. Therefore, the case file was remanded for a formal 

decision regarding the permanent impairment of the right upper extremity as well as any further 

development regarding a resulting overpayment. 

In a November 16, 2018 notice, OWCP advised appellant of its preliminary determination 

that she received a $20,933.64 overpayment of compensation because she was granted schedule 

award compensation for a total of 16 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity,

when she was only entitled to receive schedule award compensation for a total 7 percent permanent 

impairment. It explained that the difference between her current right upper extremity permanent 

impairment of 7 percent and 16 percent previously awarded, was 9 percent. In the overpayment 

calculation memorandum, OWCP calculated that the nine percent permanent impairment she was 

overpaid equated to 196.56 days or 28.08 weeks, which multiplied by the $106.50 daily 

 

9 The Board notes that Dr. Reppy recorded adduction of 75, 70, and 77 degrees. The DMA’s notation of 80 degrees 

of adduction is harmless error as adduction greater than 40 degrees equals zero percent impairment under Table 15-34.
5

compensation paid, amounted to $20,933.64 for the period in question. It noted that she was 

previously paid a total of $25,585.56 for the period May 2 through December 28, 2014 in schedule 

award compensation for the additional 11 percent right upper extremity impairment.10 OWCP also 

preliminarily determined that appellant was not at fault in the creation of the overpayment. It 

advised her that she could submit evidence challenging the fact or amount of the overpayment, or 

request waiver of recovery of the overpayment. OWCP informed appellant that she could submit 

additional evidence in writing or at a prerecoupment hearing, but that a prerecoupment hearing 

must be requested within 30 days of the date of the written notice of overpayment. It requested 

that she complete and return an overpayment recovery questionnaire (Form OWCP-20) within 30 

days even if she was not requesting waiver of the overpayment. Appellant did not respond.

By decision dated December 19, 2018, OWCP finalized the November 16, 2018 

preliminary overpayment determination that appellant received a $20,933.64 overpayment of 

compensation, for which she was without fault, because she received schedule award 

compensation for a total of 16 percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity, but was 

only entitled to schedule award compensation for 7 percent. It also denied waiver of recovery of 

the overpayment and required recovery by deducting $782.00 from her continuing compensation.

On January 8, 2019 OWCP received an overpayment action request form dated 

December 30, 2018, on which appellant noted his disagreement that the overpayment occurred.

The envelope was postmarked January 2, 2019.

By decision dated January 15, 2019, OWCP advised appellant that it issued its final 

overpayment decision on December 19, 2018 as it had not received a request for hearing on the 

preliminary determination that an overpayment of compensation had occurred. It further noted 

that a final decision concerning an overpayment was not subject to the hearing provision of 

5 U.S.C. § 8124(b).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Section 8102(a) of FECA provides that the United States shall pay compensation for the 

disability or death of an employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the 

performance of duty.11 Section 8129(a) of FECA provides, in pertinent part, that when an 

overpayment has been made to an individual under this subchapter because of an error of fact or 

law, adjustment shall be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor by 

decreasing later payments to which an individual is entitled.12

 

10 This was verified by a schedule award payment plate indicating that for the period May 2 through December 28, 

2014 appellant received an additional 11 percent right arm schedule award payment for 34.32 weeks of entitlement or 

$25,585.56.

11 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

12 Id. at § 8129(a).
6

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to establish an overpayment 

of compensation.

The Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual Chapter 2.808.9(e) provides that, before 

addressing the issue of whether an overpayment is appropriate, the schedule award issue must be 

resolved. Before the amount of overpayment can be determined, the evidence must clearly 

establish the degree of permanent impairment.13 Herein, OWCP failed to issue a new impairment 

determination regarding the right upper extremity prior to issuing its overpayment decision. As it 

failed to issue a new impairment determination pertaining to the right upper extremity with appeal 

rights, it did not discharge its responsibility in ruling upon her request for an additional schedule 

award. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP has not met its burden of proof to establish that appellant 

received an overpayment of compensation.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 19, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed and the January 15, 2019 decision is set aside as the 

issue of OWCP’s denial of a prerecoupment hearing is moot.14

Issued: August 28, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

13 R.S., Docket No. 20-0311 (issued July 8, 2020).

14 In light of this disposition, the remaining issues are rendered moot.