United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TERMINAL ANNEX

HELIPORT, Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0786

Issued: February 16, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 28, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 10, 2021 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

1 Appellant submitted a timely oral argument request before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Appellant contended

that oral argument should be granted so that he can argue that the brain should be included in the list of scheduled 

members for determining a schedule award. Pursuant to the Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held 

in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s request 

for oral argument because this matter requires an evaluation of the medical evidence presented. As such, the argument 

on appeal can adequately be addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal 

would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request 

is denied and this decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board.
2

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

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 May 8, 1975 appellant, then a 35-year-old mail foreman, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that day he sustained a left forearm cut during an altercation with

another employee who struck him while sitting at his desk. OWCP accepted the claim for left 

forearm laceration and atypical paranoid disorder, post-traumatic syndrome disorder (PTSD), and 

major depressive disorder with melancholia. Appellant stopped work on July 28, 1978. OWCP 

paid him wage-loss compensation, on the periodic rolls as of June 16, 2002. 

On November 1, 2020 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7)for a schedule 

award. 

In a development letter dated December 31, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that no

medical evidence had been submitted with his claim and informed him of the type of evidence

required to establish his schedule award claim. It advised him that the only accepted conditions 

were left forearm laceration, unspecified paranoid state, and PTSD and that there was no provision 

under FECA for payment of a schedule award for emotional conditions. OWCP afforded appellant 

30 days to provide the requested evidence. 

In response to OWCP’s development letter, appellant submitted a January 28, 2021 report 

from Dr. Emelita B. Talag, a Board-certified psychiatrist, who diagnosed PTSD and psychotic 

disorder. Dr. Talag advised that appellant was permanently disabled from work with no 

expectation of any improvement to the degree to function in a workplace or job. 

By decision dated March 10, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member or function of the body due to his accepted work injury. It noted that he had 

previously been informed that there is no provision in FECA to pay a schedule award for an 

emotional condition. 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that,followingthe March 10, 2021 decision, OWCP receivedadditional 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.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA4 and its implementing regulations5 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 to all claimants, good administrative practice necessitates the 

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

Through its implementing regulations, OWCP adopted the American Medical Association, Guides 

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

6 as the appropriate standard for 

evaluating schedule losses.7 As of May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in accordance 

with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

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

No schedule award is payable for a member, function, or organ of the body that is not 

specified in FECA or the implementing regulations.10 The list of scheduled members includes the 

eye, arm, hand, fingers, leg, foot, and toes.11 Additionally, FECA specifically provides for 

compensation for loss of hearing and loss of vision. 12 By authority granted under FECA, the 

Secretary of Labor expanded the list of scheduled members to include the breast, kidney, larynx, 

lung, penis, testicle, tongue, ovary, uterus/cervix and vulva/vagina.13 Neither FECA nor the 

regulations provide for the payment of a schedule award for the permanent loss of use of the back 

4

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

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

7

Id. at § 10.404. See also J.C., Docket No. 20-1071 (issued January 4, 2021); Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 

130 (2001).

8

See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January2010); see also Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.5a 

(March 2017).

9

J.C., supra note 7; P.R., Docket No. 19-0022 (issued April9, 2018); Isidoro Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961).

10 D.K., Docket No. 21-0303 (issued July 8, 2021); D.L., Docket No. 20-0059 (issued July 8, 2020); W.C., 59 ECAB 

374 (2008); AnnaV. Burke, 57 ECAB 521 (2006).

11 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c).

12 Id.

13 Id. at § 8107(c)(22); 20 C.F.R. § 10.404(a).
4

or the body as a whole.14 Moreover, FECA and its implementing regulations do not specifically 

authorize payment of a schedule award for loss of cognitive function.15

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 left forearm laceration and atypical paranoid 

disorder, PTSD, and major depressive disorder with melancholia due to the May 8, 1975 

employment injury. On November 12, 2020 appellant filed a Form CA-7, claiming a schedule 

award.

OWCP, on December 31, 2020, requested that appellant submit a permanent impairment 

evaluation from his physician addressing the extent of any employment-related permanent 

impairment using the A.M.A., Guides. It also advised that there was no provision under FECA 

for schedule awards for emotional condition. 

Appellant did not, however, submit an impairment evaluation or other medical evidence 

establishing permanent impairment due to a scheduled member of function of the body. OWCP 

received a January 28, 2021 report from Dr. Talag documenting appellant’s psychiatric diagnoses. 

However schedule awards are not payable under FECA for psychiatric conditions.16 The Board 

has previously explained that FECA does not authorize payment of schedule award benefits for 

impairment attributable to mental and/or behavioral disorders.17 The Board has also previously 

explained that the brain is not considered an organ as that term is defined under FECA.18 Neither 

OWCP nor the Board has the authority to enlarge the terms of FECA or to make an award of 

benefits under terms other than those specified in the statute.19 Appellant has not submitted any 

medical evidence establishing a permanent impairment due to a scheduled member or function of 

the body and thus has not met his burden of proof.

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.

14 Id.

15 A.S., Docket No. 12-1375 (issued February 12, 2013); BrentA. Barnes, 56 ECAB 336, 339 (2005).

16 P.L., Docket No. 15-1285 (issued February 5, 2016); Brent A. Barnes, id.

17 A.S., supra note 15. 

18 Id.; see also 5 U.S.C. § 8101(19).

19 G.S, Docket No. 17-1318 (issued October 11, 2017); S.K.,Docket No. 08-848 (issued January 26, 2009).
5

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 March 10, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 16, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board