United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WALTHAM 

CARRIER ANNEX, Waltham, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0197

Issued: July 29, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Douglas L. Lawrence, Jr., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 19, 2021 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from an 

October 12, 2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 

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 The record also contains an October 4, 2021 decision, finding that appellant had no more than 10 percent right 

lower extremity impairment and a July 19, 2021 decision finding that appellant received an overpayment of 

compensation in the amount of $3,782.14 for the period February 28 through March 27, 2021 and denying waiver of 

recovery of the overpayment. Appellant’s representative did not appealfrom those decisions and thus they will not 

be addressed by the Board in this appeal. 20 C.F.R. § 501.3.
2

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(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 greater than 20 

percent permanent impairment of the left eye for which he previously received a schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows.

On January 21, 2010 appellant, then a 59-year-old letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 31, 2009 he fractured two ribs when he fell on ice 

while delivering mail in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for systemic 

inflammatory response syndrome due to infection with organ dysfunction/septic shock, early 

pneumonia, and a closed fracture of two ribs. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the 

periodic rolls as of April 12, 2010.5

In a January 28, 2010 discharge summary, Dr. Michael S. Rosenblatt, a Board-certified 

endocrinologist, advised that, while hospitalized for his fractured ribs, appellant had required 

intubation, developed sepsis, and became hypotensive requiring maximum doses of vasopressors 

to tighten blood vessels and raise his blood pressure. He further sustained an acute renal injury 

and multi-organ failure due to hospital-acquired pneumonia. On January 11, 2010 appellant

reported a lack of sight in his right eye and blurry vision in his left eye when he was weaned from

the ventilator. Dr. Rosenblatt opined that appellant’s loss of vision was secondary to retinal 

ischemia from his “massive” vasopressor requirements. He diagnosed aspiration pneumonia, 

sepsis, toxic shock, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation for 10 days, multi-organ 

failure, acute kidney injury, ischemia to the lower extremities, acute vision loss, and profound 

sepsis treated with vasopressor therapy.

In a March 11, 2010 report, Dr. Scott H. Greenstein, a Board-certified ophthalmologist, 

found that appellant’s visual acuity in the right eye was no light perception (NLP) with optic nerve 

pallor due to either ischemic optic neuropathy or central retinal artery occlusion. He determined 

that appellant had 20/25 distance vision in the left eye and a superior field defect and mild pallor 

likely secondary to ischemic optic neuropathy. Dr. Greenstein also found mild cataracts in both 

eyes.

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 Docket No. 19-0098 (issued January 24, 2020).

5 On June 12, 2017 appellant elected to receive federal retirement benefits in lieu of FECA benefits effective 

June 1, 2017.
3

On August 2, 2017 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award. 

On August 9, 2017 OWCP expanded the acceptance of the claim to include a crushing 

injury of ankle and foot, a crushing injury of toes, generalized anxiety disorder, optic neuritis, 

disorders of the circulatory system on the right, and visual field defect. 

In a development letter dated August 9, 2017, OWCP requested a detailed narrative report 

from appellant’s attending physician addressing the extent of any permanent impairment in 

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

of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).6It afforded him 30 days to submit the requested 

evidence.

In an October 26, 2017 note, Dr. Greenstein opined that appellant had reached maximum 

medical improvement (MMI) and that his vision remained unchanged with NLP in the right eye 

and 20/20 vision in the left eye. He diagnosed optic pallor right eye greater than the left, likely 

ischemic.

On January 26, 2018 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. David Eisenberg, a Board-certified 

ophthalmologist for a second opinion evaluation.

7

On April 2, 2018 Dr. Eisenberg noted that appellant’s right eye had NLP and that his left 

eye was 20/50 correctable to 20/30 in the straight-ahead position. He found a total superior field 

loss and a partial inferior field lossin the left eye. Dr. Eisenberg asserted that appellantwas totally 

blind in his right eye and that he was partially blind in his left eye as his vision field was severely 

compromised. He diagnosed optic atrophy in both eyes related to septic shock with hypotension. 

Dr. Eisenberg found that appellant’s conditions were permanent and that he had reached MMI. He 

opined that, under the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had 100 percent permanent impairment of the 

right eye and 50 percent permanent impairment of the left eye. Dr. Einsenberg concluded that 

appellant had “a completely blind right eye and a permanently completely absent superior half of 

the vision in the left eye with some central sparing of vision along with a small amount of inferior 

field scattered defects.”

