United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
N.L., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CJIS
DIVISION, Clarksburg, WV, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Joseph Munoz, Esq., for the appellant
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 08-787
Issued: August 1, 2008

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On January 23, 2008 appellant filed a timely appeal from decisions of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs dated July 16 and October 18, 2007 which denied her claim.
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an
employment-related injury on March 4, 2007.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On June 11, 2007 appellant, then a 61-year-old legal instruments examiner, filed a Form
CA-1, traumatic injury claim, alleging that on March 4, 2007 she injured her back while moving
a rolling filing cabinet to a new office location. A coworker, Vicki L. Fuller, attested that she
witnessed appellant moving the cabinet. In an attached statement, appellant advised that she was
transferred to a new unit at the employing establishment, and on March 4, 2007 had to transfer

all files, manuals and personal items to a different location within the building. This included a
portable low-profile filing cabinet on wheels that weighed approximately 75 pounds. Appellant
stated that the filing cabinet kept going sideways, and she hurt her back in her struggle to keep it
in place. She stopped work on May 8, 2007.
In support of her claim, appellant submitted test results dating from March 28 to May 11,
2007, including a right duplex venous scan dated March 28, 2007 that showed no evidence of
deep vein thrombosis. An April 9, 2007 lumbar spine x-ray demonstrated mild osteopenia
without evidence of an acute bone injury and mild degenerative disc disease and facet joint
arthritis at L5-S1. An April 23, 2007 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar
spine was interpreted as showing very mild disc bulging at the L3-4 and L4-5 levels, and a
generalized disc bulge at the L5-S1 level with associated annular tear within the posterior
annulus which, combined with facet joint arthrosis, caused moderate right neural foraminal
encroachment with mild encroachment on the left. There was no evidence of disc herniation,
nerve root impingement or central spinal canal stenosis. In a May 14, 2007 report,
Dr. Gregory Z. Mavian, a Board-certified osteopath specializing in neurosurgery, advised that
appellant denied trauma to the spine. He observed that she had more anxiety than pain. Sensory
testing was without deficit. Dr. Mavian stated that, while the patient was seated, straight leg
raising caused minor gluteal lumbosacral myalgia bilaterally with no pain radiating into the legs.
No tenderness was noted on palpation of the lumbar spine, and there was no pain on side
bending, extension and flexion of the back and no radicular symptoms or radicular paresthesias
of any range of motion. Dr. Mavian reviewed the April 9, 2007 x-rays and the April 23, 2007
MRI scan, and diagnosed acute low back pain with bilateral lower extremity radicular symptoms,
most likely related to degenerative disc and protrusion of the lumbar spine, facet arthrosis of the
lumbar spine and multiple medical problems by history. He recommended a back rehabilitation
program, symptomatic care and treatment and, if necessary, epidural injections. Dr. Steven D.
Richards, Board-certified in family medicine, provided an attending physician’s report dated
June 8, 2007. He advised that he had first treated appellant on May 7, 2007. Dr. Richards took a
history of injury that she had injured her back while moving a wheeled filing cabinet and then
diagnosed intervertebral disc disorder with myelopathy of the lumbar region. He checked “yes”
on a form question, indicating that the diagnosed condition was employment related, stating “no
history of back pain in my records prior to reported injury,” and advised that total disability
began on March 4, 2007. Dr. Richards provided a three-pound lifting restriction with no
tugging, hauling or squatting and advised that she should sit no longer than 45 minutes with 15minute breaks. He opined that she was likely to have some degree of lifelong pain from
degenerative disc disease due to osteoarthritis and could return to light duty on June 3, 2007. In
a June 11, 2007 report, Dr. Anil J. Patel, a Board-certified anesthesiologist, noted that appellant
was being treated for back pain management and that she had epidural injections on May 30,
June 1 and 8, 2007.
By letter dated June 15, 2007, the Office informed appellant of the type of evidence
needed to support her claim. In an undated statement received on July 12, 2007, appellant
indicated that immediately after the claimed injury on March 4, 2007 she applied heat to her
back, soaked in warm water, and took over-the-counter pain medication but did not file a claim
because she did not know the rules for workers’ compensation and continued to work because
she had to support herself. She stated that she sustained no other injuries, and the extent of the
injury was not evident at first but became worse through time. Appellant stated that she first
2

contacted a doctor on March 28, 2007. She submitted a June 26, 2007 report in which
Dr. Richards reported that she had had constant back and leg pain since March 2007 after lifting
a heavy object. Dr. Richards noted that appellant had good mobility and tight trunk range of
motion with soft tissue tightness of the lumbar paraspinals without spasm. Deep tendon reflexes
were equal and reactive, sensation was intact, and straight leg raising testing was negative.
Dr. Richards diagnosed chronic low back pain. On July 19, 2007 he stated that he had reviewed
appellant’s chart and noted a previous history of reflex sympathetic dystrophy due to a right
ankle fracture that had resolved many years ago. Dr. Richards noted that, since he began treating
appellant, she had no orthopedic complaints at all other than finding osteoporosis on routine
screening, which was a common finding in her age group and diagnosed intervertebral disc
disorder with myelopathy of the lumbar region. He concluded that appellant’s back condition
was caused by the March 3, 2007 injury because he knew of no previous orthopedic complaints
and no other injuries and advised that she was disabled and would continue to be for the next six
months while she underwent rehabilitation.
By decision dated July 16, 2007, the Office denied the claim. The Office found the
March 4, 2007 incident established but that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish
that the claimed condition was caused by the March 4, 2007 incident. On July 26, 2007
appellant requested a review of the written record. In an October 18, 2007 decision, an Office
hearing representative affirmed the July 16, 2007 decision on the grounds that appellant had not
established causal relationship.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1 has the
burden of establishing the essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that the
individual is an employee of the United States within the meaning of the Act, that the claim was
timely filed within the applicable time limitation period of the Act, that an injury was sustained
in the performance of duty as alleged and that any disability and/or specific condition for which
compensation is claimed are causally related to the employment injury. Regardless of whether
the asserted claim involves traumatic injury or occupational disease, an employee must satisfy
this burden of proof.2
Office regulations, at 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee) define a traumatic injury as a condition of the
body caused by a specific event or incident or series of events or incidents within a single
workday or shift.3 To determine whether an employee sustained a traumatic injury in the
performance of duty, the Office must determine whether “fact of injury” is established. First, an
employee has the burden of demonstrating the occurrence of an injury at the time, place and in
the manner alleged, by a preponderance of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence.
Second, the employee must submit sufficient evidence, generally only in the form of medical
evidence, to establish a causal relationship between the employment incident and the alleged
disability and/or condition for which compensation is claimed. An employee may establish that
1

5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.

2

Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004).

