United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

New Orleans, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0261

Issued: May 17, 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 November 22, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 18, 2021 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 to consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has greater than 50 percent permanent impairment of his 

right lower extremity for which he has previously received a schedule award.

1 The Board notes that following the August 18, 2021 decision, OWCP and the Board 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board on a different issue. The facts and 

circumstances as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference.3 The 

relevant facts are as follows.

On April 8, 1974 appellant, then a 26-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he sustained a right knee injury when he struck his right 

knee on the door latch of his postal vehicle while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the 

claim for right knee synovitis and internal derangement of the right knee. On July 9, 1979 

appellant underwent right knee patellectomy. He returned to light-duty work on 

December 21, 1979. Appellant stopped work on August 15, 1997.

4

In a report dated August 1, 2018, Dr. R. William Junius III, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, described appellant’s history of injury, his medical history, and diagnosed unilateral 

primary osteoarthritis of the right knee and knee pain. He noted, “[Appellant] was given a 15 

percent permanent residual disability ... on June 26, 1980.” On physical examination, Dr. Junius

noted that appellant was in a wheelchair, but could walk short distances. He found right knee 

swelling, genu varum deformity, and moderate effusion. Dr. Junius listed range of motion as -10 

degrees of extension and 90 degrees of flexion with pain at the extreme limits. He reviewed right 

knee side x-rays and found that these demonstrated severe bone-on-bone medial compartment 

arthritis with periarticular osteophyte formation, subchondral sclerosis, and varus deformity.

Dr. Junius also found significant joint space narrowing with osteophyte formation in the 

patellofemoral joint. He calculated appellant’s impairment in accordance with the sixth edition of 

the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., 

Guides)

5 applying Table 16-3 (Knee Regional Grid) page 511, for the diagnosis-based impairment 

(DBI) method of primary knee joint arthritis, Class 4, grade D, or 54 percent permanent impairment

based on no cartilage interval.

On July 13, 2018 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) requesting a 

schedule award.

OWCP referred Dr. Junius’ August 1, 2018 report to a district medical adviser (DMA) for 

review. In a report dated July 15, 2021, Dr. Herbert White, Jr., a physician Board-certified in 

occupational medicine serving as a DMA, reviewed the medical evidence of record. He explained 

that the rating was based upon the class of diagnosis (CDX) of significant medial compartment 

osteoarthritis of the knee and that appellant had zero millimeter cartilage interval. The DMA found 

that in accordance with Table16-3, page 511 of the A.M.A., Guides, and the CDX of primary knee 

3 Charles J. Jenkins, 40 ECAB 362 (1988).

4 Appellant subsequentially filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging an emotional condition due 

to factors of his federal employment. OWCP assigned that claim File No. xxxxxx279 andaccepted it for aggravation 

of a preexisting paranoid personality disorder. Appellant stopped work due to this condition on August15, 1997. 

OWCP paid wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls beginning June 16, 2002 and on the periodic rolls 

beginning September 28, 2020.

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

joint arthritis, there was a default value of 50 percent due to 0 millimeters of cartilage interval. He 

also applied Table 16-6, page 516, in finding a grade modifier for functional history (GMFH) of 

4, as appellant was nonambulatory; and applied Table 16-7, page 517, in finding a grade modifier

for physical examination (GMPE) of 2, due to moderate palpatory findings. The DMA noted that 

he did not provide an additional adjustment for the grade modifier for clinical studies (GMCS) as 

the clinical studies were used to determine the class of impairment. He applied the net adjustment 

formula, page 521, to reach a net adjustment of -2 or “in a class for grade A impairment,” resulting 

in 50 percent lower extremity permanent impairment. The DMA also applied Table 16-23, Knee 

Motion Impairments, and found 20 percent impairment of the right lower extremity due to loss of 

range of motion (ROM). He concluded that as the DBI method was greater, appellant’s permanent 

impairment for schedule award purposes was 50 percent permanent impairment of the right lower 

extremity. The DMA noted: “The 50 percent lower extremity impairment is the total impairment 

present. It would not be awarded in addition to any previously paid impairment. ”

By decision dated August 18, 2021, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for 50 

percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity. The award ran for a period of 144 

weeks from May 3, 2021 through February 4, 2024 based on the findings of Dr. Junius and the 

DMA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA6 and its implementing regulations7 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 of a member 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 has adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the 

appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.8 As of May 1, 2009, schedule awards are 

determined in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides (2009).9 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. 10

The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides provides a diagnosis-based method of evaluation 

utilizing the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability 

6

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

8

Id.; see D.C., Docket No. 20-0916 (issued September 14, 2021); see also RonaldR. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 

130 (2001).

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

2.808.5a (March 2017); see also Part 3 --Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

10 P.R., Docket No. 19-0022 (issued April 9, 2018); Isidoro Rivera, 12 ECAB 348 (1961).
4

and Health.

11

 In evaluating lower extremity impairment, the sixth edition requires identifying the 

impairment CDX, which is then adjusted by GMFH, GMPE, and GMCS.12 The net adjustment 

formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX). Evaluators are directed to provide 

reasons for their impairment rating choices, including the choices of diagnoses from regional grids 

and calculations of modifier scores.13

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater than 50 

percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity, for which he previously received a 

schedule award.

In a report dated August 1, 2018, Dr. Junius reviewed the medical record and the results of 

a physical examination. Referring to the sixth edition A.M.A., Guides Table 16-3, he rated 

appellant using the DBI method for a total right lower extremity permanent impairment of class 4, 

grade D or 54 percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity, due to no cartilage 

interval. Dr. Junius did not provide grade modifiers or the net adjustment formula as prescribed 

by the A.M.A., Guides.

In his July 15, 2021 report, Dr. White discussed appellant’s factual and medical history 

with respect to his accepted right knee conditions. He disagreed with Dr. Julius’ impairment 

rating. Using the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, Dr. White found a GMFH of 4 for a very 

severe problem as appellant was nonambulatory, a GMPE of 2 for tenderness to palpation, and 

that the GMCS was inapplicable as it was used to determine the class of impairment. He applied 

the net adjustment formula to arrive at a final right lower extremity permanent impairment of 50

percent, or Grade A. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly relied on the opinion of Dr. White, serving as the 

DMA, as he appropriately applied the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides in determining that 

appellant had no greater than 50 percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity.

As appellant has not established greater than 50 percent permanent impairment of the right

lower extremity, for which he previously received a schedule award, the Board finds he has not 

met his 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.

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

12 Id. at 494-531.

13 See M.P., Docket No. 18-1298 (issued April 12, 2019); R.V., Docket No. 10-1827 (issued April 1, 2011).
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater than 50 

percent permanent impairment of the right lower extremity, for which he previously received 

schedule award compensation.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 18, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 17, 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