United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CLEVELANDSHAKER HEIGHTS POST OFFICE, Cleveland,

OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0115

Issued: September 9, 2021

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 3, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an October 1, 

2020 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 OWCP properly determined that appellant was not entitled to 

augmented schedule award compensation based on claiming her minor grandchild, of whom she 

had legal custody, as a dependent pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8110.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 21, 2018 appellant, then a 52-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date she suffered a left wrist injury when falling after 

being chased by a dog while in the performance of duty. She initially stopped work on 

August 21, 2018. 

On September 6, 2018 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for left wrist and hand sprain. 

On October 25, 2018 it expanded acceptance of the claim to include left wrist de Quervain’s 

tenosynovitis. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls, effective 

October 6, 2018. 

Appellant underwent OWCP-authorized de Quervain’s left wrist release on 

December 11, 2018. 

On February 14, 2020 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. 

In a March 2, 2020 report, Dr. Sami Moufawad, a Board-certified specialist in physical 

medicine and rehabilitation, reviewed appellant’s history of injury and medical record. He 

examined appellant and performed range of motion (ROM) testing, repeating his measurements 

three times after warm up. Utilizing the ROM method of the sixth edition of the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides),3

Dr. Moufawad noted that appellant’s left wrist demonstrated 45 degrees, 50 degrees, and 50 

degrees of extension, which corresponded to three percent permanent impairment of the upper 

extremity under Table 15-32, page 473. He indicated that her left wrist demonstrated 45 degrees, 

45 degrees, and 50 degrees of flexion, which corresponded to three percent permanent impairment 

of the upper extremity. Dr. Moufawad reported that appellant’s left wrist demonstrated 5 degrees, 

8 degrees, and 10 degrees of radial deviation, which corresponded to two percent permanent 

impairment of the upper extremity. He noted that her left wrist demonstrated 15 degrees, 20 

degrees, and 20 degrees of ulnar deviation, which corresponded to two percent permanent 

impairment of the upper extremity. Dr. Moufawad calculated that appellant had 10 percent 

permanent impairment of the left upper extremity and opined that she had reached maximum 

medical improvement (MMI) on March 2, 2020. Utilizing the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) 

method of the A.M.A., Guides, he identified the class of diagnosis (CDX) as a class 1 impairment 

for the diagnosis of wrist sprain. Dr. Moufawad assigned a grade modifier for functional history 

(GMFH) of 0, in accordance with Table 15-7, page 406. He noted that a grade modifier for 

physical examination (GMPE) could not be used as physical examination was used to choose the 

CDX. Dr. Moufawad reported a grade modifier for clinical studies (GMCS) of 1, in accordance 

 

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

with Table 15-9, page 410, based on appellant’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan findings. 

Utilizing the net adjustment formula, he calculated that appellant had a net adjustment of -1, 

resulting in movement from the default class of C to B and corresponding to four percent 

permanent impairment of the left upper extremity. Dr. Moufawad concluded that the ROM 

method should be used in this particular case to determine appellant’s impairment because it 

yielded 10 percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity, which was higher than the 

rating from the DBI method. 

On April 2, 2020 OWCP referred appellant’s case for a schedule award impairment rating 

with Dr. Morley Slutsky, a Board-certified specialist in occupational medicine serving as a district 

medical adviser (DMA). In an April 11, 2020 report, Dr. Slutsky reviewed the medical record. 

He noted that he was not provided with the diagnostic tests, left wrist surgery note, and medical 

notes referenced in Dr. Moufawad’s March 2, 2020 report. Dr. Slutsky concurred with

Dr. Moufawad’s impairment ratings using the ROM and DBI methods of the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides. He therefore found that appellant had 10 percent permanent impairment of the 

left upper extremity and opined that she had reached MMI on March 2, 2020. 

By decision dated May 4, 2020, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 10 percent 

permanent impairment of the left upper extremity. The period of the award ran for 31.20 weeks 

from March 2 through October 6, 2020. The schedule award compensation rate was 662/3 percent.

