United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

BRUCE W. CARTER VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Miami, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1265

Issued: April 5, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 29, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 12, 2022 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case. 

ISSUE

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

impairment of his left upper extremity, warranting a schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 13, 2004 appellant, then a 32-year-old air conditioning equipment mechanic, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 10, 2004 he fractured his left index 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

finger when his left hand was caught inside a fan he had ordered disconnected, but was restarted

while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for a left index finger open fracture, 

left index finger open wound with tendon involvement, and left-hand lacerations.

On July 10, 2004 Dr. Ricardo J. Jimenez-Lee, a Board-certified plastic surgeon, performed 

open reduction internal fixation on an open fracture of left index finger with tendon repair. 

In a progress note dated April 4, 2005, Dr. Zubin J. Panthaki, a Board-certified hand 

surgeon, related that appellant had a left-hand index finger open fracture nine months prior. He

noted that the fracture had healed, but appellant had some residual pain, likely related to arthritic 

changes in the joints of his index finger, which could be chronic. Dr. Panthaki released appellant 

to work without restrictions, but advised appellant to return for reevaluation if he had continued 

discomfort with full-duty work. 

On November 1, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award.

In a development letter dated May 18, 2022, OWCP requested that appellant submit a 

detailed medical report from his physician addressing his permanent impairment due to his

accepted employment injury in accordance with the sixth edition of the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).2 It afforded 

him 30 days to submit the requested information. OWCP advised appellant that, if his physician 

was unable to provide such a report, he should notify it in writing, and if the evidence showed a 

work-related permanent impairment of a scheduled member that was insufficient to determine the 

extent of permanent impairment, it would refer him for a second opinion examination.

Appellant did not respond within the allotted time.

By decision dated July 12, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA,3and its implementing federal regulations,4set 

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. FECA, 

however, does not specify the manner in which the percentage loss of a member shall be 

determined. The method used in making such a determination is a matter which rests in the 

discretion of OWCP. For consistent results and to ensure equal justice, the Board has authorized 

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

OWCP evaluates the degree of permanent impairment according to the standards set forth in the 

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

3 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c).

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.
3

specified edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009.5 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.6

It is the claimant’s burden of proof to establish permanent impairment of a scheduled 

member or function of the body as a result of an employment injury.7 OWCP’s procedures provide 

that, to support a schedule award, the file must contain competent medical evidence, which shows 

that the impairment has reached a permanent and fixed state, and indicates that the date on which 

this occurred (date of maximum medical improvement (MMI)), describes the impairment in 

sufficient detail so that it can be visualized on review, and computes the percentage of impairment 

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

8

 Its procedures further provide that, if a claimant has not 

submitted a permanent impairment evaluation, it should request a detailed report that includes a 

discussion of how the impairment rating was calculated.9 If the claimant does not provide an 

impairment evaluation, and there is no indication of permanent impairment in the medical evidence 

of file, the claims examiner may proceed with a formal denial of the award.10

ANALYSIS

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

impairment of his left upper extremity, warranting a schedule award.

On November 1, 2019 appellant requested a schedule award. OWCP, in a May 18, 2022

development letter, requested that he submit a permanent impairment evaluation from his

physician addressing the extent of any employment-related permanent impairment using the 

A.M.A., Guides. Appellant did not, however, submit any medical evidence establishing permanent 

impairment.

On July 10, 2004 Dr. Jimenez-Lee, performed open reduction internal fixation. In a 

progress note dated April 4, 2005, Dr. Panthaki related that appellant had a left-hand index finger 

open fracture nine months prior. He noted that the fracture had healed, but appellant had some 

residual pain, likely related to arthritic changes in the joints of his index figure, which could be 

chronic. Dr. Panthaki released appellant to work without restrictions, but advised appellant to 

return for reevaluation if he had continued discomfort with full-duty work. Dr.’s Jimenez-Lee and 

5 For decisions issued after May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used. A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 

2009); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, 

Chapter 2.808.5a (March 2017); see also id. at Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

6 P.R., Docket No. 19-0022 (issued April 9, 2018); Isidoro Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961).

7 See Y.M., Docket No. 21-0995 (issued March 2, 2022); Edward Spohr, 54 ECAB 806, 810 (2003); Tammy L. 

Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001).

8 Supra note 5 at Chapter 2.808.5.

9

Id. at Chapter 2.808.6a.

10 Id. at Chapter 2.808.6(c).
4

Panthanki did not, however, address whether appellant had reached MMI, or find that appellant

had permanent impairment due to his accepted employment injury.11

As noted above, appellant must submit an evaluation from a physician that includes a 

description of impairment in sufficient detail so that the claims examiner and others reviewing the 

file will be able to clearly visualize the impairment with its resulting restrictions and limitations.12 

As appellant has not submitted any medical evidence supporting permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member or function of the body due to his accepted conditions, the Board finds that he 

has not met his burden of proof.13

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 permanent impairment.

CONCLUSION

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

impairment of his left upper extremity, warranting a schedule award.

11 See K.J., Docket No. 19-1492 (issued February 26, 2020); K.F., Docket No. 18-1517 (issued October 9, 2019).

12 See D.J., Docket No. 20-0017 (issued August 31, 2021); B.V., Docket No. 17-0656 (issued March 13, 2018); 

C.B., Docket No. 16-0060 (issued February 2, 2016); P.L., Docket No. 13-1592 (issued January 7, 2014).

13 See A.M., Docket No. 21-1413 (issued March 28, 2022).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 12, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 5, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board