United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Boston, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1332

Issued: July 1, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie Leet, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 3, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 12, 

2021 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.3

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.

3 The Board notes that, following the August 12, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Proceduresprovides: “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

ISSUE

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

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 4, 1993 appellant then a 44-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form

CA-1) alleging that on July 29, 1993 he sustained an injury to his lower back when he picked up 

a full tray of mail and turned to place the tray into a postal container while in the performance of 

duty. OWCP accepted lumbosacral sprain. Appellant stopped work on July 31, 1994 and worked 

intermittently thereafter. He retired on June 1, 2004. OWCP paid appellant compensation benefits 

on the supplemental rolls from November 20, 2002 through May 28, 2004.

4

On October 16, 2018 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. 

In a development letter dated October 18, 2018, OWCP requested that appellant submit an 

impairment evaluation addressing whether he had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI)

and provide an impairment rating using the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, 

Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).5 It advised that, if his

physician was unable or unwilling to provide the required report, to notify OWCP in writing and 

if his case met the essential elements for a schedule award claim, he would be scheduled to be seen 

by a second opinion specialist. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional medical 

evidence in support of his schedule award claim. 

Appellant came under the treatment of Dr. Daniel Park, an osteopath specializing in family 

medicine, from September 13, 2018 through April 9, 2019 for degenerative disc disease of the 

lumbar spine. He associated the onset of symptoms with a lifting event at work. Appellant

reported low back pain radiating from the left leg to the knee. Dr. Park diagnosed degenerative 

disc disease of the lumbar spine, failed back syndrome, cervicalgia, and chronic pain syndrome. 

He performed a series of trigger point injections.

On November 7, 2018 counsel notified OWCP that Dr. Park did not perform impairment 

ratings and requested that appellant be referred to another physician skilled in impairment ratings. 

A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine dated March 22, 2019 

revealed multilevel degenerative changes, most prominent at L4-5 with disc herniation and 

4 Appellant previously filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) for an injury sustained on March 9, 1972when 

he was sitting and casing mail and bent down to pick up a letter and felt a sharp pain in his back. OWCP assigned 

that claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx936 and accepted it for spondylolisthesis L5-S1 and postlaminectomy syndrome. 

On July 14, 1972 appellant underwent an OWCP-authorized lumbar disc excision and spinal fusion at L4. He also 

has a claim for a January26, 1993 injury, alleging that, while sitting on a rest bar and sorting mail into a distribution 

case, his seat collapsed and he injured his low back. OWCP assigned that claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx770 and 

accepted it for multiple contusions, backstrain, and left shoulder strain. Ithas administratively combined OWCP File 

Nos. xxxxxx314, xxxxxx936, and xxxxxx770, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx770 designated as the master file. 

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

anterolisthesis of C2 lobe. An MRI scan of the cervical spine of even date revealed multilevel 

degenerative changes. 

OWCP referred appellant, an updated statement of accepted facts (SOAF), the medical 

record, and a series of questions, to Dr. Christopher Rynne, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, 

for a second opinion evaluation to determine whether appellant’s work-related condition resulted 

in permanent impairment thereby warranting a schedule award. It advised him that he should rate 

appellant’s impairment using The Guides Newsletter, Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment

Using the Sixth Edition (July/August 2009) (The Guides Newsletter), a supplemental publication 

of the A.M.A., Guides.

6

In a May 23, 2019 report, Dr. Rynne discussed appellant’s factual and medical history, 

reviewed the SOAF and the medical record, and reported the findings of his physical examination 

of appellant. He noted that appellant’s history was significant for an L4-5 fusion when he was 22 

years old, which resulted in persistent back pain. On July 29, 1993 appellant aggravated his 

chronic back pain while picking up a tray of mail at work. Findings on examination revealed slight 

limitation of motion in his back, mildly positive straight leg raising maneuver, with no objective 

findings to suggest clinically significant nerve root entrapment. Dr. Rynne indicated that, with 

regard to spinal injuries, OWCP advised that individuals who sustained spinal injuries are rated 

based on the findings in the extremities attributable to the spine. Upon physica l examination,

appellant had no objective symptomology in the upper or lower extremities and no evidence that 

he sustained a condition in the extremities causally related to the injury of July 29, 1993. He 

diagnosed failed back surgery with chronic back pain, history of lumbosacral sprain July 29, 1993,

resolved. Dr. Rynne opined that appellant did not have ratable impairment according to the The

Guides Newsletter, which was used to rate spinal nerve extremity impairment using the A.M.A., 

Guides. He opined that appellant’s current symptoms were related to the spine surgery in 1972.

