United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MAIL RECOVERY 

CENTER, Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0167

Issued: December 16, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 8, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from August 17 and September 2, 

2021 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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 The Board notes that, during the pendency of this appeal, OWCP issued a November 19, 2021, decision which 

denied modification of its August 17, 2021 decision. The Board and OWCP may not simultaneously exercise 

jurisdiction over the same issue(s). Consequently, OWCP’s November 19, 2021 decision is set aside as null and void. 

20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)(3), 10.626; see J.W., Docket No. 19-1688, n.1 (issued March 18, 2020); J.A., Docket No. 

19-0981, n.2 (issued December 30, 2019); RussellE. Lerman, 43 ECAB 770 (1992); Douglas E. Billings, 41 ECAB 

880 (1990).

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that,following the September 2, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish disability 

from work for the period June 14 through 18, 2021 causally related to her accepted November 19, 

2015 employment injury; and (2) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish greater 

than six percent permanent impairment of her right upper extremity for which she previously 

received a schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board on another issue.4 The facts and 

circumstances of the case as set forth in the Board’s prior decision and order are incorporated 

herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On December 8, 2015 appellant, then a 60-year-old clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained neck, right shoulder, wrist, and arm conditions due 

to repetitively throwing parcels and packages, reaching above the shoulder, pushing, twisting, 

pulling, bending, and prolonged standing, while in the performance of duty. She did not stop work. 

OWCP accepted the claim for C3-4 and C6-7 cervical disc displacement and right shoulder 

bursitis.

On January 19, 2019 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. She submitted a November 30, 2018 report from Dr. Ralph D’Auria, a Board-certified 

physiatrist. After he noted appellant’s physical examination findings, Dr. D’Auria referred to the 

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

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides)

5 and The Guides Newsletter, Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity 

Impairment Using the Sixth Edition (July/August 2009) (The Guides Newsletter) and found that 

appellant had 49 percent right upper extremity permanent impairment based on cervical and 

thoracic motor and sensory deficits. He reported that, according to Table 15-34, Shoulder Range 

of Motion, page 475, of the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had nine percent permanent impairment of 

the right extremity. Dr. D’Auria concluded that appellant had a total of 58 percent permanent 

impairment of the right upper extremity.

On March 14, 2019 OWCP forwarded a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) and the 

medical record, including Dr. D’Auria’s November 30, 2018 impairment rating, to a district 

medical adviser (DMA) for an impairment rating. In a report dated March 20, 2019, Dr. Kevin 

Kuhn, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, serving as OWCP’s DMA reviewed appellant’s 

medical record and opined that appellant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) as 

of Dr. D’Auria’s report. He indicated that Dr. D’Auria’s rating based on loss of range of motion 

(ROM) was invalid as Dr. D’Auria failed to provide three independent ROM measurements. 

Dr. Kuhn used the diagnosis-based method (DBI) to determine appellant’s permanent impairment. 

Applying Table 17-2 (Cervical Spine Regional Grid) of the A.M.A., Guides, he assigned a Class

1 impairment to the class of diagnosis (CDX) of intervertebral disc degeneration without 

4 Docket No. 19-0321 (issued July 5, 2019).

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

radiculopathy.

6

 Dr. Kuhn assigned a grade modifier for functional history (GMFH) of 2 for pain 

and symptoms with normal activity;

7 a grade modifier for physical examination (GMPE) of 0;8

and a grade modifier for clinical studies (GMCS) of 0.

9

 Using the net adjustment formula, he

calculated a net adjustment of -1, which resulted in a Class 1, Grade B impairment, which equaled 

one percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity. With respect to the right shoulder,

Dr. Kuhn utilized Table 15-5 and found that appellant’s diagnosis of impingement, which he found 

was the closest diagnosis to a CDX of right shoulder bursitis, resulted in a Class 1 impairment with 

a default impairment of one percent.10 He assigned: a GMFH of 2 for pain with normal activity;

11

a GMPE of 112 for mild palpatory findings; and a GMCS of 2 for clinical studies confirming 

diagnosis with moderate pathology.13 Using the net adjustment formula, Dr. Kuhn calculated a 

net adjustment of 2, which resulted in a Class 1, Grade E, which equaled two percent permanent 

impairment of the right upper extremity. He then combined the impairment ratings to find a total 

of three percent right upper extremity permanent impairment. 

