Home

Ask for Help Here

Send Me Your File Here

Join Our Forum Here!

How Much Will This Cost?

CURRENT NEWS UPDATES

Follow on Twitter

VA Disability Claim

Veterans Disability

Case Decisions

Dreiling v. Shinseki

Gaston V Shinseki

Guillory v Shinseki

Johnson v. Shinseki

Jones v. Shinseki

Hite v. Shinseki

Harrison v Shinseki

Toole v. Shinseki

Rodrique v Shinseki

Rizzo v Shinseki

Phillips v Shinseki

Reizenstein v Shinseki

Price v. Shinseki

Pomon v. Shinseki

Cushman v. Shinseki

Sharp v. US

Scott v. Peake

Faust v. West

Richard v. West

ADAMS v SHINSEKI 20087162

Skoczen v Shinseki

Comer v. Shinseki

Cole v. Shinseki

Holton v. Shinseki

Tarver v Shinseki

Robinson v Shinseki

Moore 2007-7306

Haas v Peake 2007-7037

Haas v. Peake 05/08/08

Moran v. Peake 2007 7163

Groves v. Peake 2007 7241

Davis v. Shinseki 020209

Gallegos v. Peake 123108

Cox v Nicholson 01/2007

Moore v Shinseki 07-7306

Collins vShinseki 08-7041

BVA 0528564

BVA 0813080

BVA 9815913

Social Security Disability

SSA Disability

SSA Case Decisions

Martinez v. Astrue

Lockwood v SSA

Genier v Astrue

McClesky v Astrue

Carlston v. Astrue

Johnson v. Astrue

Dipple v. Astrue

Bowman v Astrue

Maes v Astrue

Carpenter v Astrue

Poppa v. Astrue

Artz v. Barnhart

Anderson v. Astrue

Marshall v. Astrue

Madron v. Astrue 02/11/09

Cruse v. USDHHS

Haddock v Apfel

Passmore v Astrue 8th cca

Moss v Astrue 02/05/09

Bray v. Astrue 02/06/09

Conkle v Astrue 07-6104

Federal Worker's Compensation

OWCP

ECAB Case Decisions

RR v USPS

TW v. USPS

AS v. Peace Corps

JD v. Dept of Interior

AP v. Dept of VA

AD v. Navy ECAB 09-2030

LT v USPS

AJ V. USPS

FW v Dept of Navy

L.D. v. USPS

NW v Dept of Navy

JM v Dept of VA

KL v Dept of Navy

DF v. US Marines

CS v. Dept Homeland Secur

D.H. v. USPS

SB v USPS

RA v Dept of Agriculture

BC v USPS

MT v Dept of Army

P.G. vs Dept of Navy

K.H. v USPS

Nelson v IRS 04-2123

VIVENS v USPS 90-1500

HAWKINS v VA 03-1232

Rose v USPS 905 F2d 1257

D.L. v. USPS 08-1873

D.M. v. Dept Army 08-1814

R.C. V USPS 08-11641

Delatat v USAF 2008-3038

RM v Army 97-2145

WS v DOS 08-1797

IH v USPS 08-1352

Kramm v. DOA 05-715

Pygman v DOI 01-1604

J.B. v. USPS 08-1178

F.H. v. DAF 07-1379

M.C. v DOI 08-1581

J.S. v DOL 08-373

E.K. v. DOA 08-421

Tiller v DOA 99-118

R.M. v USPS 08-528

Sligh v USPS 03-1621

M.C. v USPS 05-443

M.M. v DVA 07-2103

K.H. v USPS 08-1053

E.M. v DOD 07-1074

J.M. v USPS 08-1075

OPM/MSPB Claims

FERS Disability

OPM Case Decisions

Lambright v OPM

Yashimoto v OPM

Smith v. OPM

Hubbard v MSPB

Cabanayan v OPM

Simpkins v OPM

Sachs v OPM

MAPLES v OPM

REILLY v. OPM

VANIEKAN-RYALS v OPM

POSTELL-PORTER v OPM

Torres v. OPM

Johnston v OPM 04-3260

McLaughlin v OPM 2004

Licausi v. OPM 12/02/03

Townsend v OPM 02-3064

Lensing v OPM 07-3267

Kessler v OPM 08-3068

Forms and Documents

Links

Link To Us

08-1178: J.B. and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFIC...

