United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.Q., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, NATIONAL 

NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

OFFICE OF SECURE TRANSPORTATION, 

Oak Ridge, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0843

Issued: October 6, 2023

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 May 10, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 28, 2022 merit 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.

ISSUE

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

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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 2, 2019 appellant, then a 52-year-old federal agent, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on May 7, 2019 he sustained tick bites during training while in the 

performance of duty. He stopped work on May 21, 2019. OWCP accepted the claim for 

allergy/Alpha-gal syndrome. It paid appellant wage-loss compensation on the supplemental rolls 

for the period July 7 through August 17, 2019, on the periodic rolls for the period August 18, 2019 

through March 27, 2021, and on the supplemental rolls for the period March 28 through 30, 2021.

Appellant returned to full-time work for a new employer, effective March 31, 2021. 

In a report of functional capacity evaluation (FCE) dated January 22, 2020, Rob Pearse, an 

exercise physiologist and certified functional evaluator, indicated that appellant gave consistent 

effort during testing and was capable of performing medium-duty work. He noted a diagnosis of 

Alpha-gal syndrome.

In a report dated April 28, 2021, Dr. Cornelius Mance, Board-certified in internal 

medicine, psychiatry, and neurology, noted that appellant related complaints of dizziness. In an 

attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) of even date, he diagnosed Alpha-gal syndrome, 

vertigo, fatigue, and tremor due to a 2019 work exposure. Dr. Mance further noted prior exposures 

in 2013 and 2016 and opined that appellant required light-work restrictions and long-term 

medication usage to manage weakness and fatigue.

On January 3, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule 

award.

In a development letter dated January 20, 2022, OWCP notified appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It requested that he submit an impairment evaluation addressing whether 

he had obtained maximum medical improvement (MMI) and providing an impairment rating in 

accordance with the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation 

of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).2

OWCP thereafter received a narrative report dated February 18, 2022 by Dr. Mance, who

indicated that he initially evaluated appellant on September 23, 2019 for vertigo, fatigue, 

weakness, swelling of his pancreas, depression, hand tremors, confusion, concentration problems, 

nausea, vomiting, personality changes, double vision, and ringing in his ears. Dr. Mance

diagnosed Alpha-gal syndrome due to tick bites and opined that this condition was the cause of his

symptoms.

By decision dated April 28, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim finding 

that the medical evidence of record did not support a permanent impairment of a member or 

function of the body.

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA,3 and its implementing federal regulations,4 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. FECA, 

however, does not specify the manner in which the percentage loss of a member shall be 

determined. The method used in making such a determination is a matter which rests in the 

discretion of OWCP. For consistent results and to ensure equal justice, the Board has authorized 

the use of a single set of tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to all claimants. 

OWCP evaluates the degree of permanent impairment according to the standards set forth in the 

specified edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009.5 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.6

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. 7 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.

8

 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.9 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.10

No schedule award is payable for a member, function, or organ of the body not specified 

in FECA or in the implementing regulations.11 FECA identifies members such as the arm, leg, 

hand, foot, thumb, and finger, organs to include the eye and functions as loss of hearing and loss 

3

Supra note 1.

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

5 For decisions issued after May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guidesis used. A.M.A., Guides(6th ed. 

2009); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, 

Chapter 2.808.5a (March2017); see also Part 3 --Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

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

7

See Y.M., Docket No. 21-0995 (issued March 2, 2022); Edward Spohr, 54 ECAB 806, 810 (2003); Tammy L. 

Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001).

8

Supra note 5 at Chapter 2.808.5.

9

Id. at Chapter 2.808.6a .

10 Id. at Chapter 2.808.6c.

11 See G.S., Docket No. 17-1318 (issued October 11, 2017); Leroy M. Terska, 53 ECAB 247 (2001).
4

of vision.12 Section 8107(c)(22) of FECA provides for the payment of compensation for 

permanent loss of any other important external or internal organ of the body as determined by the 

Secretary of Labor.13 The Secretary of Labor has made such a determination and pursuant to the 

authority granted in section 8107(c)(22), added the breast, kidney, larynx, lung, penis, testicle, 

ovary, uterus, and tongue to the schedule.14

ANALYSIS

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

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

OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for allergy/Alpha-gal syndrome. On January 3, 2022 

he filed a claim for a schedule award. On January 20, 2022, it requested that he submit a permanent 

impairment evaluation from his treating physician addressing the extent of any employmentrelated permanent impairment using the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a January 22, 2020 FCE by Mr. Pearse and 

reports by Dr. Mance, which noted a diagnosis of Alpha-gal syndrome. However, these reports 

did not indicate whether he had reached MMI and did not calculate an impairment rating in 

accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. As noted above, appellant must submit 

an evaluation from a physician that includes the date MMI was reached, a description of the 

impairment in sufficient detail so that it can be visualized on review, and computation of the 

percentage of impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides.

15

 As he has not submitted 

evidence to establish permanent impairment of a scheduled member or function of the body 

causally related to his accepted employment condition, the Board finds that he has not met his 

burden of proof.16

Appellant may request a 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.

CONCLUSION

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

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

12 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c).

13 Id. at § 8122(c)(22).

14 20 C.F.R. § 10.404; Henry B. Floyd, III, 52 ECAB 220 (2001).

15 Supra note 8.

16 See R.A., Docket No. 22-0282 (issued March 14, 2022); J.G., Docket No. 21-1192; M.G., Docket No. 19-0823 

(issued September 17, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 28, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 6, 2023

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