On May 7, 2019 OWCP referred appellant, the medical record, a SOAF, and series of 

questions to Dr. Alexander N. Doman, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, for a second opinion 

evaluation regarding the rating of appellant’s permanent impairment. 

In a May 23, 2019 report, Dr. Doman provided appellant’s physical examination findings 

and noted that she had no complaints of radicular symptoms and no upper or lower extremity

complaints of numbness or paresthesias. Using the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, Table 

15-5, page 402, he assigned a CDX of shoulder impingement syndrome, which he explained was 

the closest diagnosis to the accepted bursitis condition, resulting in a Class 1 impairment. 

Dr. Doman assigned a GMPE of 2, a GMFH of 2, and a GMCS of 1, which resulted in a net 

adjustment of 2 from the default value, and equaled a Class 1, Grade E impairment rating of two 

percent. He also provided appellant’s ROM findings, notingthat forward flexion was 102 degrees, 

extension was 50 degrees, abduction was 100 degrees, adduction was 40 degrees, internal rotation 

was 80 degrees, and external rotation was 70 degrees. Dr. Doman found that appellant had three 

percent permanent impairment for forward flexion and three percent permanent impairment for 

abduction, resulting in a total six percent permanent impairment.14 He explained that because the 

ROM rating was higher, appellant was entitled to a six percent rating based on the ROM 

6

Id. at 564.

7

Id. at 575, Table 17-6.

8

Id. at 576, Table 17-7.

9

Id. at 581, Table 17-9.

10 Id. at 402, Table 15-5.

11 Id. at 406, Table15-7.

12 Id. at 408,Table 15-8.

13 Id. at 410, Table 15-9.

14 Id. at 475, Table 15-34.
4

methodology. Dr. Doman found that appellant reached MMI on May 23, 2019, the date of his 

examination. 

On August 8, 2019 Dr. Kuhn concurred with Dr. Doman’s rating of six percent permanent 

impairment of appellant’s right upper extremity using the ROM method. 

By decision dated August 21, 2019, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for six 

percent permanent impairment of the right upper extremity (arm). The period of the award was 

for 18.72 weeks and ran from May 24 to October 2, 2019. 

On February 7, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

August 21, 2019 schedule award decision. In support of her request, she submitted a February 4, 

2020 report from Dr. D’Auria. Dr. D’Auria disagreed with the opinions of Dr. Doman, the second 

opinion physician, and Dr. Kuhn, the DMA, regarding appellant’s permanent impairment rating. 

Based on his November 30, 2018 examination findings and diagnostic testing, he asserted that if 

appellant’s claim was accepted for cervical disc displacement without radiculopathy, then the 

acceptance of appellant’s claim should be expanded to include cervical radiculopathy. Dr. D’Auria

noted that his examination did include objective findings of right upper extremity motor deficits. 

While the right upper extremity sensory deficits were more generalized, he found the motor deficits 

localized at C5, C6, C7, C8, and T1 myotomes. Dr. D’Auria also indicated that he had reviewed 

appellant’s January 13, 2016 and March 30, 2017 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)scans, which 

supported his examination findings. He also disagreed with Dr. Doman’s reporting that appellant 

had no upper or lower extremity radicular symptom, numbness, or paresthesia complaints. 

Dr. D’Auria noted that, when appellant was seen on November 30, 2018, she had complaints of

neck pain radiating into the right arm, hand, and fingers; right arm, hand, and fingers tingling and 

numbness. Therefore, he disagreed with Dr. Doman’s opinion that appellant had no permanent 

impairment due to cervical spine radiculopathy. Regarding right shoulder ROM findings, he 

advised that three successive independent trials had been conducted as required. Appellant’s ROM 

of the right shoulder reflected abduction of 60 degrees, 70 degrees, and 70 degrees and flexion of 

75 degrees, 80 degrees, and 90 degrees. Thus, Dr. D’Auria opined that appellant’s permanent 

impairment based on ROM was nine percent. He found appellant had 29 percent right upper 

extremity permanent impairment. 

In a report dated March 4, 2020, Dr. Arthur S. Harris, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon 

serving as OWCP’s DMA, reviewed the medical evidence, including Dr. D’Auria’s February 4, 

2020 permanent impairment rating. Based on the discrepancies in the medical evaluation 

information of Dr. Doman and Dr. D’Auria, he recommended that OWCP refer appellant for 

another second opinion evaluation to document appellant’s subjective complaints, objective 

findings, and provide a permanent impairment rating for her cervical spine and right shoulder

conditions.