On May 12, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

Appellant submitted a May 3, 2016 court order, which showed that she was granted legal 

custody of her granddaughter. 

A telephonic hearing was held on August 7, 2020. During the hearing, counsel clarified 

that the schedule award determination was not in question. He argued that appellant was entitled 

to augmented schedule award compensation as she had legal custody of her granddaughter who 

she declared as a dependent. Appellant testified that she had sole legal custody of her 

granddaughter and that she lived with her full time. 

Appellant submitted her tax returns from 2017 through 2019, in which she listed her 

granddaughter as a dependent. 

By decision dated October 1, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the May 4, 

2020 decision, finding that appellant’s legal custody of her granddaughter did not entitle her to 

augmented schedule award compensation. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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 his duty. 4 If the 

disability is total, the United States shall pay the employee during the disability monthly monetary 

 

4

5 U.S.C. § 8102(a); see also A.W., Docket No. 19-0832 (issued September 24, 2019).
4

compensation equal to 66 2/3 percent of his or her monthly pay, which is known as basic 

compensation for total disability.5 Under section 8110 of FECA, an employee is entitled to 

compensation at the augmented rate of eight and one-third of his or her weekly pay for a total of 

75 percent of monthly pay, if he or she has one or more dependents.6 OWCP’s procedures provide 

that the maximum compensation rates for disability compensation also apply to schedule award

compensation.7

A dependent includes an unmarried child who, while living with the employee or receiving 

regular contributions from the employee toward his or her support, is either under 18 years of age 

or over 18 years of age and incapable of self-support due to physical or mental disability.8 A child

is also considered a dependent if he or she is an unmarried student under 23 years of age who has 

not completed four years of education beyond the high school level and is currently pursuing a 

full-time course of study at a qualifying college, university, or training program.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant was not entitled to 

augmented schedule award compensation based on claiming her minor grandchild, of whom she 

had legal custody, as a dependent pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8110.

By decision dated October 1, 2020, OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to 

augmented schedule award compensation as there was no provision under FECA for her 

granddaughter to be considered as a dependent.

The Board has held that FECA includes stepchildren, adopted children, and posthumous 

children, but does not include grandchildren in the definition of dependents for purposes of 

augmented compensation.10 Although appellant obtained legal custody of her minor 

granddaughter in 2016, there is no evidence of record that she adopted her. A grandchild is not 

one of the specifically enumerated dependents for purposes of receiving augmented 

 

5

Id. at § 8105(a).

6

Id. at § 8110.

7 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 

2.808.7g (February 2013); R.M., Docket No. 19-0463 (issued March 1, 2021); G.J., Docket No. 18-1292 (issued 

March 13, 2019).

8

5 U.S.C. § 8110(a).

9 E.B., Docket No. 19-1571 (issued December 31, 2020); R.G., Docket No. 18-1251 (issued November 26, 2019); 

E.G., 59 ECAB 599, 603 n.10 (2008).

10 See M.G., Docket No. 09-1511 (issued March 24, 2010); Barbara J. Hill, 50 ECAB 358 (1999); Louis L. Jackson, 

39 ECAB 423 (1988) (where the Board noted that,while Congress allowed grandchildren as a class of persons eligible 

for death benefits under section 8133, it did not include a grandchild in the definition of dependents for purposes of 

augmented compensation under section 8110).
5

compensation.11 Furthermore, guardianship or legal custody by itself does not establish 

dependency.12 Accordingly, appellant’s granddaughter is not an eligible dependent under FECA.13 

The Board, therefore, finds that appellant is not eligible for augmented schedule award 

compensation based on claiming her granddaughter as a dependent.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant was not entitled to 

augmented schedule award compensation based on claiming her minor grandchild, of whom she 

had legal custody, as a dependent pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8110.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 1, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 9, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 5 U.S.C. § 8101(9). FECA separately defines grandchild for purposes of identifying eligible beneficiaries to 

certain death benefits under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8109 and 8133. Id. at § 8101(10).

12 See R.P., Docket No. 14-0771 (issued October 1, 2014).

13 5 U.S.C. § 8101(9).