3

the employment incident occurred as alleged, but fail to show that his or her disability and/or
condition relates to the employment incident.4
Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish a
causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.5 Rationalized medical evidence is medical
evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized medical opinion on the issue of whether there
is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated
employment factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and
medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be
supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed
condition and the specific employment factors identified by the claimant.6 Neither the mere fact
that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period of employment nor the belief that the
disease or condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors or incidents is sufficient to
establish causal relationship.7
ANALYSIS
The Board agrees that the March 4, 2007 incident occurred. Appellant, however, failed
to meet her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an injury caused by this incident. The
medical evidence of record includes results of testing dating from March 28, 2007 including a
lumbar spine x-ray and MRI scan. The earliest report of treatment by a physician, however, is
that of Dr. Mavian dated May 14, 2007, two-and-a-half months after the claimed injury. While
he diagnosed acute low back pain with bilateral lower extremity radicular symptoms, he stated
that appellant reported no trauma to the spine and he did not provide an opinion regarding the
cause of the diagnosed conditions. Dr. Patel merely noted that he had evaluated appellant on
May 30, 2007 and treated her with epidural injections on June 1 and 8, 2007. Medical evidence
that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited
probative value on the issue of causal relationship.8 Thus the various reports of testing including
the lumbar spine MRI scan and the reports of Drs. Mavian and Patel are insufficient to meet
appellant’s burden of proof to establish that she sustained an employment-related back
condition.9
Dr. Richards provided reports dated June 8 and 26 and July 19, 2007. He noted a history
of injury and that appellant had had pain since March 2007 after lifting a heavy object at work.
Dr. Richards also provided a history that she hurt her back while moving a filing cabinet on
wheels and diagnosed chronic low back pain. Medical opinion regarding causal relationship
must be based on a complete factual and medical background with an accurate history of the
4

Gary J. Watling, supra note 2.

5

Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

6

Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000); Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

7

Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

8

Willie M. Miller, 53 ECAB 697 (2002).

9

Id.

4

claimant’s employment injury and must explain from a medical perspective how the current
condition is related to the injury.10 Dr. Richards’ reports are of diminished probative value
because he was unclear regarding the history of the claimed injury. Furthermore, while he
opined that appellant’s back condition was employment related because she had no previous
orthopedic complaints while under his care, the Board has long held that an opinion that a
condition is causally related to an employment injury because the employee was asymptomatic
before the injury but symptomatic after it is insufficient, without supporting rationale, to
establish causal relationship.11 Dr. Richards provided no rationale to support his conclusion. His
opinion is therefore insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof.
The opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship must be one of reasonable
medical certainty that the condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to
federal employment and such relationship must be supported with affirmative evidence,
explained by medical rationale and be based upon a complete and accurate medical and factual
background of the claimant.12 Appellant submitted no such evidence in this case and thus did
not establish the critical element of causal relationship. She therefore did not meet her burden of
proof to establish that she sustained an injury on March 4, 2007.13
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that, while appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she
sustained an employment incident on March 4, 2006, she did not meet her burden of proof to
establish that she sustained an injury causally related to this incident.

10

Joan R. Donovan, 54 ECAB 615 (2003).

11

John F. Glynn, 53 ECAB 562 (2002).

12

Patricia J. Glenn, 53 ECAB 159 (2001).

13

John W. Montoya, 54 ECAB 306 (2003).

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated October 18, 2007 be affirmed.
Issued: August 1, 2008
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
C.M., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Bedford Park, IL, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 21-0200
Issued: June 16, 2021

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On November 15, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 16, 2020 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 over the merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury
in the performance of duty on August 8, 2020, as alleged.

1
The Board notes that, following the October 16, 2020 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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

FACTUAL HISTORY
On August 24, 2020 appellant, then a 63-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim
(Form CA-1) alleging that on August 8, 2020 he injured his left shoulder when lifting a heavy
parcel while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s
supervisor affirmatively indicated that appellant was injured in the performance of duty, and that
he stopped work on August 11, 2020.
In support of his claim, appellant submitted a report dated August 10, 2020 from Dr. Lulu
Husain, a family medicine specialist. Dr. Husain related that on August 8, 2020 appellant lifted a
heavy parcel and complained of left shoulder pain which he described as a throbbing pain which
radiated to his left arm, elbow, hand, and scapula. She diagnosed left shoulder strain and noted
that this resulted from lifting at work.
Appellant submitted a report dated August 25, 2020 from Nicholas Wesolowski, a physical
therapist. Mr. Wesolowski related that appellant was diagnosed with left cervical radiculopathy
and cervicalgia following a work-related incident when lifting a box off of his mail truck. He
noted that appellant had residual pain in his left shoulder and numbness down the left upper
extremity to the fingers. In physical therapy notes dated August 25 and 27, 2020, Mr. Wesolowski
detailed appellant’s physical therapy sessions.
OWCP also received a physical therapy note dated August 28, 2020 from Kimberly
O’Hare, a physical therapist, which detailed another physical therapy session.
In a development letter dated September 9, 2020, OWCP advised appellant that additional
factual and medical evidence was necessary to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of
factual and medical evidence needed and afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary
evidence.
In response, appellant submitted physical therapy notes dated September 3 and 8, 2020
from Mr. Wesolowski and a physical therapy note dated September 4, 2020 from Ms. O’Hare.
By decision dated October 16, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as fact of injury had
not been established. It noted that appellant failed to provide a detailed statement establishing that
the incident occurred as described. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met
to establish an injury as defined by FECA.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim, including that the individual is an employee of the United
States within the meaning FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time

3

Supra note 2.

2

limitation period of FECA,4 that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged,
and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related
to the employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim,
regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6
To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the
performance of duty, it must first be determined whether fact of injury has been established. There
are two components involved in establishing fact of injury. The first component to be established
is that the employee must submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced
the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged. The second component is
whether the employment incident caused a personal injury and can be established only by medical
evidence.7
An injury does not have to be confirmed by eyewitnesses in order to establish the fact that
an employee sustained an injury in the performance of duty, but the employee’s statements must
be consistent with the surrounding facts and circumstances and his or her subsequent course of
action.8 The employee has not met his or her burden of proof to establish the occurrence of an
injury when there are inconsistencies in the evidence that cast serious doubt upon the validity of
the claim. Such circumstances as late notification of injury, lack of confirmation of injury,
continuing to work without apparent difficulty following the alleged injury, and failure to obtain
medical treatment may, if otherwise unexplained, cast sufficient doubt on an employee’s
statements in determining whether a prima facie case has been established.9 An employee’s
statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time and in a given manner is of great
probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or persuasive evidence.10
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an incident in the
performance of duty on August 8, 2020, as alleged.

4

F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); Joe D.
Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).
5

L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020);
James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).
6

P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016);
Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
7
T.H., Docket No. 19-0599 (issued January 28, 2020); K.L., Docket No. 18-1029 (issued January 9, 2019); John J.
Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).
8

M.F., Docket No. 18-1162 (issued April 9, 2019); Charles B. Ward, 38 ECAB 667, 67-71 (1987).

9

L.D., Docket No. 16-0199 (issued March 8, 2016); Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB 174 (2002).

10

See M.C., Docket No. 18-1278 (issued March 7, 2019); D.B., 58 ECAB 464, 466-67 (2007).