On September 18, 2020 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with

Dr. Stephen A. Dawkins, a Board-certified occupational medicine physician, to document 

appellant’s subjective complaints, objective findings, and provide an impairment rating for her 

cervical spine and right shoulder conditions. On January 22, 2021 it indicated that appellant had 

been seen by Dr. Dawkins; however his report required clarification. 

In a progress report dated March 26, 2021, Dr. D’Auria related that appellant should be 

seen by a surgeon for her right shoulder condition. In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated 
5

March 26, April 28, May 27, and June 26, 2021, Dr. D’Auria noted that appellant was advised to 

resume work on September 24, 2019. He checked “No” to the question of whether appellant was 

able to perform regular work. 

In a work status form dated June 11, 2021, Dr. D’Auria advised that appellant was unable 

to work from June 11 through 18, 2021. 

A June 17, 2021 MRI scan of appellant’s right shoulder noted findings of right 

supraspinatus tendon rotator cuff tear and right subacromial deltoid bursitis joint effusion. 

In a report dated June 18, 2021, Dr. Scott Gillogly, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon,

provided physical examination findings. He related appellant’s diagnoses as right shoulder full 

thickness supraspinatus rotator cuff tear, right shoulder pain, right shoulder joint pain, and right 

shoulder impingement syndrome. Dr. Gillogly indicated that appellant should only work six hours 

a day as she was having symptoms when working eight hours.

On June 30, 2021 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for disability from 

work during the period May 31 through June 11, 2021. For the period June 14 through 18, 2021,

she claimed 40 hours of LWOP due to severe pain and an inability to work. 

In a letter dated July 1, 2021, OWCP informed appellant that payment was authorized for 

four hours on June 11, 2021 for a medical appointment. It advised that no evidence had been

received supporting her claim for disability for the remaining dates. OWCP requested that she 

submit documentation supporting her claim for disability and afforded her 30 days to provide the 

requested information.

In response to OWCP’s July 1, 2021 letter, appellant submitted a June 17, 2021 MRI scan

as well as additional reports from Dr. D’Auria. In a June 25, 2021 Form CA-17, Dr. D’Auria

reiterated the findings from his prior reports. In a June 25, 2021 office visit note, he detailed 

examination findings and noted that appellant was currently working with restrictions. 

On July 7, 2021 OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation with

Dr. Jeffrey A. Fried, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to document appellant’s subjective 

complaints and objective findings, and obtain an assessment of appellant’s employment-related 

condition and any resulting permanent impairment. 

In a July 29, 2021 report, Dr. D’Auria requested that OWCP expand its acceptance of 

appellant’s claim to include a right shoulder full-thickness rotator cuff tear as causally related to 

the accepted November 19, 2015 employment injury. He explained that the prolonged and 

repetitive activities appellant performed at work resulted in weakening and inflammation of her 

right shoulder tendons and muscles, and ultimately in a full-thickness supraspinatus tendon tear.

On August 17, 2021 OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation for four hours on 

June 23, 2021 and four hours June 25, 2021 for medical appointments.

By separate decision dated August 17, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wageloss compensation for the period June 14 through 18, 2021.
6

By decision dated September 2, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the August 21, 2019 

schedule award determination. It noted thatDr. Gillogly had indicated that appellant might require 

right shoulder surgery.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA15 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.

16

 For each period of 

disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled 

from work as a result of the accepted employment injury.

17

 Whether a particular injury causes an 

employee to become disabled from work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues 

that must be proven by a preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial medical opinion 

evidence.

18

 Findings on examination are generally needed to support a physician’s opinion that 

an employee is disabled from work.

19

The term “disability” is defined as the incapacity, because of an employment injury, to earn 

the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.

20

 Disability is, thus, not 

synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages.21 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to a federal employment 

injury, but who nevertheless has the capacity to earn the wages he or she was receiving at the time 

of injury, has no disability as that term is used in FECA.

22

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of 

medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is 

claimed. To do so, would essentially allow an employee to self-certify his or her disability and 

entitlement to compensation.

23

15 Supra note 1.

16 See M.T., Docket No. 21-0783 (issued December 27, 2021); L.S., Docket No. 18-0264 (issued January 28, 2020);

B.O., Docket No. 19-0392 (issued July 12, 2019); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989).

