United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CANARSIE STATION, 

Brooklyn, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0382

Issued: November 1, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 18, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 7, 2017 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2 On November 27, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a September 22, 2017 nonmerit 

decision. That appeal was addressed by the Board in Docket No. 18-0284 (issued July 9, 2018). 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

impairment of her right lower extremity entitling her to a schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 27, 1997 appellant, then a 34-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) for a right ankle injury incurred while in the performance of duty. OWCP 

accepted appellant’s claim for right ankle sprain/strain. 

The case remained dormant until November 9, 2016, when appellant filed a claim for a 

schedule award (Form CA-7).

In a development letter dated November 10, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the case 

record was deficient and requested that she submit a report from her treating physician which 

provided a permanent impairment rating in support of her schedule award claim. It afforded her 

30 days to submit the necessary evidence. No additional evidence was received.

By decision dated December 30, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim 

finding that she had not provided medical evidence establishing permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member or function of the body due to her accepted right ankle sprain. 

On January 5, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before an OWCP 

hearing representative.

In a report dated February 8, 2017, Dr. Kumar S. Reddy, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, provided a description of appellant’s injury on March 27, 1997 which occurred while she 

was delivering mail, when a dog inside of a house charged the storm door which hit her and caused 

her to fall backward down two steps, landing on her right ankle. Appellant reported continuing 

right ankle pain and swelling. She noted that she was receiving disability retirement benefits. 

Dr. Reddy reviewed medical records including an August 18, 1997 orthopedic examination, an 

April 4, 2001 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the right ankle, and December 18, 2012 

right ankle x-rays. He provided appellant’s right ankle range of motion figures which exhibited 

loss. Dr. Reddy found that she had 30 degrees of plantar-flexion, 10 degrees of dorsiflexion, and 

15 degrees of both inversion and eversion. He diagnosed right ankle sprain resolved with residuals. 

Dr. Reddy concluded that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). He 

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

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

4

and found that she had seven percent permanent 

impairment of the right ankle based on her loss of range of motion.5

A hearing was held on July 12, 2017. During the hearing, the hearing representative noted 

that Dr. Reddy had not provided an explanation as to how he had arrived at a lower extremity 

 

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

5

Id. at 549, Table 16-20 and Table 16-22.
3

impairment rating of seven percent or how the rating was causally related to appellant’s accepted 

right ankle sprain. 

Dr. Reddy provided a supplemental report on July 26, 2017 noting that appellant’s right 

ankle sprain had reached MMI on February 8, 2017. He found that, based on her history, she had 

no preexisting right ankle conditions and that she had seven percent permanent impairment of her 

right ankle due to loss of range of motion.

By decision dated September 7, 2017, OWCP’s hearing representative denied appellant’s 

schedule award claim, finding that Dr. Reddy’s reports were insufficient to establish that appellant 

sustained permanent impairment of her right lower extremity causally related to the accepted

March 27, 1997 employment injury. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Under section 8107 of FECA6and section 10.404 of OWCP’s implementing regulations,7

schedule awards are payable for permanent impairment of specified body members, functions, or 

organs. FECA, however, does not specify the manner in which the percentage of impairment 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 is used to calculate schedule awards.9

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides provides a diagnosis-based impairment (DBI)

method of evaluation utilizing the World Health Organization’s International Classification of 

Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).10 In addressing lower extremity impairments, the sixth 

edition requires identification of the impairment class of diagnosis (CDX), which is then adjusted 

by grade modifiers based on functional history (GMFH), physical examination (GMPE), and 

clinical studies (GMCS).11 The net adjustment formula is (GMFH-CDX) + (GMPE-CDX) + 

(GMCS-CDX).12 Under Chapter 2.3, evaluators are directed to provide reasons for their 

impairment rating choices, including choices of diagnoses from regional grids and calculations of 

modifier scores. Section 16.2a of the A.M.A., Guides, provides that, if the class selected is defined 

 

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); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Exhibit 4 

(January 2010).

10 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009), page 3, Section 1.3, The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, 

and Health (ICF): A Contemporary Model of Disablement.

11 Id. at 493-553

12 Id. at 521.
4

by physical examination findings or clinical studies results, these same findings may not be used 

as grade modifiers to adjust the rating.13

Not all medical conditions accepted by OWCP result in permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member.14 Before applying the A.M.A., Guides, OWCP must determine whether the 

claimed impairment of a scheduled member is causally related to the accepted employment 

injury.15 The claimant has the burden of proving that the condition for which a schedule award is 

sought is causally related to his or her employment.16

ANALYSIS

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

impairment of her right lower extremity, entitling her to a schedule award.

In support of her claim for a schedule award appellant submitted reports dated February 8 

and July 26, 2017 from Dr. Reddy. In the February 8, 2017 report, Dr. Reddy examined 

appellant’s right ankle, noting no joint line tenderness, swelling, redness, crepitation, or drawer 

signs. He observed normal color and temperature and full strength. Appellant’s right foot and 

ankle range of motion was found to be limited. Dr. Reddy diagnosed a resolved right ankle sprain 

with residuals and determined that she had reached MMI. He rendered a lower extremity 

impairment rating of seven percent, purportedly based on Chapter 16, Table 16-22 of the A.M.A, 

Guides.

17

 In his July 26, 2017 report, Dr. Reddy explained that there were no preexisting 

conditions involving appellant’s right ankle and that she had reached MMI with regard to her right 

ankle sprain on February 8, 2017. He reiterated that the percentage of impairment for appellant’s 

right ankle was seven percent based on the same Table in the A.M.A., Guides.

The Board finds that Dr. Reddy noted that the diagnosed condition was a resolved sprain, 

with residuals. However, he did not explain what medical residuals would remain for a resolved 

ankle sprain which had occurred in March 1997, or how such residuals would result in a permanent 

functional impairment. As such, the Board finds that there is no medical evidence of record to 

establish that the claimed impairment of appellant’s right ankle is causally related to the accepted 

employment injury. 

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.

 

13 Id. at 500.

14 C.T., Docket No. 18-0544 (issued May 22, 2019); Thomas P. Lavin, 57 ECAB 353 (2006).

15 K.V., Docket No. 18-0947 (issued March 4, 2019); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379, 385 (2006).

16 N.W., Docket No. 17-0427 (issued June 20, 2017); Veronica Williams, 56 ECAB 367 (2005).

17 See supra note 5.
5

CONCLUSION

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

impairment of her right lower extremity entitling her to a schedule award. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 7, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 1, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board