3

OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding that he had not provided a
detailed statement establishing that the events occurred as described.
As noted, an employee’s statement alleging that an injury occurred at a given time, place,
and in a given manner is of great probative value and will stand unless refuted by strong or
persuasive evidence.11 Appellant alleged that he sustained a left shoulder injury on August 8, 2020
while lifting a heavy box at work and the employing establishment filed an affirmative response
that he was in the performance of duty when injured. Additionally, he sought medical care on
August 10, 2020 with Dr. Husain, who diagnosed a left shoulder strain which occurred on
August 8, 2020 after lifting a heavy parcel at work. Mr. Wesolowski’s evaluation dated
August 25, 2020 also indicated that appellant had a left shoulder injury from lifting at work. The
injuries appellant claimed are consistent with the facts and circumstances he set forth, his actions,
and the evidence he submitted. The Board, thus, finds that appellant has met his burden of proof
to establish an employment incident in the performance of duty on August 8, 2020, as alleged.
As appellant has established that the August 8, 2020 employment incident factually
occurred as alleged, the question becomes whether the incident caused an injury.12 The Board
will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s October 16, 2020 merit decision and remand the case for
consideration of the medical evidence of record.13 After such further development as deemed
necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision addressing whether appellant has met his burden
of proof to establish a medical condition causally related to the accepted employment incident.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an incident in the
performance of duty on August 8, 2020, as alleged. The Board further finds that the case is not in
posture for decision regarding whether he has established an injury causally related to the accepted
employment incident.

11

See id.

12

See M.H., Docket No, 20-0576 (issued August 6, 2020); M.A., Docket No. 19-0616 (issued April 10,
2020); C.M., Docket No. 19-0009 (issued May 24, 2019).
13

A.B., Docket No. 20-1567 (issued April 30, 2021); S.M., Docket No. 16-0875 (issued December 12, 2017).

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 16, 2020 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this decision of the Board.
Issued: June 16, 2021
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
M.L., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
CUSTOMS & BORDER PATROL, DULLES
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Sterling, VA,
Employer
__________________________________________
Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Docket No. 21-0442
Issued: October 26, 2021

Case Submitted on the Record

ORDER REMANDING CASE
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On February 3, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from September 23, 2020 and
January 6, 2021 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The
Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0442.1
On July 19, 2020 appellant, then a 49-year-old canine (K9) supervisor filed a traumatic
injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that he sustained injuries to his left hand and elbow while in
the performance of duty. He explained that when collecting K9 training aids on July 18, 2020 he
grabbed a large case with his left hand and felt a painful popping and a shocking sensation which

1

The Board notes that, following the January 6, 2021 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.

radiated from his left hand to his left elbow. Appellant stopped work on July 18, 2020 and returned
to work on July 19, 2020. OWCP assigned the claim File No. xxxxxx372. 2
In an August 19, 2020 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of
his claim. It requested additional factual and medical evidence and provided a questionnaire for
his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond. No response was received.
By decision dated September 23, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim
finding that he failed to submit medical evidence establishing causal relationship between his
diagnosed condition and his accepted employment incident.
On October 19, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration of the September 23, 2020
decision.
By decision dated January 6, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.
The Board, having duly considered the matter, finds that this case is not in posture for
decision. OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined when
correct adjudication depends on frequent cross-referencing between files. 3 For example, if a new
injury case is reported for an employee who previously filed an injury claim f or a similar condition
or the same part of the body, doubling is required. 4 Herein, a number of appellant’s prior claims,
under OWCP File No. xxxxxx609, also involve an injury to his left upper extremity. For a full
and fair adjudication, the case must be returned to OWCP to administratively combine the current
case record under OWCP File No. xxxxxx372 with OWCP File No. xxxxxx609. This will allow
consideration of all relevant claim files and accompanying evidence in developing appellant’s
current traumatic injury claim. Following this and other such further development as deemed
necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

2

The Board notes that appellant has a number of prior claims involving the left upper extremity that have been
administratively combined under OWCP File No. xxxxxx609.
3

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8(c)
(February 2000).
4

Id.; M.L., Docket No. 20-1176 (issued April 29, 2021); L.M., Docket No. 19-1490 (issued January 29, 2020); L.H.,
Docket No 18-1777 (issued July 2, 2019).

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 6, 2021 decision of Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is set aside and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this order of the Board.
Issued: October 26, 2021
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

3


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
C.M., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, Florence, AZ, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 18-0997
Issued: November 1, 2018

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On April 16, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 5, 2018 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 injury due to the
accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On June 26, 2017 appellant, then a 39-year-old deportation officer, filed an occupational
disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained an injury at work on October 4, 2016 during
1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

a training session on new handcuffing techniques. He asserted that he felt pain and a burning
sensation in his right shoulder when his right arm was being placed behind his back to be
handcuffed. Appellant did not stop work.2
In a supporting statement, appellant indicated that, on October 4, 2016, he immediately
told the trainer to stop when he felt the pain and burning sensation in his right shoulder as his right
arm was being placed behind his back. He noted that he did not perform any more handcuffing
exercises for the remainder of the class. Appellant asserted that he had not suffered any shoulder
pain or injury prior to October 4, 2016.
By a July 18, 2017 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional
evidence in support of his claim, including a physician’s opinion supported by a medical
explanation as to how the reported October 4, 2016 employment incident caused or aggravated a
specific medical condition. It requested that he complete and return an attached questionnaire
which posed various questions regarding the nature of his claimed October 4, 2016 employment
injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit a response. Appellant did not respond within
the allotted period.
By decision dated September 19, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an October 4,
2016 employment injury.3 It determined that he established an October 4, 2016 employment
incident in the form of having his right arm being placed behind his back to be handcuffed.
However, OWCP further found that appellant failed to establish the medical component of the fact
of injury because he failed to submit a medical report containing an opinion that a specific medical
condition was diagnosed in connection with the October 4, 2016 employment incident.
On February 2, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s September 19, 2017
decision. In a January 19, 2018 letter, he discussed his efforts to obtain medical evidence in
support of his claim. Appellant indicated that he still had pain in his right shoulder from the
October 4, 2016 incident when his right arm was “cranked” behind his back.
Appellant submitted a July 28, 2017 report from Dr. William D. Prickett, an attending
orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that appellant presented for an initial visit with a chief
complaint of right shoulder pain. He reported that the pain had been present for about 10 months
since an injury occurring at work when he was practicing handcuffing technique and his right arm
was cranked behind his back, resulting in a sharp right shoulder pain. Dr. Prickett discussed the
findings of the physical examination he conducted on July 28, 2017, noting positive right shoulder
impingement testing and motor/sensory testing with no focal isolated deficits. He diagnosed right
shoulder possible superior labral tear and recommended appellant undergo a magnetic resonance

2

Although he filed an occupational disease claim, appellant claimed that he sustained an employment injury due
to an incident occurring in a single workday/work shift on October 4, 2016. A traumatic injury refers to injury caused
by a specific event or incident or series of incidents occurring within a single workday or work shift whereas an
occupational disease refers to an injury produced by employment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.
20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q), (ee); Brady L. Fowler, 44 ECAB 343, 351 (1992).
3
OWCP noted that appellant filed an occupational disease claim, but found that he was actually claiming a traumatic
employment injury due to an incident occurring in a single workday/work shift on October 4, 2016. See supra note 2.