PDF Version

 

 

United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

__________________________________________

 

J.B., Appellant

 

and

 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, Denver, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 08-1178

Issued: December 22, 2008

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

DAVID S. GERSON, Judge

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

 

 

JURISDICTION

 

On March 13, 2008 appellant filed a timely appeal from the February 26, 2008 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs which denied compensation for wage-loss compensation during the period of a schedule award. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction to review the merits of this decision.

ISSUE

 

The issue is whether the Office properly denied compensation for wage loss for a period in which appellant was in receipt of a schedule award under a different Office claim.

FACTUAL HISTORY

 

On October 18, 2007 appellant, then a 51-year-old rural carrier, alleged that she injured her left shoulder during the performance of her duties on October 17, 2007. The Office assigned the claim, file number xxxxxx327, and accepted her claim for left biceps subluxation and left rotator cuff strain. On January 22, 2008 appellant underwent surgery for her left biceps tendinosis. She filed claims for wage loss from December 29, 2007 through February 1, 2008 under file number xxxxxx327.

In a decision dated February 26, 2008, the Office denied appellant’s claim for wage loss in file number xxxxxx327 on the grounds that she was currently receiving a schedule award involving the same part of the body under her other case file and, therefore, she was not entitled to concurrent payments for wage loss.

Relevant to the Office’s February 26, 2008 adjudication in file number xxxxxx327, the record reflects that appellant has three prior claims with the Office. Under file number xxxxxx710,[1] the Office accepted that as of January 1, 1998 appellant developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right shoulder impingement syndrome due to work activities. In June 2001, appellant underwent an authorized right carpal tunnel release. In August 2007, the Office accepted a recurrence of appellant’s left carpal tunnel syndrome and authorized left carpal tunnel release. On March 12, 2001 a schedule award was awarded for 11 percent right arm impairment for the period December 15, 2000 through August 12, 2001.

Under file number xxxxxx665, the Office accepted that appellant sustained a left superior glenoid labrum lesion, right knee contusion and aggravation of right knee osteoarthritis on February 6, 2004. Appellant received two schedule awards in conjunction with this claim. On January 4, 2005 she received a schedule award for 11 percent left arm impairment for the period November 27, 2004 to July 25, 2005. On August 8, 2005 appellant received a schedule award for 16 percent right leg impairment for the period July 26, 2005 through June 13, 2006.

Under file number xxxxxx853, the Office accepted that, as of August 1, 2006, appellant sustained other affections of left shoulder and adhesive capsulitis of left shoulder. On July 16, 2007 appellant received a schedule award for an additional 24 percent impairment of the left arm for the period April 3, 2007 through September 8, 2008. The Office noted that appellant had a 35 percent total permanent impairment of the left arm, which was comprised of the previously awarded 11 percent permanent impairment of the left arm under file number xxxxxx565 and the current 24 percent permanent impairment of the left arm. By letter dated August 1, 2007, the Office offered appellant a lump-sum payment for her remaining schedule award in the amount of $35,504.84 as of September 2, 2007. It advised:

“Any lump-sum payment will represent full and final compensation payment for the period of the award even if you suffer a recurrence of total disability. If you elect to receive your schedule award in this form, please sign the attached agreement and return it to this Office as soon as possible.”

