United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Charlotte, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0741

Issued: November 23, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 25, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 24, 2020 merit 

decision 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 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of the last OWCP 

decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from August 24, 2020, the date of OWCP’s decision, was 

February20, 2021. As this fell on a Saturday, appellant had until the next business day,Monday, February23, 2021,

to file the appeal. Since using April 1, 2021, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the U.S. 

Postal Service postmark is January25, 2021, which renders the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the August 24, 2020 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

ISSUE

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

impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 7, 2018 appellant, then a 58-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date a dog bit his right ankle, while he was in the performance 

of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for a right shoulder contusion and complete right shoulder 

rotator cuff tear.

4

On July 21, 2020 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. No medical evidence was provided in support of his claim.

In a July 22, 2020 development letter, OWCP noted that appellant had not provided 

medical evidence of permanent impairment in support of his schedule award claim. It requested a 

detailed narrative medical report addressing whether his accepted conditions had reached 

maximum medical improvement and whether he had any permanent impairment of a scheduled 

member in accordance with the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment(A.M.A., Guides).5 It noted that if appellant’s physician was 

unable or unwilling to provide the required report, he should so advise OWCP in writing. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to provide the requested medical evidence. No response was received.

By decision dated August 24, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award, 

finding that there was no medical evidence to establish that he sustained permanent impairment of 

a scheduled member or function of the body.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA,6 and its implementing federal regulation,7 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 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 specified 

4 OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls from July 23 through November 10, 

2018; on the periodic rolls from November 11 through December 8, 2018; and on the supplemental rolls again from 

December 9, 2018 through May8, 2019.

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

6

Supra note 2.

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.
3

edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009.8 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.9

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. 10 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 the date on which 

this occurred, 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.11

ANALYSIS

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

impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award.

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained a right shoulder contusion and complete rotator 

cuff tear or rupture of right shoulder. On July 21, 2020 appellant filed a claim for a schedule 

award.

OWCP on July 22, 2020 requested that appellant submit an impairment evaluation from 

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

A.M.A., Guides. As noted, a claimant 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 

Appellant, however, has not submitted any medical evidence establishing permanent impairment 

of a scheduled member or function of the body due to his accepted conditions. The Board, thus,

finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.

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.13

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

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

Chapter 2.808.5(a) (March 2017); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January2010).

9 K.J.,Docket No. 19-1492 (issued February 26, 2020); P.R.,Docket No. 19-0022 (issued April9, 2018); Isidoro 

Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961).

10 M.G., Docket No. 19-1627 (issued April17, 2020); Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001).

11 Supra note 8; B.J.,Docket No. 19-0960 (issued October 7, 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 Id.
4

CONCLUSION

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

impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body, warranting a schedule award.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 24, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 23, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board