United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, Victorville, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1927

Issued: March 31, 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 September 17, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a July 22, 

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 his burden of proof to establish greater than 13 

percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity, for which he previously received a 

schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances of the case 

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

are as follows.

On January 13, 2012 appellant, then a 31-year-old correctional officer, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained an injury on January 11, 2012 when he twisted 

his left ankle when ascending the stairs while in the performance of duty. He did not stop work. 

OWCP assigned File No. xxxxxx324 and accepted this claim for left ankle sprain.

On April 29, 2013 appellant filed a Form CA-1 alleging that he sustained an injury on that 

date when he twisted his left ankle when descending the stairs while in the performance of duty. 

He stopped work on April 30, 2013. OWCP assigned File No. xxxxxx413 and accepted this claim

for sprain of the lateral collateral ligament of the left ankle. It paid appellant wage-loss 

compensation on the daily rolls for disability from work commencing June 13, 2013.4

On December 6, 2013 appellant underwent OWCP-authorized left ankle fusion surgery. In 

an October 9, 2014 report, Dr. Amarilda Christensen, a Board-certified internist, described his left 

ankle fusion as resulting in “stable fixation and alignment with ankle joint.”

On December 29, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7) due to 

his accepted employment conditions.

In a May 20, 2015 report, Dr. Mesfin Seyoum, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

discussed appellant’s factual and medical history, noting that he sustained a nonwork-related 

motorcycle accident in 2006, which caused a left distal fibula fracture necessitating two surgeries. 

He indicated that on physical examination appellant exhibited limited left ankle and subtalar range 

of motion (ROM). Dr. Seyoum referred to the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, 

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

5

and utilized the diagnosisbased impairment (DBI) rating method to find that, under Table 16-2 (Foot and Ankle Regional 

Grid), page 503, the class of diagnosis (CDX) for appellant’s left ankle fracture with necrosis of 

the left talus (for moderate-to-severe motion deficits and/or moderate malalignment; avascular 

necrosis with talar body collapse) resulted in a class 2 impairment with a default value of 22 

 

3 Docket No. 18-0462 (issued June 19, 2018).

4 OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the periodic rolls for disability from work commencing 

November 17, 2013. It administratively combined File Nos. xxxxxx324 and xxxxxx413, designating the latter as the 

master file.

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

percent. He determined that appellant had a grade modifier for functional history (GMFH) of 2 

and a grade modifier for physical examination (GMPE) of 3, and posited that the grade modifier 

for clinical studies (GMCS) was not applicable as it was utilized for class placement. Dr. Seyoum

utilized the net adjustment formula, (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) = (2 - 2) + (3 - 2) = +1, 

which resulted in a grade D or 24 percent impairment of the left lower extremity.

6

 He indicated 

that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) by the time of his examination.

OWCP referred appellant’s case along with a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), for a 

schedule award impairment evaluation to Dr. Leonard Simpson, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon serving as an OWCP district medical adviser (DMA). It requested that Dr. Simpson 

review the medical evidence of record, including Dr. Seyoum’s May 20, 2015 report, and provide 

an opinion on the permanent impairment of appellant’s left lower extremity under the sixth edition 

of the A.M.A., Guides.

In a September 18, 2015 report, Dr. Simpson determined that appellant had 13 percent 

permanent impairment of his left lower extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

He noted that, in an October 9, 2014 report, Dr. Christensen described appellant’s left ankle fusion 

as resulting in “stable fixation and alignment with ankle joint.” Dr. Simpson, therefore, found that

Dr. Seyoum’s determination that appellant’s left ankle condition fell under a CDX of class 2 (per 

Table 16-2) was not justified by the medical evidence of record. Rather, he determined that, under 

Table 16-2, appellant’s left ankle condition fell under a class 1 condition (for neutral position). 

This class 1 condition had a default value of 10 percent. Dr. Simpson determined that appellant 

had a GMFH of 2 and a GMPE of 3, and he posited that the GMCS was not applicable as it was 

utilized for class placement. He utilized the net adjustment formula, (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE -

CDX) = (2 - 1) + (3 - 1) = +3, which resulted in a grade E or 13 percent impairment of the left 

lower extremity. Dr. Simpson indicated that appellant had reached MMI by May 20, 2015, the 

date of Dr. Seyoum’s examination.