On August 7, 2007 appellant agreed to accept $35,504.84 in payment of compensation for the commuted value of further installments of compensation for the remainder of the schedule award to her left arm payable from September 2, 2007 through September 8, 2008. On August 14, 2007 the Office paid appellant $35,504.84 as a lump-sum payment for the remainder of the schedule award for September 2, 2007 through September 8, 2008.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

 

As used in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act,[2] the term disability means incapacity, because of employment injury, to earn the wages that the employee was receiving at the time of injury.[3]

Section 8107 of the Act[4] authorizes the payment of schedule awards for the loss or loss of use, of specified members, organs or functions of the body. Such loss or loss of use is known as permanent impairment.[5]

Disability is not synonymous with physical impairment, which may or may not cause incapacity to earn wages.[6] An employee who has a physical impairment causally related to her federal employment, but who nonetheless has the capacity to earn the wages she was receiving at the time of injury, has no disability as that term is used in the Act and is not entitled to compensation for loss of wage-earning capacity.[7] When, however, the medical evidence establishes that the residuals of an employment injury are such that, from a medical standpoint, they prevent the employee from continuing in her employment, she is entitled to compensation for any loss of wage-earning capacity resulting from such incapacity.[8] Compensation for loss of wage-earning capacity is based upon loss of the capacity to earn, not upon actual wages lost.[9]

A schedule award is payable consecutively but not concurrently with an award for wage loss for the same injury.[10] A schedule award for one injury may be paid concurrently with compensation for wage loss paid for another injury, as long as the two injuries do not involve the same part of the body.[11]

ANALYSIS

 

After the Office accepted appellant’s October 17, 2007 claim for left shoulder injuries, appellant claimed for compensation alleging disability for work from December 29, 2007 through February 1, 2008. The record indicates, however, that she was receiving a schedule award covering this period in file number xxxxxx853. On August 14, 2007 the Office paid appellant $35,504.84 as the lump sum of the remainder of the schedule award for September 2, 2007 through September 8, 2008. In its letter dated August 1, 2007, it explicitly informed appellant that, because she was receiving a lump-sum payment, she would not be entitled to further compensation.[12] As both injuries involved the left upper extremity, the Board finds that the Office may not pay compensation for wage loss resulting from appellant’s October 17, 2007 injury concurrently with the schedule award for her August 1, 2006 injury, which covered the period September 2, 2007 through September 8, 2008.

CONCLUSION

 

The Board finds that the Office properly denied compensation for wage loss while appellant was in receipt of a schedule award under a different claim number.

ORDER

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 26, 2008 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 22, 2008

Washington, DC

 

 

 

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

 

David S. Gerson, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

 

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board



[1] File number xxxxxx710 is the master file for appellant’s current claims.

[2] 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.

[3] Richard T. DeVito, 39 ECAB 668 (1988); Frazier V. Nichol, 37 ECAB 528 (1986); Elden H. Tietze, 2 ECAB 38 (1948); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(17).

[4] 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

[5] 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

[6] See Fred Foster, 1 ECAB 21 at 24-25 (1947) (finding that the Act provides for the payment of compensation in disability cases upon the basis of the impairment in the employee’s capacity to earn wages and not upon physical impairment as such).

[7] See Gary L. Loser, 38 ECAB 673 (1987) (although the evidence indicated that appellant had sustained an impairment of his legs because of work-related thrombophlebitis, it did not demonstrate that his condition prevented him from returning to his work as a chemist or caused any incapacity to earn the wages he was receiving at the time of injury).

[8] Bobby W. Hornbuckle, 38 ECAB 626 (1987).

[9] George W. Coleman, 38 ECAB 782 (1987).

[10] Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.5.(a)(3) (March 1995).

[11] Id. at Chapter 2.808.5(a)(4). See Michael J. Biggs, 54 ECAB 595, 596-97 (2003).

[12] See Edward W. Spohr, 57 ECAB 287, 291 (2005) (noting that the terms of a lump sum agreement for payment of a schedule award “clearly spelled out the limitation” on the claimant’s right to receive further compensation benefits).


Home | Social Security Disability | Federal Worker's Compensation | VA Disability Claim | Contact Us

Copyright © 2008 James R. Linehan P.C.. All rights reserved.

Web Hosting powered by Network Solutions®

Dr. Daniel Hutt DSW, LCSW, BCD