2

imaging (MRI) scan of his right shoulder. Dr. Prickett indicated that appellant could continue to
full-duty work.
The findings of an August 11, 2017 MRI scan of appellant’s right shoulder contained an
impression of superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tear involving the 12:00 and 5:00
o’clock positions without bony Bankart or Hill-Sachs lesion, intact mild superior subscapularis
tendinitis, and moderate supraspinatus tendinosis with a superimposed nonretracted delaminated
tear in the posterior/mid insertion and an area (10 times 5 millimeters) of partial-thickness
undersurface fraying of insertional fibers.
In an August 14, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett indicated that appellant presented for follow-up
of his right shoulder condition. He noted that, during the last visit, he felt that appellant’s signs
and symptoms were consistent with a possible labral tear. Appellant reported that he had sharp
pain in the lateral aspect of his right shoulder and that his symptoms had been present since
approximately 10 months prior when his right arm was cranked behind his back during handcuff
training at work. Dr. Prickett indicated that appellant had a positive right shoulder impingement
test and mild right rotator weakness upon physical examination. He discussed the August 11, 2017
MRI scan and diagnosed the right shoulder conditions of rotator cuff tendinitis with articular-sided
partial-thickness supraspinatus tear and SLAP tear. Dr. Prickett described his application of a
corticosteroid injection in appellant’s right shoulder during the visit.
In a September 12, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett noted that, during the last visit, he felt that
appellant’s signs and symptoms were consistent with a SLAP tear and articular-sided partialthickness supraspinatus tear of his right shoulder. He advised that appellant reported that his right
shoulder pain had resolved apart from occasional very mild twinges of soreness at extremes of
right shoulder motion. Appellant reported that his right shoulder injury began after a hyper internal
rotation injury at work and that he currently was not taking any pain medication. Dr. Prickett
detailed physical examination findings and diagnosed resolved right rotator cuff tendinitis with
partial-thickness supraspinatus tear and superior labral tear. Appellant was at maximum medical
improvement and could perform full-duty work without restrictions.
In a September 12, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett determined that appellant had two percent
permanent impairment of his right upper extremity under the standards of the sixth edition of the
American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A.,
Guides).4 At the beginning of the report, Dr. Prickett noted, “Patient sustained a work-related
injury. The injury resulted in superior labral tear and partial-thickness rotator cuff tear.”
On February 21, 2018 Dr. Prickett noted that, during the last visit, he felt that appellant’s
signs and symptoms were consistent with right rotator cuff tendinitis with articular-sided partialthickness supraspinatus tear and superior labral tear. Appellant reported that his right shoulder
symptoms had been present for approximately 16 months since an injury at work when his right
arm was cranked behind him. Dr. Prickett indicated that appellant further reported that his right
shoulder symptoms had returned and that, since the September 12, 2017 visit, he was involved in
a nonwork-related motor vehicle accident for which he received treatment for neck problems. He
diagnosed right rotator cuff tendinitis with articular-sided partial-thickness supraspinatus tear and
4

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

3

superior labral tear, as well as recent cervical spine injury after motor vehicle accident. Dr. Prickett
indicated that appellant could continue with full-duty work.
On February 22, 2018 OWCP referred appellant’s case to Dr. Todd Fellars, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon and OWCP medical adviser. It requested that he review the medical
evidence of record and provide an opinion regarding whether the October 4, 2016 employment
incident was competent to cause the right shoulder conditions diagnosed by Dr. Prickett.
In a March 1, 2018 report, Dr. Fellars indicated that he did not believe that the diagnosed
right shoulder conditions, including partial right rotator cuff tear and right SLAP tear, were
consistent with the October 4, 2016 “injury mechanism.” He noted that a SLAP tear typically
occurs when there is forced hyperflexion, but that appellant’s right arm underwent internal rotation
behind his back on October 4, 2016. Dr. Fellars also noted that most of appellant’s findings were
degenerative in nature and indicated, “He had significant tendinosis and a partial[-]thickness tear
as well as a degenerative SLAP tear. These conditions are typically a result of a degenerative
process and not a single inciting incident.” He also noted, “One can never say with 100 percent
certainty that the claimed shoulder injury did not occur as reported. However, when the medical
facts that are available are reviewed, it is not medically probable that the pathology identified on
the MRI [scan] was caused by the reported incident.”
By decision dated March 5, 2018, OWCP denied modification of its September 19, 2017
decision. It noted that appellant failed to submit a medical report containing a clear opinion that a
specific diagnosed medical condition was due to the accepted October 4, 2016 employment
incident.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim including the fact that the individual is an employee of the
United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable
time limitation period of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged,
and that any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related
to the employment injury.6 These are the essential elements of each compensation claim regardless
of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.7
To determine whether a federal employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the
performance of duty, it first must be determined whether the fact of injury has been established.
There are two components involved in establishing the fact of injury. First, the employee must
submit sufficient evidence to establish that he or she actually experienced the employment incident
5

See supra note 1.

6

C.S., Docket No. 08-1585 (issued March 3, 2009); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7

S.P., 59 ECAB 184 (2007); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). A traumatic injury refers to injury caused
by a specific event or incident or series of incidents occurring within a single workday or work shift whereas an
occupational disease refers to an injury produced by employment factors which occur or are present over a period longer
than a single workday or work shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5 (q), (ee); Brady L. Fowler, 44 ECAB 343, 351 (1992).

4

at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.8 Second, the employee must submit evidence, in the
form of medical evidence, to establish that the employment incident caused a personal injury.9
Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to
establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the
physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be
one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the
nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors
identified by the claimant.10
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish injury due to
the accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident.
Appellant claimed that, during a handcuffing training session on October 4, 2016, he
sustained a right shoulder injury when his right arm was cranked behind his back to be handcuffed.
OWCP determined that he established an October 4, 2016 employment incident as described. It
further found, however, that appellant failed to establish the medical component of fact of injury
because he failed to submit a medical report containing an opinion that a medical condition was
diagnosed in connection with the accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident.
The Board finds that OWCP properly accepted the occurrence of the October 4, 2016
employment incident in the form of appellant having his right arm cranked behind his back to be
handcuffed. However, appellant has not submitted a rationalized medical report providing a clear
opinion that a diagnosed medical condition was causally related to the October 4, 2016
employment incident.
Appellant submitted several reports from August 2017 and February 2017, in which
Dr. Prickett, an attending physician, diagnosed appellant as having right shoulder rotator cuff
tendinitis with articular-sided partial-thickness supraspinatus tear and superior labral tear (also
known as SLAP tear). In these reports, Dr. Prickett noted that appellant had reported that his right
shoulder pain had been present since an injury occurring at work when he was practicing
handcuffing technique and his right arm was cranked behind his back, resulting in a sharp right
shoulder pain.11 The Board finds that the submission of these reports would not establish
appellant’s claim for the October 4, 2016 employment injury. The reports are of no probative
8

Julie B. Hawkins, 38 ECAB 393 (1987).

9

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

10

See I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

11

The report provided no indication that appellant ever reported the actual date of the handcuffing incident to
Dr. Pickett. However, in the July 28, 2017 initial visit report, appellant reported that his right shoulder pain had been
present for about 10 months since the handcuffing incident occurred. In the July 28, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett
diagnosed right shoulder with possible superior labral tear. He obtained a right shoulder MRI scan on August 11,
2017 which he later indicated confirmed his diagnosis of right rotator cuff tendinitis with articular-sided partialthickness supraspinatus tear and superior labral tear.