OWCP provided Dr. Simpson with a copy of the December 6, 2013 operative report 

detailing appellant’s left ankle fusion surgery and requested that he provide a supplemental report 

after reviewing the report. On October 21, 2015 Dr. Simpson noted that he had reviewed the report

and advised that it indicated, “Stable fixation and alignment achieved after subchondral 

fenestration.” He reported that he still felt that appellant had 13 percent permanent impairment of 

his left lower extremity.

By decision dated November 19, 2015, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 13 

percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity. The award ran for 37.44 weeks from 

May 20, 2015 to February 6, 2016 and was based on the impairment rating of Dr. Simpson.

On December 3, 2015 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing with a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. During the hearing held on July 6, 

2016, counsel argued that Dr. Seyoum properly calculated appellant’s permanent impairment.

 

6 Dr. Seyoum inadvertently referenced 23 percent permanent impairment, but application of the +1 result from the 

net adjustment formula yields 24 percent permanent impairment.
4

By decision dated September 12, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative set aside the 

November 19, 2015 decision and remanded the case for further development of the evidence. She 

found that there were questions regarding the accepted employment conditions, which needed to 

be resolved before a determination could be made regarding appellant’s permanent impairment. 

The hearing representative indicated that, when Dr. Seyoum and Dr. Simpson produced their 

reports, it was unclear whether appellant’s case had been accepted for a sceptic necrosis of the left 

talus. She directed OWCP to prepare a new SOAF and to refer appellant to a second opinion 

examiner who would examine him and render an opinion on the permanent impairment of his left 

lower extremity.

On January 30, 2017 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination to

Dr. Michael Einbund, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and requested that he provide an 

opinion on the permanent impairment of appellant’s left lower extremity under the sixth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides. It indicated that it had not accepted that appellant sustained employmentrelated asceptic necrosis of the left talus and provided Dr. Einbund with a SOAF reflecting this 

fact.

In a March 23, 2017 report, Dr. Einbund discussed appellant’s factual and medical history, 

including his 2006 nonwork injury and related surgery. He reported the findings of his physical 

examination, noting that appellant exhibited no significant pain in his left ankle and that there was 

no ROM of the left ankle. Dr. Einbund indicated that there was no evidence that appellant had 

necrosis of the left talus. He also noted that x-ray testing showed solid fusion of the left tibiotalar 

joint. Dr. Einbund determined that, under Table 16-2, appellant’s left ankle condition fell under a 

CDX of class 0 and, therefore, he had no permanent impairment of his left lower extremity under 

the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. He explained that appellant’s April 29, 2013 left ankle 

sprain had not resulted in any permanent residuals and opined that, given his nonwork-related left 

ankle injury in 2006, appellant would still have the same objective findings even in the absence of 

his April 29, 2013 left ankle sprain.

On April 18, 2017 OWCP referred appellant’s case to Dr. Michael M. Katz, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon serving as a DMA. It requested that Dr. Katz review the medical

evidence of record, including Dr. Einbund’s March 23, 2017 report, and provide an opinion

regarding the permanent impairment of appellant’s left lower extremity under the sixth edition of

the A.M.A., Guides.

In an April 28, 2017 report, Dr. Katz indicated that he had reviewed Dr. Einbund’s 

March 23, 2017 report. He asserted that, since appellant’s December 6, 2013 left ankle fusion

surgery was approved by OWCP, the permanent impairment resulting from this surgery should be

compensable. Dr. Katz indicated that Dr. Einbund’s impairment rating was “not probative.” He

noted that, if an additional impairment evaluation was desired, an impairment evaluation should

be obtained from a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon or physical medicine and rehabilitation

physician who is familiar with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides and OWCP’s procedures.

Dr. Katz opined that Dr. Simpson’s impairment rating, calculating 13 percent permanent

impairment of the left lower extremity, was “accurate and reasonable.”

By decision dated May 22, 2017, OWCP determined that appellant had no greater than 13

percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity, for which he previously received a
5

schedule award. It noted that the impairment rating of Dr. Einbund did not show that appellant

had greater permanent impairment than the 13 percent previously awarded.