7

 

Dr. Rynne attributed appellant’s new symptoms to degenerative disc herniation on the right side 

at L4-5, which was not work related. He noted that appellant reached MMI on May 23, 2019. 

OWCP referred appellant’s case to Dr. Michael M. Katz, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon serving as an OWCP district medical adviser (DMA). In a June 4, 2019 report, Dr. Katz 

reviewed the SOAF and the medical record, including Dr. Rynne’s report. He concurred with

Dr. Rynne’s opinion that there was no ratable impairment for the accepted conditions of this claim. 

Dr. Katz noted that the accepted condition was sprain of the lumbosacral spine. He further noted 

that FECA did not allow a schedule award for the spine. The DMA referred to The Guides 

Newsletter, Proposed Table 2, Spinal Nerve Impairment Lower Extremity Impairments, for no 

motor and/or sensory deficits at L3, L4, L5, S1 on the right and at L3, L4, L5, S1 on the left. He

explained that appellant had no motor deficits at L3, L4, L5, S1 of the right and left lower 

extremities, which had a class zero impairment and a default value of zero. The DMA noted that 

there was no net adjustment and resulted in a class of zero for zero percent permanent impairment. 

For spinal nerves L3, L4, L5, S1 there was no sensory deficit of the right and left lower extremities. 

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

7 The report notes the year as 1971, but this appears to be a typographical error as the case record establishes that 

appellant underwent surgery in 1972.
4

There was a class zero impairment and a default value zero. The DMA noted that there was no 

net adjustment and resulted in a class of zero for zero percent permanent impairment.

Based on Dr. Rynne’s evaluation findings, Dr. Katz found that there was no ratable 

impairment of any spinal nerve and thus no ratable impairment under FECA for the accepted spinal 

conditions. He also noted that the A.M.A., Guides did not allow for an alternative range of motion 

impairment calculation based on the key diagnostic factors for the accepted conditions.

OWCP received additional evidence. Appellant submitted reports from Dr. Joseph Abate, 

a Board-certified orthopedist, dated November 10, 2015 and February 2, 2016, who diagnosed 

failed back syndrome and status post bilateral total knee arthroplasties. Dr. Abate noted that 

appellant was totally disabled from work.

By decision dated June 6, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish permanent impairment of a scheduled 

member or function of the body.

OWCP subsequently received additional evidence. Dr. Park treated appellantfrom June 11 

through November 27, 2019 for chronic low back pain. He diagnosed degenerative disc disease 

of the lumbar spine, failed back surgical syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, and cervicalgia.

On July 3, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. The hearing was held on November 12, 2019. 

An electromyogram (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity (NCV) study dated October 22, 

2019 revealed moderate primarily axonal sensory motor polyneuropathy (PNP), mild-to-moderate, 

chronic, primarily L4-5 radiculopathy, worse on the right. 

By decision dated January 22, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative found that the case 

was not in posture for decision and vacated OWCP’s June 6, 2019 decision denying appellant’s 

schedule award claim. The hearing representative remanded the case for OWCP to refer an 

updated SOAF and the medical record to Dr. Rynne for a supplemental report to identify the 

diagnosed conditions causally related to the work injury claims and explain whether appellant has 

any impairment of the upper and lower extremities causally related to his accepted spine conditions 

in conformance with the A.M.A., Guides.

8

 Following any further development deemed necessary, 

OWCP was to issue a de novo decision.

OWCP received additional evidence. In a February 3, 2020 report, Dr. Park diagnosed 

degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, f ailed back surgical syndrome, chronic pain 

syndrome, and cervicalgia.

