United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.F., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

AGENCIES, U.S. ARMY RESERVE 

COMMAND, COMMISSARY, Millington, TN, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0280

Issued: July 6, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On December 16, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 1, 2022 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards assigned Docket No. 23-0280.1

On February 15, 2006 appellant, then a 52-year-old store worker, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 4, 2006 she injured her right knee and hand when 

she was walking and tripped on uneven pavement while in the performance of duty. She did not 

stop work. OWCP accepted the claim for right knee contusion. It expanded accepted of the claim 

to include right knee osteoarthritis. On February 5, 2008 appellant underwent OWCP-approved 

right total knee replacement surgery. She returned to light-duty work on April 22, 2008.

On September 25, 2008 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a 

schedule award. By decision dated October 7, 2008, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award 

1 The Board notes that following the September 1, 2022 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

for 50 percent permanent impairment of her right lower extremity in accordance with the fifth 

edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment

(A.M.A., Guides).

2

 The award ran for 144 weeks for the period September 4, 2008 

through 27, 2008.

On January 25, 2013 appellant underwent an OWCP-authorized revision of total knee 

arthroplasty.

On January 14, 2014 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for an increased schedule award. By 

decision dated February 21, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for an increased schedule award as in 

accordance of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides,

3 appellant’s current permanent impairment 

was no greater than the prior percentage of permanent impairment previously awarded. It accorded 

the weight of the medical evidence to the January 9, 2014 report of Dr. Marc J. Mihalko, an 

orthopedic surgeon, and the February 13, 2014 report, of the district medical adviser (DMA),

Dr. James W. Dyer, an orthopedic surgeon.

On July 9, 2018 OWCP expanded its acceptance of appellant’s claim to include the 

additional conditions of pain due to internal orthopedic prosthetic devices, implants, and grafts, 

and long-term use of anticoagulants.

On November 1, 2019 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for an additional schedule award. By 

decision dated April 15, 2020, OWCP denied the claim for an increased schedule award as in 

accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides,

4 appellant’s current condition had not 

reached a fixed and permanent state.

On February 24, 2022 appellant filed a Form CA-7 for an additional schedule award. By 

decision dated September 1, 2022, OWCP granted appellant an additional schedule award of her

right lower extremity, but failed to provide the extent of the additional impairment. It merely 

informed her of the number of weeks of the additional compensation, 25.92, and the period covered 

from January 20 through July 20, 2022. OWCP based its conclusions on the February 1 and 

March 31, 2022 reports of Dr. Gregory D. Dabov, an orthopedic surgeon, and the reports of

Dr. Arthur S. Harris, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon and DMA, dated March 22, July 19,

and August 16, 2022, which it provided.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, finds that this case is not in posture for 

decision.

Section 8124(a) of FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make findings of fact 

and make an award for or against payment of compensation.5 OWCP’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.126 further provide that the decision of the Director of OWCP shall contain findings of fact 

2 A.M.A., Guides (5th ed. 2001).

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

4

Id.

5

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a).
3

and a statement of reasons.6 As well, its procedures provide that the reasoning behind OWCP’s 

decision should be clear enough for the reader to understand the precise defect of the claim and 

the kind of evidence, which would overcome it.7 In its September 1, 2022 decision, OWCP did 

not provide an explanation of the extent of appellant’s permanent impairment.

8

 This lack of 

explanation would prevent appellant from understanding the extent of his schedule award claim 

and the evidence necessary to increase the schedule award compensation.

9

 Accordingly, the case 

must be remanded for OWCP to make findings of fact and provide reasons for its decision 

regarding appellant’s schedule award claim pursuant to the standards set forth in 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.500(a) and 10.126. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 1, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: July 6, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

7 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013).

8

See Order Remanding Case, C.V., Docket No. 22-0626 (issued October 17, 2022); Order Remanding Case, E.M.

Docket No. 20-1045 (issued September 14, 2022); Order Remanding Case, M.C., Docket No. 21-1153 (issued 

February14, 2022); Order Remanding Case, C.W., Docket Nos. 18-1764 & 19-0709 (issued August 27, 2020).

9

See Order Remanding Case, M.B., Docket No. 22-1026 (issuedJanuary 25, 2023); Order Remanding Case, P.G., 

Docket No. 17-1461 (issued February 7, 2019).