On May 30, 2017 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing with a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. During the hearing, held on

November 3, 2017, counsel argued that Dr. Einbund did not properly evaluate appellant’s 

permanent impairment under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

By decision dated December 5, 2017, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

May 22, 2017 decision. He indicated that the weight of the medical opinion evidence with respect 

to the permanent impairment of appellant’s left lower extremity continued to rest with the opinion 

of Dr. Simpson, as detailed in his September 18 and October 21, 2015 reports finding 13 percent 

permanent impairment.

Appellant appealed to the Board and, by decision dated June 19, 2018,7the Board set aside 

OWCP’s December 5, 2017 decision and remanded the case to OWCP for further development. 

The Board found that the evaluation of Dr. Einbund was incomplete as he had not adequately 

considered all of appellant’s accepted conditions in determining whether appellant had permanent 

impairment of his left lower extremity. In particular, Dr. Einbund had not adequately considered 

whether appellant had permanent impairment related to his December 6, 2013 left ankle fusion 

surgery, which was authorized by OWCP. The Board remanded the case to OWCP with 

instructions to seek clarification from Dr. Einbund regarding the permanent impairment of 

appellant’s left lower extremity. The Board directed OWCP to issue a de novo decision regarding 

appellant’s entitlement to schedule award compensation after carrying out such development.

On September 26, 2018 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion examination to

Dr. Einbund and requested that he provide an opinion on the permanent impairment of appellant’s 

left lower extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. It requested that he clarify 

whether appellant sustained permanent impairment related to his December 6, 2013 left ankle 

fusion surgery.

In an October 25, 2018 report, Dr. Einbund discussed appellant’s factual and medical 

history with respect to his left ankle, including his 2006 nonwork injury with related surgery and 

his January 11, 2012 and April 29, 2013 work injuries with related surgery. He reported the 

findings of his October 25, 2018 physical examination, noting that appellant ambulated with a 

limping gait and had restricted ROM of the left ankle. Appellant had normal sensation in both 

lower extremities and normal strength in his bilateral quadriceps, hamstrings, plantar 

flexors/extensors, and extensor hallucis longus muscles. Dr. Einbund indicated that appellant had 

a left thigh muscle atrophy measuring one centimeter and noted that x-rays revealed a solid 

tibiotalar fusion with hardware in place from the December 6, 2013 fusion surgery. He indicated 

that appellant reached MMI as of October 25, 2018, the date of his examination.

Dr. Einbund referred to the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides and utilized the DBI rating 

method to find that, under Table 16-2 on page 508, the CDX for appellant’s left ankle fusion in a 

neutral position resulted in a class 1 impairment with a default value of 10 percent. He assigned a 

 

7 Supra note 3.
6

GMFH of 2 based on appellant’s limping gait in the presence of objectively defined significant 

pathology. Dr. Einbund assigned a GMPE of 2 based on muscle atrophy at the left thigh measuring 

one centimeter and arthrodesis in position of function. He found that a GMCS was not applicable 

as the clinical studies were used to establish the diagnostic criteria and define the class. 

Dr. Einbund utilized the net adjustment formula, (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) = (2 - 1) + (2 

- 1) = +2, which resulted in a grade E or 13 percent permanent impairment of the left lower 

extremity. He further determined that the ROM impairment rating method was not applicable 

because Table 16-2 did not refer to the ROM impairment rating method as an alternative to the 

DBI rating method for appellant’s impairing condition. Dr. Einbund concluded that appellant had 

13 percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity.

On November 13, 2018 OWCP referred appellant’s case back to Dr. Katz, serving in his 

role as a DMA. It requested that Dr. Katz review the medical evidence of record, including

Dr. Einbund’s October 25, 2018 report, and provide an opinion regarding the permanent 

impairment of appellant’s left lower extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

In a November 15, 2018 report, Dr. Katz opined that Dr. Einbund’s determination that 

appellant had 13 percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity was supported by the 

medical evidence of record and was consistent with the methodology of the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides. He agreed with Dr. Einbund that the A.M.A., Guides did not allow use of the 

ROM impairment rating method for appellant’s impairing left ankle condition. Dr. Katz then 

provided a rating under the DBI method which was similar to that of Dr. Einbund. He referred to 

Table 16-2 and noted that the CDX for appellant’s left ankle fusion in a neutral position resulted 

in a class 1 impairment with a default value of 10 percent. Dr. Katz assigned a GMFH of 2 and a 

