United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, NORTH TEXAS 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Coppell, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0532

Issued: January 24, 2024

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 6, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from November 4, 2022 and March 1, 

2023 merit decisions 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 permanent 

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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the March 1, 2023 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

(2) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish the remaining claimed intermittent 

disability from work for the period September 20, 2018 through July 5, 2022, causally related to 

her accepted September 20, 2018 employment injury.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 26, 2018 appellant, then a 23-year-old city carrier assistant, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 20, 2018 she injured her right knee when 

she was pinned between two long life vehicles while in the performance of duty. On

November 2, 2018 OWCP accepted the claim for sprain of other specified parts of right knee, and 

contusion of right knee. Appellant received continuation of pay (COP) for the period 

September 21 through November 5, 2018. OWCP paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the 

supplemental rolls during the period November 6 through December 8, 2018, on the periodic rolls 

for the period December 9, 2018 through January 5, 2019, and on the supplemental rolls for the 

period January 6 through 8, 2019.3

OWCP received reports by Dr. Rory L. Allen, an osteopath specializing in family 

medicine, dated October 10 through December 5, 2018. He recounted a history of injury and 

treatment. On examination of the right knee, Dr. Allen observed diffuse tenderness to palpation, 

tenderness to palpation in the medial aspect around the medial collateral ligament and medial 

meniscus, a positive McMurray’s test, pain in the medial aspect of the knee with full flexion, and 

an altered gait. He diagnosed a right knee sprain and right knee contusion. Dr. Allen prescribed 

a knee brace and physical therapy. He held appellant off work. 

OWCP also received form reports with illegible signatures.

In duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated January 2 and 7, 2019, Dr. Allen returned 

appellant to light duty for six hours a day commencing January 7, 2019. 

In a January 8, 2019 work capacity evaluation (Form OWCP-5c) and a separate letter of 

even date, Dr. Allen returned appellant to light-duty work for six hours a day with constant lifting 

up to 10 pounds, intermittent lifting up to 20 pounds, pulling up to 33.3 pounds, pushing up to 45.3 

pounds, walking less than five minutes continuously, and no climbing, squatting or kneeling.

Appellant returned to modified-duty work for six hours a day on January 8, 2019.

In a February 26, 2019 Form CA-17, Dr. Allen continued appellant on light-duty work for 

six hours a day under the prior work restrictions. In a March 5, 2019 Form CA-17, he increased 

3

In a development letter dated November 20, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that it could not determine her pay 

rate for compensation purposes as she had not worked for the Federal Government for a full year prior to the accepted 

employment injury. It requested information regarding her earnings, and documentation of wages received. In a 

separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment submit information 

regarding the pay rate of a similarly situated employee. It afforded the employing establishment 30 days to respond. 

On December 4, 2018 the employing establishment advised OWCP that appellant worked an average of 6.43 hours 

per day at an hourly rate of $17.28.
3

appellant’s work hoursto eight hours a day and raised her lifting limitation to 30 pounds. OWCP 

also received a January 30, 2019 report by Dr. Allen maintaining appellant on light-duty work.

Appellant began working eight hours per day, effective March 9, 2019. 

In a March 13, 2019 narrative report and a Form OWCP-5c of even date, Dr. Allen 

recounted that appellant had performed modified-duty work for six hours a day commencing 

January 7, 2019. A March 5, 2019 physical performance evaluation demonstrated that appellant’s 

lifting and carrying capabilities had increased to 30 pounds, but that her “biomechanical abilities, 

such as balance and treadmill walking were still rated at poor levels.” Dr. Allen returned appellant

to modified-duty work for eight hours per day with restrictions. He prescribed additional physical 

therapy.

In an April 3, 2019 Form CA-17, Dr. Allen continued appellant on full-time modified-duty

work within the prior work limitations. He submitted additional Forms CA-17 dated through 

August 29, 2019 renewing prior work restrictions.

On July 21, 2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for disability from work for the period

September 20, 2018 through July 5, 2022. On the same form, she also claimed compensation for 

a schedule award.4

In a development letter dated August 1, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim for wage-loss compensation. It advised her of the type of medical 

evidence required and afforded her 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. In a separate 

development letter of even date, OWCP requested that appellant provide a report from her 

physician with regard to whether her condition had reached a fixed and stable point known as 

maximum medical improvement (MMI), and an impairment rating using the sixth edition of the 

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

Guides). It afforded her 30 days to submit additional medical evidence in support of her schedule 

award claim. No response was received to either development letter.

