United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Merrifield, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0346

Issued: July 8, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 2, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 20, 2019 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.2

ISSUE

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

impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award. 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the November 20, 2019 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 26, 2018 appellant, then a 57-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on April 20, 2018 she sustained injuries to her right ankle, right hip, 

and right upper side of her body when she tripped over a hand truck bed while in the performance 

of duty. On April 23, 2018 she was released to modified-duty work. OWCP accepted her claim 

for “strain of unspecified muscle, fascia and tendon at shoulder and upper arm level, right arm, 

initial encounter.” 

On January 29 and April 4, 2019 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7)

and submitted progress reports and office visit notes dated January 29 to April 22, 2019 by

Dr. Gordon Avery, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Avery recounted that she still 

complained of pain and weakness in her right shoulder due to an April 20, 2018 employment 

injury. Upon examination of the right shoulder, he observed full range of motion (ROM) and no 

acromioclavicular (AC) joint tenderness. Speed’s and impingement signs were positive. 

Dr. Avery diagnosed right shoulder impingement syndrome, partial tear of the right rotator cuff, 

tendinopathy of the right biceps tendon, osteoarthritis of the right glenohumeral joint, and Hill 

Sachs deformity. 

In a development letter dated April 12, 2019, OWCP requested that appellant submit an 

impairment evaluation from her physician addressing whether she had reached maximum medical 

improvement (MMI) and evaluating the extent of permanent impairment, if any, in accordance 

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

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).3 It afforded her 30 days to submit the requested information. 

By decision dated July 26, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim finding 

that she had not submitted medical evidence to establish permanent impairment of a scheduled 

member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award. 

On August 15, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. She noted that she had relevant 

evidence to show that her April 20, 2018 employment injury was ongoing and that she had reached 

MMI. 

In support of her request, appellant submitted a March 12, 2019 letter from Dr. Avery, who 

recounted that he had treated her since November 27, 2018 for a work injury sustained on 

April 20, 2018. Dr. Avery noted that she had been managed conservatively, but may require 

surgery. He reported diagnoses of right shoulder impingement syndrome, partial tear of the right 

rotator cuff, right biceps tendon tendinopathy, right glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis, and Hill 

Sachs deformity. In progress reports dated March 12 to September 17, 2019, Dr. Avery provided 

examination findings and reiterated the diagnosed conditions. In an April 22, 2019 progress note,

he indicated that appellant had reached MMI. 

 

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

In a July 2, 2019 note, Dr. Avery again indicated that appellant had reached MMI on

April 22, 2019. He opined, however, that there was no permanent partial impairment on the basis 

of this injury. 

OWCP also received duty status reports (Forms CA-17) dated April 1 and September 17, 

2019 by Dr. Avery, who indicated that appellant could work modified duty. 

By decision dated November 20, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the July 26, 2019 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provision of FECA4and its implementing federal regulations,5set 

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, the Board has authorized the use of 

a single set of tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to all claimants.6 For 

schedule awards after May 1, 2009, the impairment is evaluated under the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009.7 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.8 

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

scheduled member or function of the body as a result of his or her employment injury entitling 

him or her to a schedule award.

9

 Before the A.M.A., Guides can be utilized a description of 

impairment must be obtained from his or her 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.10

 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

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) (March 2017); see also id. Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

8 D.S., Docket No. 18-1140 (issued January 29, 2019); Isidoro Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961). 

9 See M.G., Docket No. 19-0823 (issued September 17, 2019); D.F., Docket No. 18-1337 (issued February 11, 

2019); Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001).

10 K.F., Docket No. 18-1517 (issued October 9, 2019); A.T., Docket No. 18-0864 (issued October 9, 2018).
4

OWCP’s procedures provide that, to support a schedule award, the file must contain 

competent medical evidence which shows that the impairment has reached a permanent and fixed 

state and indicates the date on which this occurred (date of MMI), describes the impairment in 

sufficient detail so that it can be visualized on review, and computes the percentage of impairment 

in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides.11 If the claimant does not provide an impairment 

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

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

12

ANALYSIS

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

impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award.

In support of her schedule award claim, appellant submitted medical reports, letters, and 

Form CA-17 reports from Dr. Avery dated January 29 to September 17, 2019. Dr. Avery noted 

her continued complaints of right shoulder pain and weakness after an April 20, 2018 job injury. 

He provided examination findings and diagnosed right shoulder impingement syndrome, partial 

tear of the right rotator cuff, right biceps tendon tendinopathy, right glenohumeral joint 

osteoarthritis, and Hill Sachs deformity. In an April 22, 2019 progress note and July 2, 2019 letter,

Dr. Avery indicated that appellant had reached MMI. Although he opined that she had reached 

MMI, he did not describe a permanent impairment due to her accepted April 20, 2018 employment 

injury.13 As noted, an impairment 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.14

The Board finds that none of the medical reports submitted are sufficient to establish 

permanent impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body causally related to the 

April 20, 2018 employment injury.15 The medical reports of record do not describe appellant’s 

impairment in sufficient detail so that it can be visualized on review and do not compute a 

percentage of impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides.16 Accordingly, the Board finds 

that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish her schedule award claim. 

 

11 Supra note 7 at Chapter 2.808.5 (March 2017).

12 Id., at Chapter 2.808.6(c) (March 2017).

13 See K.J., Docket No. 19-1492 (issued February 26, 2020); see also D.F., supra note 9.

14 Supra note 10.

15 See C.T., Docket No. 18-0257 (issued May 21, 2019).

16 Supra note 11.
5

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 met her burden of proof to establish permanent 

impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 20, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 8, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board