GMPE of 2, and found that a GMCS was not applicable. He utilized the net adjustment formula, 

(GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) = (2 - 1) + (2 - 1) = +2, which resulted in a grade E or 13 

percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity. Dr. Katz found that the date of MMI 

was the date of Dr. Einbund’s examination, i.e., October 25, 2018.8

By decision dated November 15, 2018, OWCP determined that appellant had not met his 

burden of proof to establish greater than 13 percent permanent impairment of his left lower 

extremity, for which he previously received a schedule award. It based its determination on the 

October 25, 2018 report of Dr. Einbund and the November 15, 2018 report of Dr. Katz.

On July 2, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the November 15, 

2018 decision.

Appellant submitted a May 21, 2019 report from Dr. Neil Allen, a Board-certified internist 

and neurologist, who discussed appellant’s factual and medical history, reported the findings of a

May 21, 2019 physical examination, and provided a rating of the permanent impairment of 

appellant’s left lower extremity. He noted that appellant had an American Academy of Orthopedic 

Surgeons (AAOS) lower limb questionnaire score of 69 (grade modifier 1). Prior to conducting 

an impairment rating under the ROM impairment rating method, Dr. Allen indicated, “The [ROM 

 

8 Dr. Katz inadvertently listed the date of Dr. Einbund’s examination as October 22, 2018, rather than the proper 

date of October 25, 2018.
7

method] was found to result in a greater amount of lower extremity impairment than the [DBI] 

method for “Ankle Ankylosis” (20 [percent lower extremity impairment]).” He then noted that, 

utilizing the ROM method under Table 16-22 on page 549 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides, appellant had 51 percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity comprised of 

7 percent permanent impairment due to 0degrees of left ankle dorsiflexion, 7 percent due to 15 

degrees of flexion contracture, 30 percent due to 0 degrees of plantar flexion, 5 percent due to 0

degrees of inversion, and 2 percent due to 0 degrees of eversion. Dr. Allen referenced Table 16-

16 on page 545 and opined that appellant’s level of permanent impairment was consistent with a

grade modifier of 4.

9

 He referenced Table 16-6 on page 516 and noted that appellant’s AAOS 

lower limb questionnaire score fell under a grade modifier of 1. Dr. Allen concluded that appellant 

had 51 percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity.

On July 11, 2019 OWCP requested that Dr. Katz, in his role as a DMA, review Dr. Allen’s 

May 21, 2019 report and provide an opinion on the extent of appellant’s left lower extremity 

permanent impairment. In a July 15, 2019 report, Dr. Katz indicated that the ROM impairment 

rating method was not applicable because Table 16-2 did not refer to the ROM impairment rating 

method as an alternative to the DBI rating method for appellant’s impairing condition. Therefore, 

he concluded that Dr. Allen’s impairment rating of 51 percent for the left lower extremity was not 

valid. Dr. Katz then provided a rating under the DBI method, which was similar to the rating he 

provided in his November 15, 2018 report. He concluded that appellant had 13 percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity. Dr. Katz found that the date of MMI was the date of

Dr. Einbund’s examination, i.e., October 25, 2018.

By decision dated July 22, 2019, OWCP denied modification of its November 15, 2018 

decision. It determined that Dr. Allen’s May 21, 2019 report lacked probative value regarding the 

permanent impairment of appellant’s left lower extremity.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA,10 and its implementing federal regulations,

11 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. 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 for all claimants, OWCP has adopted 

 

9 The Board notes that Table 16-17 only references net modifiers going up to the level of 3. See A.M.A., Guides 

545, Table 16-17. 

10 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

11 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.
8

the A.M.A., Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants.12 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.13

In determining impairment for the lower extremities under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides, an evaluator must establish the appropriate diagnosis for each part of the lower extremity 

to be rated. With respect to the ankle, the relevant portion of the leg for the present case, reference 

is made to Table 16-2 (Foot and Ankle Regional Grid) beginning on page 501.14 After the CDX

is determined from the Foot and Ankle Regional Grid (including identification of a default grade 

value), the net adjustment formula is applied utilizing GMFH, GMPE, and GMCS. The net 

adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX).15 Under Chapter 2.3, 

evaluators are directed to provide reasons for their impairment choices, including choices of 

diagnoses from regional grids and calculations of modifier scores.16

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater than 13 

percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity, for which he previously received a 

schedule award.

