United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

Y.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, TAMPA 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Tampa, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0341

Issued: September 13, 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, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 6, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 18, 2021 merit 

decision and a December 23, 2021 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 2

ISSUES

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

eight percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity, for which she previously received 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the December 23, 2021 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. 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

schedule award; and (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 17, 2019 appellant, then a 37-year-old mail handler, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 24, 2019 she sustained a left knee injury due to repetitive 

pounding of knees from walking and pushing heavy equipment while in the performance of duty. 

She stopped work on July 15, 2019. OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for lateral meniscus tear 

of the left knee. It paid her wage-loss compensation for disability from work on the supplemental 

rolls commencing August 31, 2019 and on the periodic rolls commencing February 2, 2000.

On December 4, 2019 Dr. G. Jason Hunt, an osteopath and Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, performed OWCP-authorized left knee surgery, including left knee arthroscopy with 

partial medial and lateral meniscectomies, chondroplasty of the medial femoral condyle, and 

debridement of impinging intercondylar notch with graft. Appellant submitted numerous records 

relating to the surgery, including a December 4, 2019 report from a provider with an illegible 

signature, which addressed the anesthesia used for the surgery. She also submitted several reports, 

dated between February 13 and May 5, 2020, in which Dr. Hunt discussed the post-surgery care 

for appellant’s left knee. In these reports, Dr. Hunt observed that appellant’s left knee pain 

progressively improved.

In a July 17, 2020 report, Dr. Hunt indicated that appellant reported that she was doing 

very well and back to full-duty work. He noted that she also reported experiencing “some 

soreness” in her left knee at the end of the day, which she rated 1 out of 10. Dr. Hunt detailed the 

findings of his physical examination, noting that appellant walked with a normal heel-to-toe gait

and had well-healed scars of the left knee. He diagnosed status post December 4, 2019 left knee 

arthroscopy with chondroplasty and debridement. Dr. Hunt found that appellant had reached 

maximum medical improvement (MMI) as of the July 17, 2020 physical examination. He

indicated that, under the standards of the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, 

Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides),3 appellant’s left knee 

condition fell under class 1. Dr. Hunt found that, given the tears of both menisci, appellant had 

four percent permanent impairment of each lower extremity.

On August 11, 2020 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award.

On October 14, 2020 OWCP referred appellant’s case to Dr. Herbert White, Jr., a Boardcertified occupational medicine specialist and OWCP district medical adviser (DMA), and 

requested that he review the medical record, including Dr. Hunt’s July 17, 2020 report, and provide 

an impairment rating of her left lower extremity under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

In an October 20, 2020 report, Dr. White discussed Dr. Hunt’s treatment of appellant’s left 

knee after the December 4, 2019 surgery. He noted that Dr. Hunt saw her between February 13

and July 17, 2020 and observed slowly improving left knee pain. Dr. White indicated that, at the 

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

time of the July 17, 2020 examination, Dr. Hunt observed that appellant had a normal gait and the 

left knee surgical scars were well healed. He noted that, at that time, Dr. Hunt found mild 

tenderness of the left knee and obtained a diagnosis-based impairment (DBI)rating of four percent 

of the left lower extremity. Dr. White referred to the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides and 

utilized the DBI rating method to find that, under Table 16-3 (Knee Regional Grid), page 509, the 

class of diagnosis (CDX) for the meniscal tear condition of appellant’s left knee resulted in a class 

1 impairment (tier 3 -- partial medial and lateral meniscectomies) with a default value of 10. He 

assigned a grade modifier for functional history (GMFH) of 0 due to normal gait and a grade 

modifier for physical examination (GMPE) of 1 due to mild tenderness. Dr. Hunt found that a 

grade modifier of clinical studies (GMCS) was not applicable as no clinical studies were obtained 

at the time MMI was reached. He utilized the net adjustment formula, (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE 

- CDX) = (0 - 1) + (1 - 1) = -1, which resulted in a grade B or eight percent permanent impairment 

of the left lower extremity.

4

By decision dated November 6, 2020, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for eight 

percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity (left leg). The award ran for 23.04 weeks 

from July 17 through December 25, 2020 and was based on the impairment rating of Dr. White,

which utilized the examination findings of Dr. Hunt.

On October 5, 2021 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for an increased schedule award.

Appellant submitted May 13 and 18,June 21, and July 19, 2021 reportsfrom Dr. Hunt who 

reported physical examination findings, detailed his treatment of her left knee condition, and 

discussed work limitations. She also submitted a May 14, 2021 magnetic resonance imaging 

(MRI) scan of the left knee and a report of his performance of a left knee arthroscopy with partial 

medial and lateral meniscectomies on June 7, 2021.

In an October 5, 2021 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim for an increased schedule award and advised her of the type of evidence needed. It

afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

Appellant resubmitted a copy of the December 4, 2019 report from a provider with an 

illegible signature, which addressed the anesthesia used for the December 4, 2019 surgery.

By decision dated November 18, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased 

schedule award. It explained that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish 

greater than the eight percent permanent impairment previously awarded.

On December 13, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of the November 18, 2021

decision.

Appellant submitted an October 8, 2021 report from Dr. Deborah L. Renelus, a Boardcertified family medicine specialist, who reported physical examination findings and advised that 

4 Dr. White found that appellant had reached MMI as of Dr.Hunt’sJuly 17, 2020 physical examination.
4

appellant was fit to return to work without restrictions. She also submitted a December 7, 2021 

report from Dr. Hunt who indicated that she could work without restrictions.