By decision dated April 23, 2020, OWCP expanded the acceptance of appellant’s claim to 

include spondylolisthesis at L5-S1 and postlaminectomy syndrome under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx936.

8 The hearing representative noted that Dr.Rynne’s report contained an inaccurate history relating to the work 

injury of March 9, 1972under OWCP File No. xxxxxx936.
5

OWCP referred an updated SOAF dated April 23, 2020, the medical record, and a series 

of questions, to Dr. Rynne for a supplemental second opinion report to determine whether 

appellant’s work-related condition resulted in permanent impairment of a schedule member or 

function of the body warranting a schedule award.

In a May 7, 2020 report, Dr. Rynne noted examining appellant on May 23, 2019 who

reported constant low back pain radiating down the right calf, numbness and anterior right thigh 

pain for the past year, but no further left leg symptoms. Findings on examination revealed a 

shuffling gait, a healed midline scar in the middle of his lower lumbar spine with a scar on the 

posterior aspect of the right iliac crest, mild diffuse tenderness throughout the lumbar spine, and 

no paraspinous spasms. Dr. Rynne noted that appellant could forward flex and bring his fingertips 

within three inches of the floor, he had 30 degrees left and right tilt, 45 degrees of left and right 

rotation, straight leg raising maneuver produced back pain at 60 degrees on the right and 80 degrees 

on the left, and a lateral flap in the distribution of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve 

consistent with prior knee replacements. He noted sensory examination of the lower extremities 

was normal. Dr. Rynne noted normal strength of the hip flexors, hip abductors, hip adductors,

quadriceps, hamstring, tibialis anterior, great toes and lesser toe flexors, extensor digitorum, and 

gastrocnemius muscles, no measurable atrophy in either thigh or calf, and deep tendon reflexes 

were trace, but symmetrical. 

Dr. Rynne noted that his opinion was unchanged and opined that appellant had chronic 

back pain dated to a surgery performed 50 years ago for spondylolisthesis. He explained that on 

physical examination there were no objective findings of spinal nerve injury and appellant’s 

current symptoms were related to his 1972 spinal surgery. Dr. Rynne diagnosed failed spine 

surgery. He advised that appellant did not have any measurable loss of function due to a spinal 

cord injury in either leg, appellant’s loss of function to the left lower extremity was zero and his 

right lower extremity was zero. Dr. Rynne noted no ratable loss of function due to spinal cord 

injury in either leg. He advised that appellant reached MMI on May 23, 2019. 

By decision dated June 8, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, finding 

that he had not established permanent impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body, 

warranting a schedule award. 

OWCP received additional evidence. Reports from Dr. Park dated May 26 through 

September 9, 2020 diagnosed degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, failed back surgical 

syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, and cervicalgia. 

In an appeal request form dated June 17, 2020, appellant requested an oral hearing before 

a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. The hearing was held on 

September 15, 2020. 

In a statement dated October 15, 2020, counsel asserted that OWCP erred in failing to send

Dr. Rynne’s addendum report to the DMA for review prior to denying appellant’s claim for a 

schedule award.

By decision dated November 24, 2020, an OWCP hearing representative found that the 

case was not in posture for decision and vacated OWCP’s June 8, 2020 decision denying 

appellant’s schedule award claim. The hearing representative determined that OWCP committed 
6

a procedural error by not referring Dr. Rynne’s addendum report to the DMA. OWCP remanded 

the case for OWCP to refer an updated SOAF and the medical record to the DMA to review the 

report, verify the correct application of the A.M.A., Guides, confirm the percentage of permanent 

impairment, and specify the reasons for assigning a percentage of loss of use to the measurements 

provided by the examining physician. Following any further development deemed necessary, 

OWCP was to issue a de novo decision.

OWCP received additional evidence. In reports dated October 5 and December 3, 2020,

Dr. Park diagnosed degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, failed back surgical syndrome, 

chronic pain syndrome, and cervicalgia. An x-ray of the lumbar spine dated December 3, 2020,

revealed no acute osseous abnormality, changes of lower thoracic and lumbar spondylosis, and 

stable multilevel lumbar spondylolisthesis likely degenerative. 

