United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Rochester Hills, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0225

Issued: December 10, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 6, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

September 24, 2019 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

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.

 

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

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

follows.

On September 16, 2011 appellant, then a 43-year-old rural carrier associate, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she fractured her left ankle when she 

stepped out of her postal vehicle onto the grass and twisted her left ankle while in the performance 

of duty. She stopped work on that date. OWCP initially accepted her claim for closed fracture of 

the left distal fibula and subsequently expanded the acceptance of her claim to include left ankle 

sprain and late effect fracture of the left lower extremity. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation 

beginning on November 1, 2011, and placed her on the periodic rolls effective July 1, 2012.

On February 2, 2012 appellant underwent authorized left leg and ankle surgery. A 

February 2, 2012 operative report noted a preoperative diagnosis of chronic ankle sprain and 

possible peroneal tendon injury. 

By decision dated April 19, 2012, OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to 

include consequential conditions of gastritis and delayed gastric emptying due to operative 

narcotic pain and nonsteroid, anti-inflammatory medication. On August 28, 2012 it further

expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to include sacroiliitis. 

By decision dated March 8, 2016, OWCP terminated appellant’s wage-loss compensation 

and medical benefits, effective that date, as she had no residuals or continuing disability due to her 

accepted injury. It found that the special weight of the medical evidence rested with the 

January 17, 2016 report of Dr. Edward Sladek, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon serving as the 

impartial medical examiner, who determined that appellant no longer had residuals or disability 

causally related to her accepted September 16, 2011 employment injury.

4

 

On March 29, 2017 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7).

 

3 Docket No. 18-1346 (issued April 3, 2019). 

4 On January 18, 2017 an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the March 8, 2016 termination decision. 

Appellant subsequently requested reconsideration on February 9 and 17, 2017, June 26, 2017, and May 1, 2018. By 

decision dated May 31, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s May 1, 2018 reconsideration request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a). Appellant appealed to the Board. In an April 3, 2019 decision, the Board denied appellant’s May 1, 2018 

request for reconsideration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a), finding that her request neither raised substantive legal 

questions nor included new and relevant evidence sufficient to warrant further merit review of appellant’s claim 

regarding the termination of her wage-loss compensation and medical benefits, effective March 8, 2016. 
3

In support of her schedule award claim, appellant submitted a February 22, 2017 form letter 

by Dr. Philip T. Henning, an osteopath specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation. 

Dr. Henning indicated that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). 

In a June 15, 2017 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence 

needed to establish her schedule award claim. It requested that she provide a medical report from 

her attending physician, which included a statement that the accepted condition had reached MMI 

and an impairment rating utilizing the appropriate portions of the sixth edition of the American 

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

Guides).5 OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In a September 11, 2017 report, Dr. Catherine Watkins Campbell, a Board-certified 

occupational medicine and family medicine specialist, reviewed appellant’s history and noted 

diagnoses of closed fracture of the left fibula, left ankle sprain, late effect fracture of the left lower 

extremity, gastritis, delayed gastric emptying, and sacroiliitis. She discussed that a January 13, 

2014 electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV) study revealed mild chronic 

sensorimotor peripheral polyneuropathy in the lower extremities and indicated that these 

abnormalities affected the peroneal nerves more than the other nerves. Dr. Watkins Campbell

noted appellant’s current complaints of burning pain, numbness, and pins and needle sensation in 

the lateral aspect of the lower left leg and entire left foot. Upon physical examination, she observed 

abnormal gait with short steps and variable tenderness throughout the lumbar and sacral regions 

bilaterally. Sensory and motor examinations of the lower extremities were normal. 

Dr. Watkins Campbell reported that the examination showed no residuals of appellant’s 

ankle sprain or sacroiliitis conditions. She also noted that delayed gastric emptying was only a 

temporary aggravation caused by the initial use of nonsteroidal medication and was not a result of 

the accepted September 16, 2011 employment injury. Dr. Watkins Campbell noted that the 

operative report showed longitudinal tears in the peroneal tendon and, accordingly, she provided 

an impairment rating based on the peroneal tendon injury. Utilizing the diagnosis-based 

impairment (DBI) rating method found at Table 16-2, Foot and Ankle Regional Grid of the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides, she noted that appellant was a class of diagnosis (CDX) of 1, with 

a default value of five percent for mild motion deficits for the diagnosis of strain, tendinitis, or 

history of ruptured tendon, specifically involving the posterior tibial, anterior tibial, Achilles, or 

peroneal tendon. Dr. Watkins Campbell assigned a grade modifier for physical examination 

(GMPE) of 1 due to minimal palpatory findings, mild or arthrodesis in position of function, and 

muscle atrophy.6 She also assigned a grade modifier for clinical studies (GMCS) of 1 due to 

imaging studies. After applying the net adjustment formula, (1-1) + (1-1), which resulted in 0 

adjustment, Dr. Watkins Campbell calculated that appellant had five percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity. She reported that appellant had reached MMI as of 

February 22, 2017 according to a statement from Dr. Henning and provided a permanent 

impairment worksheet. 