On May 29, 2018 Dr. Kevin Yuhan, a Board-certified ophthalmologist serving as a district 

medical adviser (DMA), found that appellant’s vision was NLP in the right eye and 20/50 in the 

left eye, correctable to 20/30 or 20/20. He noted that the visual field in the right eye was 

nonfunctional and that the left eye had complete superior field loss and partial inferior field loss 

including loss of the temporal quadrant, with vision only in the inferonasal quadrant. Dr. Yuhan 

evaluated the permanent impairment of appellant’s eyes under Table 12-2 on page 288 of the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides. He advised that appellant’s right eye had 100 percent permanent 

impairment or a visual acuity score of 0 while his left eye had 20/50 vision and a visual acuity 

score of 80. Utilizing Table 12-3 on page 289, Dr. Yuhan determined that appellant’s functional 

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

7 OWCP also referred appellant for a second opinion examination with Dr. Kenneth Polivy, a Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon. 
4

acuity score was 64. He concluded that appellant had 37 percent permanent impairment for loss 

of vision based on loss of visual acuity. Dr. Yuhan calculated appellant’s visual field impairment 

using Table 12-5 on page 296 as 81 percent binocular loss. Using a formula set forth in section 

12.4 on page 304, he calculated the impairment of the total visual system as 88 percent.

On June 26, 2018 OWCP referred the DMA’s report to Dr. Eisenberg for review. 

In a report dated July 9, 2018, Dr. Eisenberg concurred with Dr. Yuhan’s impairment 

rating. 

By decision dated August 22, 2018, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 88 

percent permanent impairment of his total visual field (eyes). The period of the award ran for 

140.8 weeks from June 25, 2017 to March 6, 2020.

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated January 24, 2020, the Board set aside 

the August 22, 2018 decision.8 The Board noted that the DMA had calculated 88 percent 

permanent impairment of the visual system using Table 12-3, which uses scores from each eye to 

reach a functional acuity score.9 The Board found, however, that using Table 12-2 to determine 

the impairment of a single eye yielded 100 percent permanent impairment of appellant’s right eye. 

The Board modified the schedule award to reflect 100 percent permanent impairment of the right 

eye entitling appellant to 160 weeks of compensation. The Board further found that, for the left 

eye, the DMA found a visual acuity score of 80 using Table 12-2 and a visual field score of 30 

based on appellant’s complete loss of superior field and loss of the inferotemporal quadrant. The 

Board noted, however, that it was unable to determine how the DMA reached the visual field 

calculations under Table 12-5. The Board remanded the case for the DMA to clarify the extent of 

permanent impairment of appellant’s left eye. 

On April 20, 2020 Dr. Yuhan found that appellant had 20 percent permanent impairment

due to his loss of visual acuity of the left eye using Table 12-2 on page 288 of the A.M.A., Guides. 

He advised that, if evaluating the field loss of the left eye only, appellant had complete loss of 

superior field, which yielded a loss of 40 points using Figure 12-1 on page 295 and Table 12-5 on 

page 296. Dr. Yuhan further found a loss of 30 points due to a loss of the inferotemporal quadrant 

and an additional loss of 7 points for the inferonasal quadrant. He opined that, for the left eye, “a 

total loss of the superior field (40 points) minus the inferotemporal (30 points) minus the loss of 

some spots in the inferonasal quadrant (7 points),” yielded a total functional field score of 23 

points. Dr. Yuhan related that the “functional visual score for the left eye only would be (80 x 

23)/100 + 18.4,” which he found showed a functional visual impairment of 82 percent. 

On April 22, 2020 OWCP advised the DMA that the only issue was the extent of the left 

eye impairment rating. It indicated that the Board had found that Table 12-2 should be used to 

determine the impairment of a single eye.

8

Supra note 4.

9 A.M.A., Guides 288, Table 12-2. 
5

On May 4, 2020 Dr. Yuhan again found a functional vision impairment of 82 percent of 

the left eye using Table 12-5. He noted that the Board had found that Table 12-2 was used to 

determine the impairment of a single eye. Dr. Yuhan found that appellant had 80 percent visual 

acuity score in his left eye, which yielded 20 percent permanent impairment of the left eye using 

Table 12-2.

By decision dated May 20, 2020, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 100 

percent permanent impairment of the right eye and 20 percent permanent impairment of the left 

eye.10 

On May 11, 2021 appellant, through his representative, requested reconsideration. He

contended that OWCP failed to include a rating for his visual field deficits.

Appellant’s representative submitted a May 2, 2019 report from Dr. Stacey C. Brauner, a 

Board-certified ophthalmologist, who found optic atrophy with a superior visual field deficit in the 

left eye. Dr. Brauner recommended against driving due to appellant’s loss of visual field. She

provided similar findings in a May 20, 2021 progress report. 

