United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WARWICK POST 

OFFICE, Warwick, RI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0301

Issued: September 6, 2023

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 December 28, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 21, 2022 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.

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

support of appellant’s oral argument request, he asserted that oral argument should be granted because he should be 

entitled to more money as his disfigurement is on his face. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies appellant’s 

request for oral argument because the arguments 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

greater than $650.00 for a disfigurement schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 6, 2022 appellant, then a 55-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 4, 2022 he sustained a concussion and 

laceration of the forehead when he struck his head on a steel pole in the loading area while in the 

performance of duty. He stopped work on February 4, 2022 and returned to work on April 2, 2022. 

OWCP accepted the claim for laceration without foreign body of other parts of head and 

concussion without loss of consciousness.

On August 10, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award due to his accepted employment conditions. An August 10, 2022 report signed by a provider 

with an illegible signature, indicated that the forehead laceration appellant sustained on February 4, 

2022 was 36 millimeters (mm) by 2 mm and that the scar had reached maximum medical 

improvement (MMI).

In a September 21, 2022 development letter, OWCP advised appellant that FECA provided 

a schedule award, not to exceed $3,500.00, for serious disfigurement of the face, head, or neck if 

such disfigurement was likely to handicap an individual in securing or maintaining employment. 

It further provided instructions for submitting photographs of the claimed disfigurement. OWCP 

requested that appellant complete and submit an attached disfigurement award application form, 

and that he arrange for an attending physician to complete and submit the form.

On October 5, 2022 a physician with an illegible signature completed the disfigurement 

report form provided by OWCP, noting that there were no changes in the scar since the last 

evaluation of August 10, 2022 when appellant reached MMI. The physician further advised that 

no significant improvement in the disfigurement, which was described as a scar over the right 

brow, was probable.

On October 5, 2022 appellant also completed the disfigurement award application form. 

He described his scar as a very large forehead scar. Appellant reported being very self-conscious 

of his scar and that he was constantly asked about it when he met new people, which occurred

every day in his job. He indicated that if he were to have a job interview, he would feel 

uncomfortable as people always asked him about his scar. 

In an October 5, 2022 report, the physician with the illegible signature, reported that there 

had been no change in appellant’s scar since August 10, 2022. 

On October 28, 2022 OWCP received two photographs of appellant’s forehead. 

On October 31, 2022 OWCP referred appellant’s case to Dr. David I. Krohn, a Boardcertified internist and an OWCP district medical adviser (DMA), requesting that he review the 

evidence of record and provide an opinion regarding appellant’s claim for a disfigurement schedule 

award.
3

In a November 2, 2022 report, the DMA, Dr. Krohn, reviewed the October 5, 2022 

attending physician’s reports, along with appellant’s October 3, 2022 statement. Based on the 

color photographs included with the medical record, he indicated that appellant had a linear scar 

somewhat vertical to the right eyebrow. It was highly visible, narrow, well-healed, very slightly 

raised, slightly hyperpigmented, and involved only cutaneous structures. The DMA indicated that 

there was no evidence of loss of supporting structures either on inspection of the photographs or 

by report of the head computerized tomography (CT) scan. He noted that there was no report 

either by the examining physician or appellant of any interference with activities of daily living;

however, appellant had expressed concern regarding his appearance and how others viewed his 

facial scar. The DMA indicated that the date of MMI was October 5, 2022, the date of the 

attending physician’s report for disfigurement, and that, by that date, there was no further surgical 

intervention that was likely to improve appellant’s condition.

OWCP’s district director then reviewed the evidence of record and, in a December 13, 

2022 memorandum, determined that appellant’s scarring was related to the accepted work injury, 

and that the disfigurement was “of a character likely to handicap an individual in securing or 

maintaining employment.” Given the size of the scar and location, he determined that appellant 

was entitled to a disfigurement schedule award in the amount of $650.00. 

By decision dated December 21, 2022, OWCP granted appellant a disfigurement schedule 

award in the amount of $650.00. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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.3 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.4

Section 8107(c)(21) of FECA provides that payment of compensation not to exceed 

$3,500.00 may be made for disfigurement of the face, head, or neck which is likely to handicap 

the claimant in securing or maintaining employment.5 OWCP procedures further provide that a 

DMA will be asked to review such claims and to evaluate the employee’s disfigurement. If the

DMA finds that MMI has occurred, he or she will review the photographs submitted along with 

the medical evidence of record and place a memorandum in the file describing the disfigurement 

and stating whether MMI has occurred. If the DMA finds MMI has occurred, the concurrence of 

the district director or assistant district director must be obtained. Following the file review, the 

3 D.F., Docket No. 18-1337 (issued February 11, 2019); Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001).

4 B.J., Docket No. 19-0960 (issued October 7, 2019).

5

5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(21).
4

district director or assistant district director will also write a memorandum which contains a 

description of the disfigurement.6

In an appeal involving disfigurement, the question before the Board is whether the amount 

awarded by OWCP was based upon sound and considered judgment and was proper and equitable 

under the circumstances as provided by section 8107(c)(21) of FECA.7

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

As noted above, section 8107(c)(21) of FECA provides that payment of compensation not 

to exceed $3,500.00 may be made for disfigurement of the face, head, or neck which is likely to 

handicap the claimant in securing or maintaining employment.8 In a November 2, 2022 report, the 

DMA indicated that, based on his review of the color photographs in the case record, there was a 

highly visible, narrow, well-healed, very slightly raised, slightly hyperpigmented and involved 

only cutaneous structures. He indicated that there was no evidence of loss of supporting structures 

either on inspection of the photographs or by report of the head CT scan. OWCP’s district director 

then reviewed the evidence of record. In a December 13, 2022 memorandum, he discussed 

appellant’s medical condition and concluded that his disfigurement was “of a character likely to 

handicap an individual in securing or maintaining employment.” However, OWCP’s district 

director concluded that OWCP should grant appellant a disfigurement schedule award in the 

minimum amount of $650.00.

However, while the determination as to what constitutes “proper and equitable 

compensation” is initially one for the Director, his memorandum fails to explain a basis for the 

determination of the schedule award in the minimum amount of $650.00. Consequently, the Board 

is prevented from making an informed decision in this matter.9 The case will, therefore, be 

remanded for reevaluation of the amount of compensation which is proper and equitable and for a 

de novo decision which sufficiently explains the determination of the amount of the schedule 

award.

10

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

2.808.10 (February 2013); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.5 (January 2010); see T.B., 

Docket No. 20-0158 (issued March 18, 2022); J.S., Docket No. 19-1226 (issued December 23, 2019);see L.J., Docket 

No. 13-0104 (issued October 21, 2013).

7

5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(21); J.S., id.; A.M., Docket No. 14-0787 (issued July 15, 2014).

8

See supra note 5.

9

See Harold B. White, 48 ECAB 289 (1997) (Groom, Alternate Member, concurring); Carlisle Leonard Vincent, 

5 ECAB 186 (1952).

10 Id.
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 21, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: September 6, 2023

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