The Board finds that OWCP properly relied on the opinions of Dr. Einbund, an OWCP 

referral physician, and Dr. Katz, a DMA, in determining that appellant had no greater than 13 

percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity.

In an October 25, 2018 report, Dr. Einbund discussed appellant’s factual and medical 

history with respect to his left ankle, including his 2006 nonwork injury with related surgery and 

his January 11, 2012 and April 29, 2013 work injuries with related surgery. He reported the 

findings of his October 25, 2018 physical examination. Dr. Einbund properly referred to the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides and utilized the DBI rating method to find that, under Table 16-2 

on page 508, the CDX for appellant’s left ankle fusion in a neutral position resulted in a class 1 

impairment with a default value of 10 percent.17 He assigned a GMFH of 2 based on appellant’s 

limping gait in the presence of objectively defined significant pathology. Dr. Einbund assigned a 

GMPE of 2 based on muscle atrophy at the left thigh measuring one centimeter and arthrodesis in 

position of function. He found that a GMCS was not applicable as the clinical studies were used 

to establish the diagnostic criteria and define the class. Dr. Einbund utilized the net adjustment 

formula, (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) = (2 - 1) + (2 - 1) = +2, which resulted in a grade E or 

 

12 Id. See also T.T., Docket No. 18-1622 (issued May 14, 2019).

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

2.808.5a (March 2017); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and 

Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

14 See A.M.A., Guides 501-08 (6th ed. 2009).

15 Id. at 515-22.

16 Id. at 23-28.

17 See id. at 508, Table 16-2.
9

13 percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity.18 He further properly determined 

that the ROM impairment rating method was not applicable because Table 16-2 did not refer to 

the ROM impairment rating method as an alternative to the DBI rating method for appellant’s 

impairing condition. Dr. Einbund concluded that appellant had 13 percent permanent impairment 

of the left lower extremity.19

In a November 15, 2018 report, Dr. Katz opined that Dr. Einbund’s determination that 

appellant had 13 percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity was supported by the 

medical evidence of record and was consistent with the methodology of the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides. He agreed with Dr. Einbund that the A.M.A., Guides did not allow use of the 

ROM impairment rating method for appellant’s impairing left ankle condition.20

Appellant later submitted a May 21, 2019 impairment rating report from Dr. Allen, an 

attending physician. Prior to conducting an impairment rating under the ROM impairment rating 

method, Dr. Allen indicated, “The [ROM method] was found to result in a greater amount of lower 

extremity impairment than the [DBI] method for “Ankle Ankylosis” (20 [percent lower extremity 

impairment]).” He then noted that, utilizing the ROM method under Table 16-22 on page 549 of 

the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had 51 percent permanent impairment of his left 

lower extremity.

However, the Board finds that Dr. Allen’s report lacks probative value because he did not 

derive an impairment rating in accordance with the standards of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides. Both Dr. Einbund and Dr. Katz properly noted that the ROM impairment rating method 

was not applicable because Table 16-2 did not refer to the ROM impairment rating method as an 

alternative to the DBI rating method for appellant’s impairing condition.21 Although Dr. Allen 

provided 20 percent impairment rating for left ankle ankylosis, he did not explain how this rating 

was derived in accordance with the standards of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. He did 

not make reference to specific portions of the A.M.A., Guides or otherwise explain how his rating 

was calculated. The Board has held that an opinion on permanent impairment lacks probative 

value if it is not derived in accordance with the standards adopted by OWCP and approved by the 

Board as appropriate for evaluating schedule losses.22

For these reasons, appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater than 13 

percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity, for which he previously received a 

schedule award.

 

18 See supra note 16.

19 Dr. Einbund determined that appellant’s date of MMI was October 25, 2018, the date of his examination.

20 Dr. Katz found that appellant’s date of MMI was October 25, 2018, the date of Dr. Einbund’s examination.

21 See A.M.A., Guides 501-08, Table 16-2.

22 See N.A., Docket No. 19-0248 (issued May 17, 2019).
10

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 his burden of proof to establish greater than 13 

percent permanent impairment of his left lower extremity, for which he previously received a 

schedule award.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 22, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 31, 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