17 M.T., id.; T.W., Docket No. 19-1286 (issued January 13, 2020).

18 M.T., id.; S.G., Docket No. 18-1076 (issued April11, 2019); V.H., Docket No. 18-1282 (issued April2, 2019);

Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291 (2001).

19 M.T., id.; C.S., Docket No. 20-1621 (issued June 28, 2021); DeanE. Pierce, 40 ECAB 1249 (1989).

20 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); M.T., id.; J.S., Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January 24, 2020); S.T., Docket No. 18-0412 

(issued October 22, 2018);Cheryl L. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).

21 M.T., id.; G.T., Docket No. 18-1369 (issued March 13, 2019); RobertL. Kaaumoana, 54 ECAB 150 (2002).

22 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); M.T., id.; N.M., Docket No. 18-0939 (issued December 6, 2018).

23 See M.T., id.; M.J., Docket No. 19-1287 (issued January 13, 2020);C.S., Docket No. 17-1686 (issued February 5, 

2019); WilliamA. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).
7

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for the period June 14 through 18, 2021 causally related to her accepted November 19, 2015 

employment injury.

In a work status report dated July 11, 2021, Dr. D’Auria related that appellant was unable 

to work from June 11 to 18, 2021. In Form CA-17 duty status reports dated March 26, April 28, 

May 27 and June 26, 2021, he checked “No” to the question of whether appellant was capable of 

performing her regular work and noted that appellant was advised to resume work on 

September 24, 2019. Dr. D’Auria, however, did not provide an opinion that appellant was totally

disabled from work during the claimed period due to the accepted injury. The Board has held that 

medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition or 

disability is of no probative value.24 Therefore, this evidence isinsufficient to establish appellant’s 

disability claim.

In a report dated July 29, 2021, Dr. D’Auria requested expansion of the acceptance of 

appellant’s claim to include a right shoulder full-thickness rotator cuff tear as causally related to 

the accepted November 19, 2015 employment injury. Similarly, Dr. Gillogly diagnosed right 

shoulder full-thickness supraspinatus rotator cuff tear, right shoulder pain, right shoulder joint 

pain, and right shoulder impingement syndrome and reduced her work hours from eight to six. 

However, neither Dr. D’Auria nor Dr. Gillogly provided an opinion on the issue of whether 

appellant was disabled from work during the claimed period due to her accepted November 19, 

2015 employment injury.25 As previously noted, the Board will not require OWCP to pay 

compensation for disability in the absence of medical evidence directly addressing the specific 

dates of disability for which compensation is claimed.26 Therefore, these reports are insufficient 

to meet appellant’s burden of proof.

The record also contains a June 17, 2021 MRI scan of the right shoulder. The Board has 

held that diagnostic reports, standing alone, lack probative value on the issue of causal relationship 

as they do not provide an opinion as to whether the accepted employment factors caused a 

diagnosed condition.27

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant was totally

disabled from work during the claimed period, the Board finds that appellant has not met her 

burden of proof.

24 L.O., Docket No. 20-0170 (issued August 13, 2021); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

25 Id.

26 See M.T., Docket No. 21-0783 (issued December 27, 2021); M.J., supranote 23;C.S., supra note 23; WilliamA. 

Archer, supra note 23.

27 A.W., Docket No. 2201196 (issued November 23, 2022); S.W., Docket No. 21-1105 (issued December 17, 2021); 

W.L., Docket No. 20-1589 (issued August26, 2021); A.P., Docket No. 18-1690 (issued December 12, 2019).
8

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

The schedule award provisions of FECA28 and its implementing regulations29 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. FECA, however, does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss of a member shall be determined. For consistent 

results and to ensure equal justice under the law for all claimants, OWCP has adopted the A.M.A., 

Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants and the Board has concurred in such 

adoption.

30

 As of May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009, is used 

to calculate schedule awards.31

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides provides a DBI method of evaluation utilizing the 

World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: 

A Contemporary Model of Disablement.32 Under the sixth edition, for upper extremity 

impairments, the evaluator identifies the impairment of the CDX, which is then adjusted by 

GMFH, GMPE, and GMCS.

33

 The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) 

+ (GMCS - CDX).

34

 The standards for evaluation of permanent impairment of an extremity under 

the A.M.A., Guides are based on all factors that prevent a limb from functioning normally, such 

as pain, sensory deficit, and loss of strength.

35

Neither FECA nor its implementing regulations provide for the payment of a schedule 

award for the permanent loss of use of the back/spine or the body as a whole.