5

value regarding this matter because Dr. Prickett did not provide a clear opinion relating appellant’s
right shoulder/arm condition to the accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident. Although
Dr. Prickett reported that appellant associated his right shoulder problems to the handcuffing
incident, he did not provide his own opinion in these reports on the cause of the observed right
shoulder conditions. The Board has held that medical evidence which does not offer an opinion
regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of no probative value on the issue of causal
relationship.12
In a September 12, 2017 report, Dr. Prickett noted, “Patient sustained a work-related
injury. The injury resulted in superior labral tear and partial-thickness rotator cuff tear.” The
Board notes that it is unclear whether this comment represents Dr. Prickett’s own opinion on causal
relationship or whether it simply memorializes appellant’s belief that his right shoulder condition
was employment related. Even if it constitutes Dr. Prickett’s own opinion that appellant sustained
an employment-related injury, it is of limited probative value due to its lack of supporting medical
rationale. He did not provide any notable discussion of the October 4, 2016 employment incident
or explain how it could have been competent to cause the diagnosed right shoulder conditions.
Dr. Prickett did not treat appellant until more than nine months after the October 4, 2016
employment incident and he did not discuss any medical evidence that supported the occurrence
of an employment injury on that date. The Board has held that a report is of limited probative
value regarding causal relationship if it does not contain medical rationale explaining how an
employment activity could have caused or aggravated a medical condition.13
In a March 1, 2018 report, Dr. Fellars, an OWCP medical adviser, indicated that he did not
believe that the diagnosed right shoulder conditions, including partial right rotator cuff tear and
right SLAP tear, were consistent with the October 4, 2016 “injury mechanism.” He noted that a
SLAP tear typically occurs when there is forced hyperflexion, but that appellant’s right arm
underwent internal rotation behind his back on October 4, 2016. Dr. Fellars posited that
appellant’s right shoulder tendinosis, partial right rotator cuff tear, and SLAP tear were likely due
to a nonwork-related progressive degenerative process. Therefore the Board finds that as
Dr. Fellars’ opinion negates causal relationship between the accepted October 4, 2016 incident and
the diagnosed conditions, it is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.”
The Board thus finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.
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.

12

See Charles H. Tomaszewski, 39 ECAB 461 (1988); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K.,
Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
13

See Y.D., Docket No. 16-1896 (issued February 10, 2017).

6

CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish injury due to
the accepted October 4, 2016 employment incident.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 5, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is affirmed.
Issued: November 1, 2018
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

7


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
)
)
)
and
)
)
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, VITILAS “VITO”
)
REID POST OFFICE, Normandy, MO, Employer )
__________________________________________ )
D.J., Appellant

Appearances:
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 21-1027
Issued: March 25, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 21, 2021 appellant, through counsel, sought an appeal from a purported June 3,
2021 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the
Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1027.
The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that it has jurisdiction to review final
adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. 2 This
jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date appellant
filed this appeal. 3 Although the case record does contain a document from OWCP dated June 3,
1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal
or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).
No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or
representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or
imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a
representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the
date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
3

2021, it is an informational letter and, thus, does not constitute a final adverse OWCP decision. 4
As there is no final adverse decision over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the
Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1027 must be dismissed. 5 Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1027 is dismissed.
Issued: March 25, 2022
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

4

See Order Dismissing Appeal, G.T., Docket No. 21-0199 (issued December 1, 2021); Order Dismissing Appeal,
S.U., Docket No. 20-0636 (issued December 3, 2020) (correspondence that is purely informational in nature does not
constitute a final adverse decision of OWCP from which appellant may properly appeal).
The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.”
20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
5

2


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
E.B., Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
COMMAND, Fort Bragg, NC, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 19-0530
Issued: August 9, 2019

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On January 2, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 24, 2018 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.2

1
2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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.

ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish more than eight
percent permanent impairment of each upper extremity, for which he previously received schedule
award compensation.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On September 23, 2008 appellant, then a 54-year-old laborer, filed an occupational disease
claim (Form CA-2) for a bilateral upper extremity condition due to factors of his federal
employment including prolonged “weed-eating” on or about June 14, 2005. After initially denying
the claim, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, bilateral cubital
tunnel syndrome, and bilateral forearm/elbow sprain -- radial collateral ligament. It also
authorized surgery for both upper extremities, which was performed on June 7 and August 9, 2010.
By decision dated March 20, 2012, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for eight
percent permanent impairment of each upper extremity.3 The award ran for 49.92 weeks for the
period January 10 to December 24, 2012.
On March 16, 2017 appellant filed a claim for an increased schedule award (Form CA-7).
In a development letter dated March 31, 2017, OWCP advised appellant of the type of
evidence needed to establish his increased schedule award claim. It requested that he provide a
medical report from his attending physician, which included an impairment rating utilizing the
appropriate portions of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.4 OWCP afforded appellant 30
days to submit the necessary evidence.
In an April 26, 2017 impairment rating, Dr. Harrison G. Tuttle, a Board-certified
orthopedic hand surgeon, determined that appellant had 19 percent permanent impairment of each
upper extremity. He conducted an examination of appellant’s bilateral upper extremities and noted
numbness throughout all fingers and constant pain. Dr. Tuttle reported that the sensation
examination was grossly intact to light touch, but was directly diminished throughout all fingers
of both hands and he related that an electromyography and nerve conduction velocity (EMG/NCV)
study revealed slowing of the sensory conduction and delay of the motor conduction of the left
ulnar nerve, nerve conduction velocities showing of the median nerve, and motor and sensory
potentials at the wrist. Utilizing Table 15-4, Elbow Regional Grid, Dr. Tuttle assigned class 1 for
the diagnosis (CDX) of collateral ligament injury (“frequent instability resulting in functional
limitation”) and noted a rating of 10 percent permanent impairment, bilaterally. He referenced
Table 15-23, Entrapment/Compression Neuropathy, for appellant’s bilateral carpal tunnel and
cubital tunnel syndromes and determined that he had nine percent impairment bilaterally for
3
The award was based on a January 27, 2012 report by an OWCP district medical adviser (DMA) who determined
that according to Table 15-23, Entrapment/Compression Neuropathy, of the sixth edition of the 2009 edition of the
American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides), appellant had
eight percent permanent impairment for his bilateral carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes.
4