 

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

6 No grade modifier for functional history (GMFH) was noted.
4

OWCP routed the case file to Dr. Ari Kaz, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon serving as 

a district medical adviser (DMA), for review and opinion as to whether appellant sustained 

permanent impairment as a result of her accepted September 16, 2011 employment injury. In a 

July 17, 2018 report,7the DMA noted that he had reviewed appellant’s case file, including

Dr. Watkins Campbell’s September 11, 2017 report and permanent impairment findings, and noted 

that appellant’s claim was accepted for closed fracture of the left fibula, left ankle sprain, and late 

effect of fracture of the left lower extremity. He indicated that there were no residuals of 

appellant’s ankle sprain and determined that appellant was a class 0 for no permanent impairment. 

The DMA also reported that he would not be providing an impairment rating for a distal fibula 

fracture as there was no evidence that appellant sustained a distal fibula fracture as part of her 

claim. 

The DMA applied the DBI rating method of Table 16-2, Foot and Ankle Regional Grid, 

and reported that under the diagnosis category of peroneal tendon strain, appellant was a CDX of 

1, with a default value of five percent, due to mild motion deficits. He indicated that appellant had 

a GMPE of 1 due to mild range of motion deficits and mild atrophy and a GMCS of 0 due to 

normal clinical study. The DMA explained that he differed from Dr. Watkins Campbell’s 

classification of a GMCS of 1 due to normal clinical findings. Applying the net adjustment 

formula (1-1) + (0-1), he found that appellant had four percent permanent impairment of the left 

lower extremity. Utilizing the range of motion (ROM) methodology of Table 16-20, Hindfoot 

Motion Impairment, and Table 16-22, Ankle Motion Impairment, the DMA indicated that 

appellant had two percent permanent impairment for eversion of 10 degrees. He explained that,

while peroneal tendon tear was not an accepted diagnosis, it was present at the time of the 

February 2, 2012 surgery and should qualify as an impairment rating. The DMA noted a date of 

MMI of September 11, 2017.

On September 19, 2018 OWCP requested clarification from the DMA regarding an 

impairment rating for a tendon injury. In a September 28, 2018 addendum report, the DMA

indicated that he agreed with Dr. Watkins Campbell that an impairment rating should be provided 

for the condition of peroneal tendon injury. He reported that appellant had four percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity utilizing the DBI method and two percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity utilizing the ROM method. 

In a December 3, 2018 supplemental report, Dr. Watkins Campbell indicated that she had 

reviewed the DMA’s reports and agreed with his rating of four percent permanent impairment of 

the left lower extremity based on the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. She noted that she also 

agreed with the September 11, 2017 MMI date.

In a January 18, 2019 letter, OWCP noted that appellant’s wage-loss compensation and 

medical benefits had been terminated, effective March 8, 2016. It advised her that additional 

medical evidence was needed to establish that her requested impairment rating was for a condition 

causally related to the accepted September 16, 2011 employment injury. OWCP afforded her 30 

days to submit the requested information.

 

7

In an initial April 29, 2018 report, Dr. Kaz indicated that he was not able to provide an impairment rating because 

all the medical records were not included in the case record. 
5

By decision dated February 25, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim,

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish permanent impairment of 

a scheduled member or function of the body as a result of her accepted September 16, 2011 

employment injury. It noted that Dr. Watkins Campbell, appellant’s treating physician, had failed 

to provide a rationalized opinion explaining how her indicated impairment resulted from the 

accepted September 16, 2011 employment injury.

On March 4, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a hearing before a representative 

of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. A hearing was held on July 12, 2019.

Appellant subsequently submitted a June 5, 2019 report by Dr. Watkins Campbell. 

Dr. Watkins Campbell noted that her impairment rating was based on the accepted conditions of 

left ankle sprain, closed fracture of the left fibula, and late effect of fracture of the lower 

extremities. She concluded that appellant’s current impairment of four percent left lower extremity 

impairment was directly related to these conditions and were directly related to the September 16, 

2011 workplace injury.

By decision dated September 24, 2019, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

February 25, 2019 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA8and its implementing regulations9set 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 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.10 As of May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009, is used 

to calculate schedule awards.11

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides provides the DBI method of evaluation utilizing 

the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health 

(ICF).12 Under the sixth edition, the evaluator identifies the impairment for the diagnosed 

condition CDX, which is then adjusted by grade modifiers of GMFH, GMPE, and GMCS. The 

 

8 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

10 Id. at § 10.404(a); see also T.T., Docket No. 18-1622 (issued May 14, 2019); Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 

139 (2002). 