By decision dated December 23, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

The schedule award provisions of FECA,5 and its implementing federal regulation,6 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 for all claimants, OWCP has adopted 

the A.M.A., Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants.7 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.8

Chapter 16 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, pertaining to the lower extremities, 

provides that diagnosis-based impairment is the primary method of calculation for the lower limb 

and that most impairments are based on the diagnosis-based impairment where impairment class 

is determined by the diagnosis and specific criteria as adjusted by the grade modifiers for 

functional history, physical examination, and clinical studies. It further provides that alternative 

approaches are also provided for calculating impairment for peripheral nerve deficits, complex 

regional pain syndrome, amputation, and range of motion. Range of motion is primarily used as a 

physical examination adjustment factor.9 The A.M.A., Guides, however, also explain that some 

of the diagnosis-based grids refer to the range of motion section when that is the most appropriate 

mechanism for grading the impairment. This section is to be used as a stand-alone rating when 

other grids refer to this section or no other diagnosis-based sections of the chapter are applicable 

for impairment rating of a condition.10

In determining impairment for the lower extremities under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., 

Guides, an evaluator must establish the appropriate diagnosis for each part of the lower extremity 

to be rated. With respect to the knee, reference is made to Table 16-3 (Knee Regional Grid) 

beginning on page 509.11 After the CDX is determined from the Knee Regional Grid (including 

5

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

7

Id. See also T.T., Docket No. 18-1622 (issued May 14, 2019).

8 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Pa rt 2 --Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims,Chapter 

2.808.5a (March 2017); id. at Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

9 A.M.A., Guides(6th ed. 2009) 497, section 16.2.

10 Id. at 543;see also M.D., Docket No. 16-0207 (issued June 3, 2016); D.F., Docket No. 15-0664 (issued 

January 8, 2016).

11 Id. at 509-11.
5

identification of a default grade value), the net adjustment formula is applied using the GMFH, 

GMPE, and GMCS. The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS 

- CDX).12 Under Chapter 2.3, evaluators are directed to provide reasons for their impairment 

rating choices, including choices of diagnoses from regional grids and calculations of modifier 

scores.13

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

eight percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity, for which she previously received 

a schedule award.

In an October 21, 2020 report, Dr. White, the DMA, properly determined that appellant 

had eight percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity under the sixth edition of the

A.M.A., Guides. He discussed Dr. Hunt’s physical examination findings, including those obtained 

on July 17, 2020. Dr. White utilized the DBI rating method to find that, under Table 16-3 (Knee 

Regional Grid), the CDX for the meniscal tear condition of appellant’s left knee resulted in a class 

1 impairment (tier 3 -- partial medial and lateral meniscectomies) with a default value of 10. He 

assigned a GMFH of 0 due to normal gait and a GMPE of 1 due to mild tenderness. 14 Dr. Hunt 

found that a GMCS was not applicable as no clinical studies were obtained at the time MMI was 

reached.15 He properly utilized the net adjustment formula, (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) = 

(0 - 1) + (1 - 1) = -1, which resulted in a grade B or eight percent permanent impairment of the left 

lower extremity.16

Appellant submitted additional medical reports produced after Dr. White’s October 21, 

2020 report, including several reports of Dr. Hunt; however, these reports did not contain an 

impairment rating, which demonstrated that she had greater than eight percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity.

As appellant has not submitted an impairment rating establishing greater than eight percent 

permanent impairment of the left lower extremity (left leg) for which she previously received a 

schedule award, 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 permanent impairment.

12 Id. at 515-22.

13 Id. at 23-28.

14 Id. at 509, Table 16-3.

15 Id. at 519, Table 16-8.

16 See supra note 12.
6

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 or her own motion or on application.17

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.18

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

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.19 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.20 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.21

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 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

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).

Appellant did not establish that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point 

of law, and did not advance a relevant legal argument not previously considered by OWCP. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits based on either 

the first or second requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

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

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see M.S., Docket No. 18-1041 (issued October 25, 2018); L.G., Docket No. 09-1517 

(issued March 3, 2010); C.N., Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

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

Supra note 8 at Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020). 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). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

20 Id. at § 10.608(a); see D.C., Docket No. 19-0873 (issued January 27, 2020); M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

21 Id. at § 10.608(b); see T.V., Docket No. 19-1504 (issued January 23, 2020); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

22 M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25(1979).
7

On reconsideration, appellant submitted an October 8, 2021 report from Dr. Renelus who 

advised that she was fit to return to work without restrictions. She also submitted a December 7, 

2021 report from Dr. Hunt who indicated that she could work without restrictions. While this 

medical evidence is new, it is not relevant because it does not directly address the underlying issue 

of the present case, i.e., whether appellant submitted medical evidence, which contained an 

assessment of permanent impairment demonstrating greater than eight percent permanent 

impairment of the left lower extremity (left leg). The submission of this medical evidence does 

not warrant a review of her claim on the merits because 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.23 Therefore, appellant is not entitled to further review of the merits of 

her claim based on the third above-noted requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). 

The Board accordingly finds that appellant has not met any of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 

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

CONCLUSION

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

eight percent permanent impairment of the left lower extremity, for which she previously received 

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).

23 Id.
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 18 and December 23, 2021 decisions

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: September 13, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board