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

2

multiple nerve (median and ulnar) impairments, which resulted in a combined upper extremity
impairment of 19 percent, bilaterally.
On June 16, 2017 OWCP referred appellant’s case, along with a purported statement of
accepted facts (SOAF) and medical record to Dr. David J. Slutsky, a Board-certified orthopedic
surgeon, serving as a DMA. In a June 23, 2017 report, the DMA related that additional information
was needed in order to determine whether appellant had increased permanent impairment of the
bilateral upper extremities.
On August 8, 2017 OWCP received additional examination notes from Dr. Tuttle dated
November 17, 2009 to August 23, 2016 regarding treatment for appellant’s worsening bilateral
cubital and carpal tunnel symptoms and EMG/NCV study reports dated February 22, 2010 and
May 17, 2011.
In an August 22, 2017 letter, Dr. Tuttle related appellant’s complaints of continued
numbness, pain, and weakness in both hands. Upon examination of appellant’s upper extremities,
he reported atrophy of the palmar, ulnar, and forearm musculature without erythema. Sensation
was intact to light touch, but directly diminished throughout all fingers of both hands. Examination
of appellant’s wrists revealed full strength and wrist extension. Examination of appellant’s elbows
showed discomfort with palpation of the lateral aspect of both elbows and stress of the radial
collateral ligaments. Dr. Tuttle related that an EMG/NCV study showed symptoms of bilateral
mild carpal tunnel syndrome and left cubital tunnel syndrome.
In reports dated September 25 and October 24, 2017, Dr. Slutsky, the DMA, noted that
there was no SOAF or medical records presented for his review, including Dr. Tuttle’s impairment
rating report. He determined that appellant had five percent permanent impairment of each upper
extremity for his bilateral carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. The DMA noted a date of maximum
medical improvement (MMI) of March 6, 2012.
By decision dated November 29, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased
schedule award because the medical evidence of record failed to establish more than eight percent
permanent impairment of each upper extremity, for which he previously received schedule award
compensation.
By decision dated April 26, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative set aside the
November 29, 2017 OWCP decision and remanded the case because the DMA’s permanent
impairment ratings were not based on an accurate background.
OWCP subsequently referred appellant’s file back to Dr. Slutsky, the DMA, providing the
SOAF and relevant medical evidence. In a June 9, 2018 report, the DMA indicated that he had
reviewed the SOAF and the medical records provided by OWCP. He noted an MMI date of
March 6, 2012. Utilizing the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) method for rating permanent
functional impairment, the DMA determined that appellant had a total of six percent permanent
impairment of the right upper extremity. For appellant’s right elbow sprain, he utilized Table 154, Elbow Regional Grid, and assigned a CDX of 1, grade modifier for functional history (GMFH)
of 1 due to diffuse medial elbow pain, grade modifier for physical examination (GMPE) of 1 due
to discomfort with palpation of the lateral aspect of the elbow and stress of the radial collateral

3

ligaments, and grade modifier for clinical studies (GMCS) of 0 due to normal elbow x-ray, which
resulted in one percent right upper extremity impairment. For appellant’s right carpal tunnel
syndrome, the DMA utilized Table 15-23, Entrapment/Compression Neuropathy Impairment, and
assigned a CDX of 2, GMFH of 1 due to a QuickDASH score of 60, a GMCS of 1 due to conduction
delay, and a GMPE of 1 for diminished sensation, which resulted in three percent right upper
extremity impairment. For the right cubital tunnel syndrome, he assigned a CDX of 2, a GMFH
of 1 due to a QuickDASH score of 60, a GMCS of 1 due to prolonged ulnar motor conduction
velocities, a GMPE of 1 due to decreased sensation to touch and weak finger abduction, which
resulted in three percent right upper extremity impairment. The DMA explained that according to
page 450 of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, when there are multiple entrapments, the
nerve qualifying for the larger impairment is given the full impairment and combined with 50
percent of the rating of the second nerve. Thus, he calculated that appellant had a total combined
right upper extremity permanent impairment of six percent.
With regard to appellant’s left upper extremity, Dr. Slutsky, the DMA, again utilized the
DBI rating method and assigned a CDX of 1, a GMFH of 1 due to diffuse medial elbow pain, a
GMPE of 1 due to discomfort with palpation of the lateral aspect of the elbow and stress of the
radial collateral ligaments, but no instability, and a GMCS of zero due to normal x-ray
examination, which resulted in one percent left upper extremity impairment. For appellant’s left
carpal tunnel syndrome, he assigned a CDX of 2, a GMPE of 1 due to decreased sensation, a
GMFH of 1 due to a QuickDASH score of 60, and a GMCS of 1 due to conduction delay, which
resulted in three percent left upper extremity impairment. For appellant’s left cubital tunnel
syndrome, the DMA assigned a CDX of 2, a GMPE of 1 due to decreased sensation to touch and
weak finger abduction, a GMFH of 1 due to a QuickDASH score of 61, and a GMCS of 1 due to
documented ulnar motor nerve conduction delay, which resulted in three percent left upper
extremity impairment. He calculated that appellant had a combined six percent left upper
extremity permanent impairment. The DMA noted that peripheral nerve compression could not
be rated using the range of motion (ROM) impairment method.
Dr. Slutsky noted his disagreement with Dr. Tuttle’s rating of 19 percent permanent
impairment and explained how Dr. Tuttle’s findings were not based on a proper clinical
examination. He further indicated that as appellant was previously granted a schedule award for
eight percent permanent impairment of each upper extremity, he was not entitled to an increased
schedule award.
By decision dated August 24, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased
schedule award. It found that the weight of the medical evidence rested with the June 9, 2018
report of the DMA, who determined that appellant did not have more than eight percent permanent
impairment of each upper extremity, for which he previously received schedule award
compensation.

4

LEGAL PRECEDENT
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. FECA, however, 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 for all claimants, OWCP has adopted the A.M.A.,
Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants and the Board has concurred in such
adoption.7 As of May 1, 2009, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009, is used
to calculate schedule awards.8
In addressing impairment for the upper extremities under the sixth edition of the A.M.A.,
Guides, an evaluator must establish the appropriate diagnosis for each part of the upper extremity
to be rated.9 After a CDX is determined (including identification of a default grade value), the
impairment class is then adjusted by GMFH, GMPE, and GMCS.10 The net adjustment formula
is (GMFH - CDX) + (GMPE - CDX) + (GMCS - CDX).11
OWCP procedures provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file
should be routed to a DMA for an opinion concerning the nature and percentage of permanent
impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with the DMA providing rationale for the
percentage of impairment specified.12
Regarding the application of ROM or DBI impairment methodologies in rating permanent
impairment of the upper extremities, FECA Bulletin No. 17-06 provides:
“As the [A.M.A.,] Guides caution that if it is clear to the evaluator evaluating loss
of ROM that a restricted ROM has an organic basis, three independent
measurements should be obtained and the greatest ROM should be used for the
determination of impairment, the CE [claims examiner] should provide this
information (via the updated instructions noted above) to the rating physician(s).

5

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.404 (1999).

7

Id. at 10.404(a); see also Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 139 (2002).

8

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter
2.808.5(a) (March 2017); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2
and Exhibit 1 (January 2010).
9

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

10

A.M.A., Guides 383-492; see M.P., Docket No. 13-2087 (issued April 8, 2014).

11

Id. at 411.

12
See supra note 8 at Chapter 2.808.6 (March 2017). R.M., Docket No. 18-1313 (issued April 11, 2019); C.K.,
Docket No. 09-2371 (issued August 18, 2010).