By decision dated October 12, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its May 20, 2020 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA,11 and its implementing federal regulations,

12 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 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 edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009.13 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.14

10By decision dated April 1, 2021, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 10 percent permanent impairment 

of the right lower extremity. By decision dated October 4, 2021, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

April 1, 2021 decision. 

11 Supra note 3.

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

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

2009); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Schedule Award and Permanent Disability Claims, id. at

2.808.5a (March2017);see alsoid. at Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

14 P.R., Docket No. 19-0022 (issued April9, 2018); Isidoro Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961).
6

Although the A.M.A., Guides provides that impairment ratings should be based on the bestcorrected visual acuity,

15 FECA mandates that the degree of loss of vision must be determined 

without regard to correction.16 For 100 percent loss of an eye, as with blindness, FECA provides 

a maximum 160 weeks of compensation.17 A loss of 80 percent or more of the vision of an eye is 

considered the same as loss of the eye.18 Partial losses are compensated proportionately.19

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides indicates that the evaluation of visual impairment 

is based on the functional vision score (FVS). FVS is the combination of an assessment of visual 

acuity (the ability of the eye to perceive details, necessary for activities such as reading) and an 

assessment of visual field (the ability of the eye to detect objects in the periphery of the visual 

environment, which relates to orientation and mobility).20 The A.M.A., Guides also allows for 

individual adjustments for other functional deficits, such as contrast and glare sensitivity, color 

vision defects and binocularity, stereopsis, suppression and diplopia, only if these deficits are not 

reflected in a visual acuity or visual field loss.21 The A.M.A., Guides, however, specifically limits 

adjustment of the impairment rating for these deficits to cases which are well documented and 

provides, the “adjustment should be limited to an increase in the impairment rating of the visual 

system (reduction of the FVS) by, at most, 15 points.”

22

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater than 20 

percent permanent impairment of the left eye, for which he previously received a schedule award.

On prior appeal, the Board found that appellant had 100 percent permanent impairment of 

the right eye using Table 12-2 as he had NLP. Regarding the left eye, the Board noted that the 

DMA had found a visual acuity score of 80 under Table 12-2 and further found an impairment in 

his left visual field. The Board advised that it was unable to calculate how the DMA reached his 

visual field calculations under Table 12-5. The Board remanded the case for additional 

development regarding the extent of appellant’s left eye impairment. 

In an April 20, 2020 report, Dr. Yuhan determined that appellant had 20 percent permanent 

impairment of the left eye due to loss of visual acuity under Table 12-2. He further found that 

15 A.M.A., Guides 287, Chapter 12.2c.

16 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(19).

17 Id. at § 8107(c)(5).

18 Id. at § 8107(c)(14).

19 Id. at § 8107(c)(19).

20 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009) at 282, 285;see also D.M., Docket No. 18-0285 (issued September 26, 2019).

21 Id. at 305.

22 Id. at section 12.2c, 287.
7

appellant had a functional field loss of 23 points for the left eye, which he opined yielded a 

functional visual impairment of 82 percent of the left eye. 

OWCP subsequently informed Dr. Yuhan that only Table 12-2 should be used to determine 

the impairment of a single eye. On May 4, 2020 Dr. Yuhan found 20 percent permanent 

impairment of the left eye using Table 12-2. 

The Board has held that Table 12-2 is used to determine the extent of permanent 

impairment of single eye.23 Dr. Yuhan’s report constitutes the weight of the evidence and 

establishes that appellant has no more than 20 percent permanent impairment of the left eye. 24

Appellant has not submitted evidence demonstrating a greater impairment rating of the left 

eye based on the standards of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

25

 In reports dated May 2 

and 20, 2019, Dr. Brauner found that he had optic atrophy with a left eye superior field deficit. 

She recommended that appellant not drive due to his visual field loss. Dr. Brauner did not, 

however, address the extent of permanent impairment of the left eye and thus her reports are 

insufficient to establish that he has more than 20 percent permanent impairment of the left eye. 

Therefore, they are insufficient to overcome the weight of the medical evidence as represented by

Dr. Yuhan or to create a conflict.

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.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater than 20 

percent permanent impairment of the left eye, for which he previously received a schedule award.

23 F.C., Docket No. 18-0975 (issued January 10, 2019); R.A., Docket No. 19-0098 (issued January 24, 2020).

24 See J.C., Docket No. 21-0426 (issued October 21, 2021).

25 See M.H., Docket No. 20-1109 (issued September 27, 2021).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 12, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 29, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board