United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU, Jeffersonville, IN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0175

Issued: July 12, 2022

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

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 15, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

November 4, 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.

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 adult son as a dependent pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8110.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 24, 2019 appellant, then an 86-year-old statistical clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome due to factors of 

her federal employment, specifically performing repetitive work on computers.3 She noted that 

she first became aware of her condition and realized its relationship to her federal employment on 

February 25, 2018. On the reverse side of the claim form, an employing establishment human 

resource specialist indicated that appellant was last exposed to the employment conditions alleged 

to have caused her disease or illness on April 19, 2018. On April 8, 2020 OWCP accepted her

claim for right carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Appellant submitted a July 31, 2020 report by Dr. Martin Fritzhand, a Board-certified 

urologist, who reviewed her history of injury and medical record. Dr. Fritzhand noted that

electromyography and nerve conduction velocity study showed severe right carpal tunnel 

syndrome. On physical examination of appellant’s right hand, he noted that appellant would have 

difficulty grasping heavy or large objects. Tinel’s sign was positive on the right. Referencing the 

sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides),4 Table 15-23 (Entrapment/Compression Neuropathy Impairment), 

page 449, Dr. Fritzhand assigned a grade modifier for functional history (GMFH) of 3, a grade 

modifier for physical examination (GMPE) of 3, and a grade modifier for clinical studies (GMCS) 

of 1. He also noted a Quick DASH score of 63. Dr. Fritzhand calculated that appellant had six

percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. He noted that she reached maximum 

medical improvement (MMI) by February 2019. 

In a September 18, 2020 report, Dr. James W. Butler, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon

serving as a district medical adviser, concurred with Dr. Fritzhand’s impairment rating. Utilizing 

Table 15-23 of the A.M.A., Guides, he calculated that appellant had six percent permanent 

impairment of the right upper extremity. Dr. Butler opined that she had reached MMI on July 31, 

2020 the date of Dr. Fritzhand’s report. 

On November 17, 2020 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a 

schedule award. Under section 5, she listed J.K. as a dependent and noted that he was her son. 

3 OWCP assigned the present claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx776. Appellant has a previously accepted traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) under OWCP File No. xxxxxx089 for a left elbow abrasion and a right radial styloid fracture 

causally related to a November 14, 2017 employment injury. OWCP has administratively combined OWCP File Nos. 

xxxxxx776 and xxxxxx089, with the latter claim designed as the master file. 

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

In letters dated February 18 and 23, 2021, OWCP advised appellant that an unmarried 

child, age 18 or older, may be considered a dependent under FECA if he or she is either a full-time 

student or incapable of self-support. It requested that she submit a questionnaire and a medical 

report describing his or her mental or physical disability to determine whether her son had 

continuing eligibility for compensation beyond his 18th birthday and provided a questionnaire for 

completion. 

By decision dated May 5, 2021, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for six percent 

permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. The award ran for 18.72 weeks from July 31 

through December 9, 2020. 

In a letter dated May 11, 2021, appellant, through counsel, requested additional 

information regarding how appellant’s weekly pay rate was calculated and alleged that the pay 

rate, which was used to calculate her schedule award, was inconsistent with her W-2s from 2016, 

2017, and 2018. Counsel also alleged that appellant may be entitled to receive compensation at 

the augmented rate because appellant provides housing, care, and support for her disabled son. 

On May 20, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, which was held on 

September 13, 2021. During the hearing, counsel clarified that she was not questioning the amount 

of the schedule award. She argued that appellant was entitled to compensation at the augmented 

rate as appellant had an adult son who was medically incapable of caring for himself. Appellant 

testified that her son was diabetic and required medical assistance. She alleged that her son had 

lived with her all his life and was incapable of performing daily activities without assistance. 

In a letter dated September 13, 2021, OWCP advised appellant’s attorney of the type of 

evidence required to establish that appellant was entitled to compensation at the augmented rate of 

75 percent. It requested medical evidence that demonstrated that appellant’s adult son was

incapable of self-support. 

By decision dated November 4, 2021, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the May 5, 

2021 decision, finding that appellant had not submitted evidence to establish that she was entitled 

to schedule award compensation at an augmented rate. 

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.5 If the 

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

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

compensation for total disability.6 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 

5

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

6

Id. at § 8105(a).
4

75 percent of monthly pay, if he or she has one or more dependents. 7 OWCP’s procedures provide 

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

compensation.8

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.9 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. 10

ANALYSIS

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

augmented schedule award compensation based on claiming her adult son as a dependent pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8110.

By decision dated November 4, 2021, OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to 

augmented schedule award compensation as no medical evidence was received to establish that 

her adult son was incapable of self-support.

As noted above, 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.11 In letters dated February 18 and 23, 2021, OWCP requested that appellant 

submit a questionnaire and advised her of the necessary medical evidence to establish that her son 

was eligible for dependent status under FECA. Appellant, however, did not provide the necessary 

evidence. Although she listed her adult son, J.K., as a dependent on the Form CA-7, she failed to 

submit any medical evidence to establish that her son was incapable of self-support due to a 

physical or mental disability.12 As the evidence of record is insufficient to establish appellant’s 

7

Id. at § 8110.

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

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

March 13, 2019). 

9

5 U.S.C. § 8110(a).

10 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).

11 Supra page 9.

12 See C.F., Docket No. 18-1344 (issued August 22, 2019); see also Ralph P. Beachum, Sr., 55 ECAB 442, 

445 (2004).
5

adult son as an eligible dependent under FECA, the Board finds that OWCP properly determined 

that appellant is not eligible for augmented schedule award compensation.13

CONCLUSION

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

augmented schedule award compensation based on claiming her adult son as a dependent pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. § 8110.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 4, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 12, 2022

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

13 See M.H., Docket No. 21-0115 (issued September 9, 2021).