5

“Upon initial review of a referral for upper extremity impairment evaluation, the
DMA should identify (1) the methodology used by the rating physician (i.e. DBI or
ROM), and (2) whether the applicable tables in Chapter 15 of the [A.M.A.,] Guides
identify a diagnosis that can alternatively be rated by ROM. If the [A.M.A.,] Guides
allow for the use of both the DBI and ROM methods to calculate an impairment
rating for the diagnosis in question, the method producing the higher rating should
be used.”13 (Emphasis in the original.)
The Bulletin further advises:
“If the rating physician provided an assessment using the ROM method and the
[A.M.A.,] Guides allow for use of ROM for the diagnosis in question, the DMA
should independently calculate impairment using both the ROM and DBI methods
and identify the higher rating for the CE.
“If the medical evidence of record is not sufficient for the DMA to render a rating
on ROM where allowed, the DMA should advise as to the medical evidence
necessary to complete the rating. However, the DMA should still render an
impairment rating using the DBI method, if possible, given the available
evidence.14
“Upon receipt of such a report and if the impairment evaluation was provided from
the claimant’s physician, the CE should write to the claimant advising of the
medical evidence necessary to complete the impairment assessment and provide 30
days for submission. Any evidence received in response should then be routed back
to the DMA for a final determination.”15
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
As noted above, FECA Bulletin No. 17-06 provides that, if the A.M.A., Guides allows for
use of ROM for the diagnosis in question, the DMA should independently calculate permanent
impairment using both the ROM and DBI methods and identify the higher rating.16
In his June 9, 2018 report, Dr. Slutsky, the DMA, evaluated appellant’s permanent
impairment using the DBI method under Table 15-4 of the A.M.A., Guides for bilateral elbow
sprains and determined that appellant had one percent permanent impairment of each upper
extremity. The Board finds that Table 15-4, Elbow Regional Grid, does allow, by asterisk, that
13
FECA Bulletin No. 17-06 (issued May 8, 2017); V.L., Docket No. 18-0760 (issued November 13, 2018); A.G.,
Docket No. 18-0329 (issued July 26, 2018).
14

Id.

15

Id.

16

Id.

6

elbow sprain/strain be alternatively evaluated by ROM impairment.17 Dr. Slutsky, however, did
not provide an impairment rating utilizing the ROM method nor did he explain why he had not
used the ROM methodology in calculating appellant’s impairment rating for bilateral elbow
sprains. Because the DMA provided a rating for a diagnosed condition which also allowed for a
rating based upon loss of ROM, the Board finds that the case must be remanded for the DMA to
independently calculate appellant’s impairment using both the ROM and DBI methods under the
relevant standards of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, and identify the higher rating for the
claims examiner.18 If the medical evidence of record is insufficient for the DMA to render a rating
using the ROM method, he should advise as to the medical evidence necessary to complete the
rating so that OWCP can undertake further development of the record as may be found necessary.19
In addition, appellant was previously granted a schedule award for permanent impairment
of each upper extremity due to his bilateral carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. OWCP determined
that Dr. Slutsky’s finding of six percent permanent impairment of each upper extremity was
insufficient to support an increased schedule award as it was less than the previously awarded eight
percent permanent impairment. However, the DMA’s June 9, 2018 impairment rating also
includes a permanent impairment rating for appellant’s accepted bilateral elbow sprain condition.
OWCP regulations provide that benefits payable under section 8107(c) shall be reduced by the
period of compensation paid under the schedule for an earlier injury if: (1) compensation in both
cases is for impairment of the same member or function or different parts of the same member or
function; and (2) OWCP finds that the later impairment in whole or in part would duplicate the
compensation payable for the preexisting impairment.20 The Board finds that OWCP did not
adequately explain why appellant’s current impairment rating, which includes a rating for his
bilateral elbow sprains, would duplicate his previous schedule award compensation for bilateral
carpal and cubital tunnel syndromes.21 The Board has explained that simply comparing the prior
percentage of impairment awarded to the current impairment for the same member is not always
sufficient.22 The issue is not whether the current impairment rating is greater than the prior
impairment ratings, but whether it duplicates in whole or in part the prior impairment rating.23
The case will therefore be remanded for further development consistent with OWCP’s
procedures set forth in FECA Bulletin No. 17-06. Then, after properly calculating the extent of
appellant’s current bilateral upper extremity impairment, OWCP should determine whether the
17
Dr. Tuttle’s diagnosis of collateral ligament injury similarly allows for an alternative rating based on loss of range
of motion.
18

See G.B., Docket No. 18-0545 (issued November 19, 2018); see also B.N., Docket No. 17-1923 (issued
April 17, 2018).
19

Id.

20

20 C.F.R. § 10.404(d).

21

See R.B., Docket No. 18-1308 (issued January 10, 2019); see also A.T., Docket No. 17-1806 (issued
January 12, 2018).
22

See T.S., Docket No. 16-1406 (issued August 9, 2017).

23

Id.

7

impairment rating duplicates, in whole or in part, appellant’s prior award. Following this and any
other development deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 24, 2018 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this decision of the Board.
Issued: August 9, 2019
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

8


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
V.W., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
West Charlotte, NC, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 17-0976
Issued: August 25, 2017

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On April 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 25, 2016 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 established permanent impairment of a scheduled
member due to her work-related injuries, for purposes of a schedule award.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On September 28, 2011 appellant, then a 57-year-old rural mail carrier, filed a traumatic
injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 15, 2011 she sustained a musculoskeletal
injury to the back when lifting trays into her long life vehicle (LLV). She stopped work on
1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

September 28, 2011 and did not return. By decision dated November 18, 2011, OWCP accepted
the claim for sprain of back, lumbar region. Appellant received wage-loss compensation benefits
on the supplemental rolls from November 14, 2011 to March 23, 2012, and on the periodic rolls
commencing March 24, 2012. By decision dated November 8, 2013, OWCP expanded the claim
to include the acceptance of an aggravation of preexisting lumbar spondylolisthesis at L4-5.
Following her injury, appellant sought treatment with Dr. Robert B. McBride, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon. In a March 12, 2015 medical report, Dr. McBride reported that
appellant complained of continued back pain. He noted that two radiographs of the lumbar spine
were ordered which revealed moderate degenerative disc disease and spondylosis throughout the
lumbar spine. Dr. McBride diagnosed lumbago, moderate degenerative disc disease spondylosis,
and left L4 radiculitis.
On October 15, 2015 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7).
By letter dated October 27, 2015, OWCP requested that appellant submit a report from
her attending physician addressing her work-related condition, the date of maximum medical
improvement (MMI), objective findings, subjective complaints, and an impairment rating
rendered according to the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of
Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2009) (A.M.A., Guides).2 Appellant was afforded 30 days to
provide the requested information. She did not respond.
By decision dated November 30, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule
award as the evidence of record was insufficient to establish permanent impairment to a
scheduled member or function of the body causally related to her employment injuries.
On December 4, 2015 appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing
representative.
In support of her claim, appellant submitted a November 5, 2015 medical report from
Dr. McBride. Dr. McBride reported that appellant presented for follow up of back pain from a
September 15, 2011 employment injury and also suffered a right proximal humeral and
clavicular fracture in April 2015. He provided findings on physical examination and reviewed a
February 24, 2012 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the lumbar spine which showed
degenerative changes of L4-5 facet causing grade 1 anterolisthesis and a mild degree of central
canal narrowing. Dr. McBride noted moderate decreased range of motion of the lumbar spine,
tenderness across the lower lumbar spine at L4-5, L5-S1 with sensation intact. With respect to
the lower extremities, he noted that the extensor hallucis longus (EHL) and anterior tibialis
appeared to be functioning bilaterally, peroneal intact, sensation intact, vascular intact, and skin
intact. Dr. McBride diagnosed severe facet arthrosis at L4-5 with grade 1 anterolisthesis, right
sciatica, and moderate stenosis from facet degeneration. He reported that appellant appeared to
have reached MMI. Dr. McBride opined that she had eight percent permanent impairment of her
lumbar spine and released her from treatment.

