United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, Florence, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1413

Issued: March 28, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 20, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 20, 2021 merit 

decision and a May 7, 2021 nonmerit 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.

ISSUES

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

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

1 The Board notes that, following the May7, 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

(2) whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her 

claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 8, 2019 appellant, then a 28-year-old deportation officer, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she developed cysts on both wrists on July 5, 2019 during 

physical training while in the performance of duty.3 OWCP accepted the claim for bilateral carpal 

tunnel syndrome and left wrist ganglion and resulting surgery. It authorized wage-loss 

compensation on the supplemental rolls beginning on June 9, 2020. Appellant returned to fulltime light-duty work on July 12, 2020 and full-duty work on September 13, 2020.

On November 25, 2019 appellant underwent electromyogram and nerve conduction 

velocity (EMG/NCV) studies of the upper extremities, which exhibited no electrodiagnostic 

evidence of neuropathy or radiculopathy.

On December 2, 2019 appellant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of 

her left wrist, which demonstrated small synovial cyst and capsular defect of the radiocarpal 

articulation without vascular involvement, and a tiny partial tear or degeneration of the triangular 

fibrocartilage complex.

On June 9, 2020 appellant underwent OWCP-authorized bilateral carpal tunnel surgical 

releases and left snuffbox ganglion excision.

On July 29, 2020 appellant underwent an MRI scan of her right wrist due to a right wrist 

lump following her carpal tunnel release surgery. This scan demonstrated joint effusion.

In a report dated October 9, 2020, appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Joseph L. Haber, a 

Board-certified hand and plastic surgeon, found that she had reached maximum medical 

improvement(MMI)with excellent sensation of the digits, a negative Tinel’s sign over the median 

nerves, and intact sensation. He reported that appellant had zero percent disability.

On March 9, 2021 appellant filed a claim for (Form CA-7) for a schedule award. By letter 

dated March 15, 2021, she noted that she received a response to her Form CA-7, that she would 

need to be seen by a doctor for an impairment rating and requested approval to see a different 

doctor.

In a March 15, 2021 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant provide an 

impairment rating using the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).4 It afforded her 30 days to submit 

additional medical evidence in support of her schedule award claim.

3

In her April 11, 2020 response to an OWCP development questionnaire, appellant clarified that her claim was for 

an occupational disease developing from June through July 2019.

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

In a March 22, 2021 report, Dr. Haber found that appellant had no permanent impairment. 

In a letter of even date, appellant requested an evaluation by another physician.

By decision dated April 20, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, finding 

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

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

On April 25, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 20, 2021 decision. She 

asserted that Dr. Haber failed to consider the fluid in her right wrist, her pain, and her inability to 

perform common tasks such as pushups as well as gripping and carrying heavy objects.

By decision dated May 7, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of appellant’s claim.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

The schedule award provisions of FECA5 and its implementing regulations6 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. OWCP has adopted the 

A.M.A., Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants. As of May 1, 2009, the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.7

Impairment due to carpal tunnel syndrome is evaluated under the scheme found in A.M.A., 

Guides, Table 15-23 (Entrapment/Compression Neuropathy Impairment) and accompanying 

relevant text.8 In Table 15-23, grade modifier levels (ranging from zero to four) are described for

the categories of test findings, history, and physical findings. The grade modifier levels are 

averaged to arrive at the appropriate overall grade modifier level and to identify a default rating 

value. The default rating value may be modified up or down based on functional scale, an 

assessment of impact on daily living activities (QuickDASH).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 that the date on 

5

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

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

2.808.5.a.(March2017); Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

8 A.M.A., Guides 449.

9

Id. at 448-49.