OWCP referred an updated SOAF, the medical record, and a series of questions, to

Dr. Rynne for a supplemental second opinion evaluation. 

In a January 15, 2021 report, Dr. Rynne specifically noted reviewing copies of the 

March 22, 2019 cervical and lumbar MRI scan and an October 22, 2019 EMG/NCV study. He

indicated that these diagnostic tests did not change his opinion as it related to the presence of 

impairment compensability under FECA. Dr. Rynne noted mild-to-moderate changes in his 

EMG/NCV, however, he found no objective sensory or motor deficits to substantiate claims for a 

spinal cord injury. He advised that appellant did not have a measurable loss of function due to a 

spinal nerve injury in either leg and his loss of function of the lower extremities was zero. 

Dr. Rynne reiterated that when he examined appellant two years prior he had no objective findings 

on physical examination to substantiate claims for a spinal nerve injury. 

OWCP referred appellant’s case to Dr. Katz serving as a DMA. In a February 24, 2021 

report, Dr. Katz reviewed the SOAF and the medical record, including Dr. Rynne’s reports dated 

May 23, 2019, May 7, 2020, and January 15, 2021. He concurred with Dr. Rynne’s opinion that 

there was no ratable impairment for the accepted conditions of this claim. Dr. Katz referred to The 

Guides Newsletter, Proposed Table 2, Spinal Nerve Impairment Lower Extremity Impairments, 

for no motor and sensory deficits L3, L4, L5, S1 on the right and L3, L4, L5, S1 on the left. He 

reiterated his calculations and findings as set forth in his June 4, 2019 report and again opined that 

appellant had no ratable impairment.

The DMA referenced Dr. Rynne’s May 23, 2019 report, which noted no myotomal motor 

dermatomal sensory deficits in either lower extremity and provided a detailed examination in 

support of finding that and he determined no ratable impairments under FECA for the accepted 

spinal conditions. He further opined that Dr. Rynne provided a detailed explanation as to how 

prior lumbar surgery and lumbar conditions do not necessarily imply a ratable impairment pursuant 

to FECA. 

By decision dated March 24, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, 

finding that he had not established permanent impairment of a scheduled member or function of 

the body, warranting a schedule award. 

OWCP received additional evidence. An x-ray of the lumbar spine dated July 16, 2018

revealed grade 1 L4-5 anterolisthesis with mild-to-moderate spondylosis. 
7

Dr. Park treated appellant from January 4 through July 6, 2021and noted that his diagnosis 

remained unchanged. 

On April 14, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a review of the written record 

before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

By decision dated August 12, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the decision 

dated March 24, 2021. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA and its implementing regulations set 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. 9 However, FECA does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. For consistent results and 

to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants, good administrative practice necessitates the 

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

Through its implementing regulations, OWCP adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate 

standard for evaluating schedule losses.10 As of May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in 

accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides (2009).11 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.12

No schedule award is payable for a member, function, or organ of the body that is not 

specified in FECA or the implementing regulations.13 The list of scheduled members includes the 

eye, arm, hand, fingers, leg, foot, and toes.14 Additionally, FECA specifically provides for 

compensation for loss of hearing and loss of vision. 15 Neither FECA nor its implementing 

regulations provide for a schedule award for impairment to the back or to the body as a whole. 16 

Furthermore, the back is specifically excluded from the definition of organ under FECA. 17 The 

9

5 U.S.C. § 8107; 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

10 Id. at § 10.404. See also Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 130 (2001).

11 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January2010); id. at Chapter 2.808.5a (March 2017).

12 J.C., Docket No. 20-1071 (issued January 4, 2021);P.R., Docket No. 19-0022 (issued April9, 2018); Isidoro 

Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961).

13 D.L., Docket No. 20-0059 (issued July 8, 2020); W.C., 59 ECAB 374 (2008); AnnaV. Burke, 57 ECAB 

521 (2006).

14 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c).

15 Id.

16 K.Y., Docket No. 18-0730 (issued August 21, 2019);L.L., Docket No. 19-0214 (issued May 23, 2019); N.D., 59 

ECAB 344 (2008);Tania R. Keka, 55 ECAB 354 (2004).