2

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

2

A hearing was held on August 12, 2016 where appellant testified that she continued to
suffer from her work-related injuries.
The hearing representative informed her that
Dr. McBride’s November 5, 2015 medical report was received which provided eight percent
permanent impairment of the lumbar spine, but that FECA did not allow for permanent
impairment ratings of the back without evidence of extremity impairment. Appellant was
instructed on the evidence required to establish her schedule award claim and the record was
held open for 30 days.
Following the hearing, the only medical report received was an August 30, 2016 report
from Dr. McBride. Dr. McBride reported that appellant complained of bilateral leg pain from an
April 2016 injury when she was lifting a 70-pound tray of magazines and twisted her legs. He
diagnosed right leg neuropathic pain, secondary to anterolisthesis and stenosis at L4-5.
Dr. McBride further noted that her disability rating remained the same.
By decision dated October 25, 2016, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the
November 30, 2015 decision denying appellant’s claim for a schedule award as the evidence of
record was insufficient to establish permanent impairment to a member or function of the body
resulting from the employment injuries.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
The schedule award provisions of FECA and its implementing regulations 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.3 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. The A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by the implementing regulations as the
appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.4
It is the claimant’s burden of proof to establish a permanent impairment of the scheduled
member or function of the body as a result of any employment injury.5 OWCP 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 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.6

3

5 U.S.C. § 8107; 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

4

K.H., Docket No. 09-341 (issued December 30, 2011). For decisions issued after May 1, 2009, the sixth edition
will be applied. B.M., Docket No. 09-2231 (issued May 14, 2010).
5

Tammy L. Meehan, 53 ECAB 229 (2001).

6

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims,
Chapter 2.808.5 (February 2013).

3

Although the A.M.A., Guides includes guidelines for estimating impairment due to
disorders of the spine, a schedule award is not payable under FECA for injury to the spine.7 In
1960, amendments to FECA modified the schedule award provisions to provide for an award for
permanent impairment to a member of the body covered by the schedule regardless of whether
the cause of the impairment originated in a scheduled or nonscheduled member. Therefore, as
the schedule award provisions of FECA include the extremities, a claimant may be entitled to a
schedule award for permanent impairment to an extremity even though the cause of the
impairment originated in the spine.8
The sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide a separate mechanism for rating
spinal nerve injuries as extremity impairment.9 For peripheral nerve impairments to the upper or
lower extremities resulting from spinal injuries, OWCP procedures indicate that The Guides
Newsletter, Rating Spinal Nerve Extremity Impairment using the sixth edition
(July/August 2009) is to be applied.10 FECA approved methodology is premised on evidence of
radiculopathy affecting the upper and/or lower extremities.11
ANALYSIS
OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for sprain of back lumbar region and aggravation of
preexisting lumbar spondylolisthesis at L4-5. However, it has denied her claim for a schedule
award. The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that, as
a result of her employment injury, she sustained permanent impairment to a scheduled member
such that she would be entitled to a schedule award.12
The only evidence received in support of appellant’s schedule award claim was
Dr. McBride’s November 5, 2015 medical report. In his November 5, 2015 report, Dr. McBride
diagnosed severe facet arthrosis at L4-5 with grade 1 anterolisthesis, right sciatica, and moderate
stenosis from facet degeneration. He reported that appellant had reached MMI and opined that
she had eight percent permanent impairment of her lumbar spine. In his August 30, 2016 report,
Dr. McBride noted that appellant’s disability rating remained unchanged.
Dr. McBride determined that appellant had eight percent permanent impairment of the
lumbar spine. As noted, the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides does not provide for a schedule
award for injury to the spine.13 However, impairment of a scheduled member of the upper or
7

Pamela J. Darling, 49 ECAB 286 (1998).

8

Thomas J. Engelhart, 50 ECAB 319 (1999).

9

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 4
(January 2010).
10

See G.N., Docket No. 10-0850 (issued November 12, 2010); see also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. at
Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1, note 9 (January 2010). The Guides Newsletter is included as Exhibit 4.
11

Supra note 6 at 2.808.5c(3).

12

W.R., Docket No. 13-0492 (issued June 26, 2013).

13

W.D., Docket No. 10-0274 (issued September 3, 2010).

4

lower extremities is payable under FECA, if it originates from the spine.14 The approach of
rating impairment of the upper or lower extremities caused by a spinal injury is provided in
section 3.700 of OWCP procedures, which memorializes proposed tables as outlined in a
July/August 2009, The Guides Newsletter.15 The Board finds that Dr. McBride did not reference
or provide an evaluation in accordance with the July/August 2009, The Guides Newsletter.16
Dr. McBride did not rate appellant’s impairment pursuant to The Guides Newsletter, and his
rating is therefore insufficient to establish permanent impairment warranting a schedule award
due to her accepted lumbar injuries.17 Moreover, his November 5, 2015 report indicated that
physical examination revealed no significant problems to the lower extremities with normal
sensory and motor findings.18 The medical evidence must include a description of any physical
impairment in sufficient detail so that the claims examiner and others reviewing the file would be
able to clearly visualize the impairment with its resulting restrictions and limitations.19
Dr. McBride’s rating, therefore, is insufficient to establish that appellant is entitled to a schedule
award of the lower extremities due to the accepted conditions of sprain of back lumbar region
and aggravation of preexisting lumbar spondylolisthesis at L4-5.
Dr. McBride’s subsequent August 30, 2016 medical report also fails to establish
appellant’s claim for a schedule award. He reported an April 2016 bilateral leg injury when
appellant was lifting a 70-pound tray of magazines and twisted her legs. Dr. McBride failed to
rate permanent impairment pertaining to the lower extremities and noted that appellant’s
disability rating remained unchanged. Thus, the record does not provide any medical opinion
finding that appellant sustained, as a result of her employment injury, permanent impairment to a
scheduled member such that she would be entitled to a schedule award.20
By letter dated October 27, 2015, OWCP informed appellant of the type of evidence
necessary to establish her schedule award claim and specifically requested that she submit an
impairment evaluation from her attending physician in accordance with the sixth edition of the
A.M.A., Guides. Appellant did not submit such evidence and thus has failed to meet her burden
of proof.21
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 employmentrelated condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased impairment.
14

K.H., Docket No. 09-0341 (issued December 30, 2009).

15

Supra note 10.

16

J.C., Docket No. 15-1780 (issued March 17, 2016).

17

E.D., Docket No. 10-0967 (issued January 7, 2011).

18

L.W., Docket No. 12-1613 (issued February 19, 2013).

19

See A.L., Docket No. 08-1730 (issued March 16, 2009).

20

G.F., Docket No. 16-0997 (issued November 15, 2016).

21

V.W., Docket No. 09-2026 (issued February 16, 2010); L.F., Docket No. 10-0343 (issued November 29, 2010).

5

CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not established a permanent impairment of a
scheduled member for purposes of a schedule award.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’
decision dated October 25, 2016 is affirmed.
Issued: August 25, 2017
Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, 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

6