11 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, Chapter 3.700.2 

and Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

12 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009) 3, section 1.3.
6

net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX).13 Evaluators are 

directed to provide reasons for their impairment rating choices, including the choices of diagnosis 

from regional grids and calculations of modifier scores.14

OWCP’s procedures and Board precedent provide that termination of a claim for all 

benefits due to a finding of no residuals of the accepted condition does not bar a subsequent 

schedule award.15 Rather, the claims examiner should consider the schedule award matter 

separately from the termination of benefits.16 This is because a claimant may have an employmentrelated condition that results in a permanent impairment under the A.M.A., Guides without a 

disability for work or the need for continuing medical treatment.17 If a claimant applies for a 

schedule award after termination of compensation benefits and submits sufficient medical 

evidence reflecting a permanent impairment as a result of the work-related injury or exposure, the 

claims examiner should further develop the claim.18

A schedule award can be paid only for a condition related to an employment injury. The 

claimant has the burden of proof to establish that the condition for which a schedule award is 

sought is causally related to his or her employment.19 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

In support of her schedule award claim, appellant submitted reports by Dr. Watkins 

Campbell dated September 11, 2017 through June 5, 2019. Dr. Watkins Campbell reported that 

physical examination showed no residuals of appellant’s ankle sprain or sacroiliitis conditions. 

However,she explained that she would provide an impairment rating based on appellant’s peroneal 

tendon injury, as noted on the February 2, 2012 operative report. 

In a July 17, 2018 report and September 19, 2018 response to OWCP’s request for 

clarification, Dr. Kaz, serving as a DMA, indicated that he agreed with Dr. Watkins Campbell that 

an impairment rating should be provided for the condition of peroneal tendon injury. He explained 

that, although peroneal tendon tear was not an accepted condition, it was present at the time of the 

February 2, 2012 surgery and should qualify as an impairment rating. 

 

13 Id. at 494-531.

14 See R.V., Docket No. 10-1827 (issued April 1, 2011).

15 See G.H., Docket No. 19-1800 (issued September 4, 2020); M.K., Docket No. 17-1691 (issued January 23, 2018).

16 R.H., Docket No. 17-1017 (issued December 4, 2018).

17 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, supra note 11 at Chapter 2.808.11 (February 2013); B.K., 59 ECAB

228 (2007).

18 M.K., Docket No. 16-0243 (issued May 9, 2016).

19 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, supra note 11 at Chapter 2.808.5b (March 2017); Veronica Williams, 56 

ECAB 357 (2005) (a schedule award can only be paid for a condition related to an employment injury).
7

In a December 3, 2018 supplemental report, Dr. Watkins Campbell indicated that she 

agreed with the DMA’s findings and rating of permanent impairment.

The Board finds that, because OWCP undertook development of the issue of expansion 

when it sent the claim to DMA Dr. Kaz, further development of the expansion issue was required 

prior to OWCP’s denial of the schedule award claim. Both Dr. Watkins Campbell and Dr. Kaz 

have consistently determined that appellant sustained a permanent impairment of her left lower 

extremity due to a peroneal tendon injury and opined that this condition was causally related to the 

accepted September 16, 2011 work-related injury. Therefore, pursuant to OWCP’s procedures, it 

should have accepted the condition as work related or undertaken further development on this 

issue.20 

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.21 OWCP has an obligation to see that justice is 

done in a manner that will resolve the relevant issues in this case.

22

The case shall therefore be remanded for OWCP further develop the medical evidence on 

the issue of claim expansion to include a peroneal tendon injury as causally related to her accepted 

September 16, 2011 employment injury, thereby warranting a schedule award. Following this and 

other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo merit decision 

regarding appellant’s schedule award claim. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

 

20 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, supra note 11 at Chapter 2.808.6(c)-(d) (March 2017); see also L.W., Docket 

No. 16-1317 (issued June 21, 2017).

21 See, e.g., M.G., Docket No. 18-1310 (issued April 16, 2019); Walter A. Fundinger, Jr., 37 ECAB 200, 204 (1985); 

Michael Gallo, 29 ECAB 159, 161 (1978); William N. Saathoff, 8 ECAB 769, 770-71; Dorothy L. Sidwell, 36 ECAB 

699, 707 (1985).

22 See L.T., Docket No. 18-1405 (issued April 8, 2019); A.J., Docket No. 18-0905 (issued December 10, 2018); 

William J. Cantrell, 34 ECAB 1233, 1237 (1983); Gertrude E. Evans, 26 ECAB 195 (1974).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 24, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: December 10, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board