17 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(19); see also G.S., Docket No. 18-0827 (issued May 1, 2019);FrancescoC. Veneziani, 48 

ECAB 572 (1997).
8

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide a separate mechanism for rating spinal nerve 

injuries as impairments of the extremities. Recognizing that, FECA allows ratings for extremities 

and precludes ratings for the spine, The Guides Newsletter offers an approach to rating spinal nerve 

impairments consistent with sixth edition methodology. For peripheral nerve impairments to the 

upper or lower extremities resulting from spinal injuries, OWCP’s procedures indicate that The 

Guides Newsletter is to be applied.18 The Board has recognized the adoption of this methodology 

for rating extremity impairment, including the use of The Guides Newsletter, as proper in order to 

provide a uniform standard applicable to each claimant for a schedule award for extremity 

impairment originating in the spine.19

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.20

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

should be routed through an OWCP medical adviser for an opinion concerning the nature and 

percentage of impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with an OWCP medical adviser 

providing rationale for the percentage of impairment specified.21

ANALYSIS

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

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

In reports dated May 23, 2019, May 7, 2020, and January 15, 2021, Dr. Rynne noted that 

appellant had no objective symptomology in the upper or lower extremities and no evidence to 

suggest clinically significant nerve root entrapment or that he sustained a condition in the 

extremities causally related to the accepted July 29, 1993 employment injury. He advised that 

sensory and motor examination of the lower extremities were normal. Dr. Rynne noted mild-tomoderate changes in appellant’s EMG; however, he found no objective sensory or motor deficits 

to substantiate claims for a spinal cord injury. He diagnosed failed back surgery. Dr. Rynne 

opined that appellant did not have ratable impairment according to The Guides Newsletter, which 

was used to rate spinal nerve extremity impairment using the A.M.A., Guides. As noted, neither 

FECA, nor its regulations provide for a schedule award for impairment to the back or to the body 

as a whole.22 Dr. Rynne advised that appellant did not have any measurable loss of function due 

to a spinal cord injury in either leg, appellant’s loss of function to the left lower extremity was 

zero, and his right lower extremity was zero. 

18 Supra note 11at Chapter 3.700 (January 2010). The Guides Newsletteris included as Exhibit 4.

19 J.C., supra note 12; E.D., Docket No. 13-2024 (issued April 24, 2014);D.S., Docket No. 13-2011 (issued 

February18, 2014).

20 See G.S., Docket No. 18-0827 (issued May 1, 2019).

21 Supra note 11at Chapter 2.808.6(f) (March 2017).

22 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c); 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(a) and (b); see R.B., Docket No. 19-0848 (issued February 11, 2020);

C.S., Docket No. 19-0851 (issued November 18, 2019).
9

Based on Dr. Rynne’s evaluation findings, Dr. Katz found that there was no ratable 

impairment of any spinal nerve for either motor or sensory defect and thus no ratable impairment 

under FECA for the accepted conditions. Under Proposed Tables of The Guides Newsletter, he 

explained that appellant had no motor or sensory deficits, therefore, appellant had zero percent 

permanent impairment of the upper and lower extremities. The DMA properly used Dr. Rynne’s

findings and provided an explanation in conformance with the A.M.A., Guides and The Guides 

Newsletter, that appellant had no permanent impairment of his upper and lower extremities due to 

either a motor or sensory deficit of the spinal nerves.23 The Board, therefore, finds that the DMA 

represents the weight of the medical evidence.

As appellant has not submitted medical evidence in conformance with either the A.M.A., 

Guides or The Guides Newsletter, sufficient to establish permanent impairment of a scheduled 

member or function of the body, the Board finds that he has not met his burden of proof to establish 

his claim for a schedule award.24

Appellant may request a schedule award or increased schedule award at any time based on 

evidence of new exposure, or medical evidence showing a progression of an employment-related 

condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased permanent impairment.

CONCLUSION

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

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

23 Id.

24 See R.B., supra note 22.
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 12, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 1, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board