36

 Furthermore, the 

back is specifically excluded from the definition of an organ under FECA.

37

 The sixth edition of 

the A.M.A., Guides does not provide a separate mechanism for rating spinal nerve injuries as 

28 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

29 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

30 Id. at § 10.404 (a); see also J.C., Docket No. 21-0288 (issued July 1, 2021); Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 

139 (2002).

31 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Wages Lost for Medical Examination or Treatment, Chapter 

2.808.5a (March 2017); see alsoChapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010)..

32 A.M.A., Guides 3, section 1.3.

33 Id. at 383-492.

34 Id. at 411.

35 J.C., supra note 30; C.H., Docket No. 17-1065 (issued December 14, 2017); E.B., Docket No. 10-0670 (issued 

October 5, 2010); Robert V. Disalvatore, 54 ECAB 351 (2003); Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001).

36 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c); 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(a) and (b); see J.C., id.; N.D., 59 ECAB 344 (2008); TaniaR. Keka, 55 

ECAB 354 (2004).

37 See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(19); FrancescoC. Veneziani, 48 ECAB 572 (1997).
9

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 procedures indicate that the 

July/August 2009 edition of The Guides Newsletter is to be applied.

38

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

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

of impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with OWCP’s medical adviser providing 

rationale for the percentage of impairment specified.

39

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for a decision with regard to appellant’s 

claim for an additional schedule award.

In a report dated May 23, 2019, Dr. Doman, a second opinion physician noted that 

appellant had no radicular symptoms, no complaints of upper extremity numbness or paresthesia, 

and no complaints of numbness. Appellant’s treating physician, Dr. D’Auria, in a February 4, 

2020 report, noted examination findings of right upper extremity motor and sensory deficits. In a 

March 4, 2020 report, Dr. Harris, a DMA, recommended referral to a second opinion physician to 

document objective finding, subjective complaints, and provide a permanent impairment rating for

appellant’s right upper extremity. 

On September 21, 2020 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Dawkins for a second opinion

evaluation. On January 22, 2021 it indicated that Dr. Dawkin’s report required clarification. 

Subsequently, on July 7, 2021 it referred appellant to Dr. Fried for a second opinion evaluation to 

provide an assessment of appellant employment-related condition and any resulting permanent 

impairment. However, OWCP issued a decision on September 2, 2021 denying appellant’s request 

for an additional schedule award prior to receiving Dr. Fried’s report.

The Board notes that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and OWCP is 

not a disinterested arbiter. While the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

compensation, OWCP shares responsibility in the development of the evidence to see that justice 

is done.

40

 Once OWCP undertakes development of the record, it must do a complete job in 

procuring medical evidence that will resolve the relevant issues in the case. Accordingly, once 

OWCP undertakes to develop the medical evidence further, it has the responsibility to do so in a 

manner that will resolve the relevant issues in the case.41 It issued its September 2, 2021 decision 

38 Supra note 27at Chapter 3.700 (January 2010). The Guides Newsletteris included as Exhibit 4.

39 See supra note 31at Chapter 2.808.6f (March 2017).

40 See T.C., Docket No. 19-0771 (issued March17, 2021); E.W., Docket No. 17-0707 (issued September 18, 2017).

41 See T.K.,Docket No. 20-0150 (issued July 9, 2020); T.C.,Docket No. 17-1906 (issued January 10, 2018).
10

denying appellant’s claim for an additional schedule award prior to receipt of Dr. Fried’s report. 

Therefore, the case must be remanded to OWCP for further development.

42

On remand OWCP shall review Dr. Fried’s report to determine whether appellant is 

entitled to an additional schedule award due to her accepted November 19, 2015 employment 

injury.

43

 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue a 

de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish disability from 

work for the period June 14 through 18, 2021 causally related to her accepted November 19, 2015 

employment injury. The Board further finds that this case is not in posture for decision as to

whether appellant is entitled to an additional schedule award.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 17, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’Compensation Programsis affirmed. The Board further finds that the September 2, 2021 

OWCP decision is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

decision of the Board. 

Issued: December 16, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

42 See T.C., id.; X.Y., Docket No. 19-1290 (issued January 24, 2020); K.G., Docket No. 17-0821 (issued 

May 9, 2018).

43 See M.T., supra note 16; T.C., id.; R.C., Docket No. 19-1385 (issued September 8, 2020).