10 J.P., Docket No. 21-0801 (issued December 22, 2021); N.S.,Docket No. 21-0508 (issued September 22, 2021); 

Edward Spohr, 54 ECAB 806, 810 (2003); Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001).
4

which this occurred (date of MMI), 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

 Its procedures further provide that, if a claimant has not submitted a permanent 

impairment evaluation, it should request a detailed report that includes a discussion of how the 

impairment rating was calculated.12 If the claimant does not provide an impairment evaluation 

and there is no indication of permanent impairment in the medical evidence of file, the claims 

examiner may proceed with a formal denial of the award.13

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

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

OWCP, on March 15, 2021, requested that appellant submit a permanent impairment 

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

impairment using the A.M.A., Guides. Appellant did not, however, submit any medical evidence 

establishing permanent impairment.

In his October 9, 2020 report, Dr. Haber found that appellant had reached MMI with 

excellent sensation of the digits, a negative Tinel’s sign over the median nerves, and intact 

sensation. He did not report any permanent impairment.

As noted above, appellant 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.14 

As she has not submitted any medical evidence supporting permanent impairment of a scheduled 

member or function of the body due to her accepted conditions, the Board finds that she has not 

met her 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.

11 Supra note 7 at Chapter 2.808.5 (March 2017).

12 Id. at Chapter 2.808.6a.(March 2017).

13 Id. at Chapter 2.808.6c. (March 2017).

14 See D.J., Docket No. 20-0017 (issued August31, 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).
5

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award for 

or against compensation at any time on his own motion or on application.15

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review, pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument which: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.16

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of 

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.17 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.18 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one of the 

requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.19

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

OWCP previously denied her claim because the medical evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish permanent impairment of scheduled member or function of the body, 

warranting a schedule award. Thus, the Board must determine if appellant presented sufficient 

evidence or argument regarding her schedule award claim to warrant a merit review pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).20

In her April 25, 2021 reconsideration request, appellant did not show that OWCP 

erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law and did not advance a new and relevant 

15 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D.,Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); see also V.P.,Docket No. 17-1287 

(issued October 10, 2017); D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).

16 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., id.; see also L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 (issued March3, 2010); C.N.,Docket 

No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

17 Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

For merit decisions issued on or after August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP 

within one year of the merit decision for which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, 

Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016). Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of the 

request for reconsideration as indicated by the received date in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation 

System (iFECS). Chapter 2.1602.4b.

18 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

19 Id. at § 10.608(b); E.R.,Docket No. 09-1655 (issued March18, 2010).

20 See S.M., Docket No. 21-0392 (issued August 12, 2012); H.T.,Docket No. 20-1318 (issued April27, 2021).
6

legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant 

is not entitled to a review of the merits based on the first and second above -noted requirements 

under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).21

The Board further finds that appellant did not submit relevant and pertinent new evidence 

not previously considered by OWCP. With her reconsideration request, appellant submitted a 

statement noting her disagreement with Dr. Haber’s October 9, 2020 report finding no evidence of 

permanent impairment. The underlying issue of the present case is whether appellant has 

submitted sufficient medical evidence to establish impairment of scheduled member or function 

of the body. The Board has held that the submission of evidence or argument which does not 

address the particular issue involved does not constitute a basis for reopening a case. 22 Thus, she 

is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the third requirement under 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.606(b)(3).23

The Board accordingly finds that OWCP properly determined that appellant was not 

entitled to further review of the merits of her claim pursuant to any of the three requirements under 

20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.24

CONCLUSION

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

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

Board further finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

21 Supra note 15.

22 A.M., Docket No. 20-1417 (issued July 30, 2021); E.J., Docket No. 19-1509 (issued January 9, 2020); M.K.,

Docket No. 18-1623 (issuedApril10, 2019); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25(1979).

23 Supra note 15; see T.H., Docket No. 18-1809 (issued May 23, 2019); Johnny L. Wilson, Docket No. 98-2536 

(issued February 13, 2001).

24 See D.M., Docket No. 18-1003 (issued July 16, 2020); D.S., Docket No. 18-0353 (issued February 18, 2020); 

Susan A. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006) (when a request for reconsideration does not meet at least one of the three 

requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b), OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without reopening 

the case for a review on the merits).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 20 and May 7, 2021 decisions of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: March 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board