By decision dated November 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim.

By decision dated March 1, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for the remaining claimed intermittent disability from work for the period 

September 20, 2018 through July 5, 2022. It found that OWCP paid her wage-loss compensation 

for the period September 20, 2018 through January 8, 2019, but the medical evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish disability from work during the claimed period due to her 

September 20, 2018 employment injury.

4 Thereafter, OWCP received a January 27, 2020 notification of personnel action (PS Form 50) indicating that 

appellant had been absent without leave (AWOL) commencing September 29, 2019 and had been separated from the 

employing establishment effective January 18, 2020. 
4

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. 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 adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate 

standard for evaluating schedule losses.7 As of May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in 

accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides(2009).8 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.9

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 

and Health (ICF): A Contemporary Model of Disablement.10

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

impairment class of diagnosis (CDX), which is then adjusted by a grade modifier for functional 

history (GMFH), a grade modifier for physical examination (GMPE), and/or a grade modifier for 

clinical studies (GMCS).11 The net adjustment formula is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + 

(GMCS - CDX).12 Evaluators are directed to provide reasons for their impairment choices, 

including the choices of diagnoses from regional grids and calculations of modifier scores. 13

5

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

7

Id. See also Ronald R. Kraynak, 53 ECAB 130 (2001).

8

See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January2010); id. at Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.6a 

(March 2017).

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

10 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009), p.3, section 1.3.

11 Id. at 494-531.

12 Id. at 411.

13 S.C., Docket No. 22-0564 (issued March 27, 2023); see M.P., Docket No. 18-1298 (issued April12, 2019); R.R., 

Docket No. 17-1947 (issued December 19, 2018); R.V., Docket No. 10-1827 (issued April 1, 2011).
5

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. 14 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 

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.

15

 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.16 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. 17

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

impairment of her right lower extremity, warranting a schedule award.

OWCP accepted the claim for a right knee sprain and right knee contusion. On July 26, 

2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for a schedule award. On August 1, 2022 OWCP requested that 

appellant submit a permanent impairment evaluation from her physician addressing the date of 

MMI and extent of any employment-related permanent impairment using the A.M.A., Guides. 

Appellant, however, did not submit such medical evidence. 

As noted above, appellant must submit an evaluation from a physician that supports a 

finding that she has reached MMI, and which 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.18 

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish permanent impairment of a 

scheduled member or function of the body, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden 

of proof.

14 C.T., Docket No. 22-0128 (issued February 15, 2023); 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).

15 Supra note 8 at Chapter 2.808.5 (March 2017).

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

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

18 C.T., supra note 14; see J.P., supra note 14; D.J., Docket No. 20-0017 (issued August 31, 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).
6

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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2

An employee seeking benefits under FECA19 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury. 20 For each period of 

disability claimed, the employee has the burden of proof to establish that he or she was disabled 

for work as a result of the accepted employment injury.21 Whether a particular injury causes an 

employee to become disabled from work, and the duration of that disability, are medical issues 

that must be proven by a preponderance of probative and reliable medical opinion evidence. 22

Under FECA, the term disability means incapacity, because of an employment injury, to 

earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury. 23 Disability is, thus, not 

synonymous with physical impairment which may or may not result in an incapacity to earn 

wages.24 An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to his or her federal 

employment, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages that he or she was receiving 

at the time of injury, has no disability and is not entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning 

capacity.25 When, however, the medical evidence establishes that the residuals or sequelae of an 

employment injury are such that, from a medical standpoint, they prevent the employee from 

continuing employment, the employee is entitled to compensation for any loss of wages.26

The Board will not require OWCP to pay compensation for disability in the absence of any 

medical evidence directly addressing the specific dates of disability for which compensation is 

19 Supra note 1.

20 See D.S., Docket No. 20-0638 (issued November 17, 2020);F.H., Docket No. 18-0160 (issued August23, 2019);

C.R., Docket No. 18-1805 (issued May 10, 2019); Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383 (1994); Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143 (1989).

21 See Y.D., Docket No. 20-0097 (issued August25, 2020); L.S., Docket No. 18-0264 (issued January 28, 2020);

Amelia S. Jefferson, 57 ECAB 183 (2005); Fereidoon Kharabi, 52 ECAB 291, 293 (2001).

22 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(f); J.M., Docket No. 18-0763 (issued April29, 2020); S.L., Docket No. 19-0603 (issued 

January 28, 2020).

23 Id. § 10.5(f);see J.T., Docket No. 19-1813 (issued April14, 2020);CherylL. Decavitch, 50 ECAB 397 (1999).

24 J.S., Docket No. 19-1035 (issued January 24, 2020).

25 Supra note 22 at § 10.5(f);see D.N., Docket No. 19-1344 (issued November 6, 2020); G.R., Docket No. 19-0940 

(issued December 20, 2019). S.M., 58 ECAB 166 (2006); Bobbie F. Cowart, 55 ECAB 746 (2004).

26 J.T., supra note 23; S.L., supra note 22.
7

claimed. To do so would essentially allow employees to self-certify their disability and entitlement 

to compensation.27

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish the remaining 

claimed intermittent disability from work for the period September 20, 2018 through July 5, 2022, 

causally related to her accepted September 20, 2018 employment injury.

OWCP received reports by Dr. Rory L. Allen, an osteopath specializing in family 

medicine, dated October 10 through December 5, 2018. Dr. Allen recounted a history of injury 

and treatment. On examination of the right knee, he observed diffuse tenderness to palpation, 

tenderness to palpation in the medial aspect around the medial collateral ligament and medial 

meniscus, a positive McMurray’s test, pain in the medial aspect of the knee with full flexion, and 

an altered gait. Dr. Allen diagnosed a right knee sprain and right knee contusion. He prescribed 

a knee brace and physical therapy. Dr. Allen held appellant off work; however, he did not provide 

an opinion on causal relationship between appellant’s disability and the accepted employment 

injury. The Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship. 28 

This evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s disability claim.

In reports dated January 2 through 8, 2019, Dr. Allen returned appellant to light duty for 

only six hours per day with restrictions, effective January 7, 2019. However, he similarly did not 

provide an opinion on causal relationship between appellant’s claimed disability and the accepted 

employment injury. As noted above, the Board has held that medical evidence that does not offer 

an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of 

causal relationship.29 This evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish appellant’s disability 

claim.

In a February 26, 2019 Form CA-17, Dr. Allen continued appellant on light-duty work for 

six hours a day under the prior work restrictions. In a March 5, 2019 Form CA-17, he increased 

appellant’s work hours to eight hours a day and raised her lifting limitation to 30 pounds. OWCP 

also received a January 30, 2019 report wherein Dr. Allen maintained appellant on light-duty 

work. However, as Dr. Allen did not provide an opinion on causal relationship, this evidence is 

insufficient to establish the disability claim. 

In reports dated March 5 through August 29, 2019, Dr. Allen found appellant able to 

perform full-time work as of March 5, 2019. As this evidence negates disability during the 

27 Id.

28 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

29 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
8

claimed period, they are of no probative value and are insufficient to establish the disability 

claim.30

OWCP also received medical evidence from providers with illegible signatures. The Board 

has held that evidence that does not contain a legible signature is of no probative value, as it is not 

established that the author is a physician.31 

As the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish disability from work during 

the claimed period, causally related to the accepted September 20, 2018 employment injury, the 

Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof. 32

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

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

impairment of her right lower extremity, warranting a schedule award. The Board further finds

appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish the remaining claimed intermittent disability 

from work for the period September 20, 2018 through July 5, 2022, causally related to her accepted 

September 20, 2018 employment injury.

30 T.W., Docket No. 19-0677 (issued August 16, 2019). 

31 See D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006); Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 572, 575 (1988).

32 Upon return of the case record, OWCP should consider payment of up to four hours of compensation to appellant 

for any unpaid lost time from work due to medical appointments to assess or treat symptoms related to the employment 

injury. See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Compensation Claims, Chapter 2.901.19(c) 

(February2013); J.E., Docket No. 19-1758 (issued March 16, 2021); A.J., Docket No. 21-1211 (issued May 4, 2022); 

A.V., Docket No. 19-1575 (issued June 11, 2020). See also K.A., Docket No. 19-0679 (issued April6, 2020);

William A. Archer, 55 ECAB 674 (2004).
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 4, 2022 and March 1, 2023 decisions 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: January 24, 2024

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board