U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–133 PDF 2011

REVIEWING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 12, 2011 

Serial No. 112–22 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

[Vacant] 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

[Vacant] 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California, Ranking 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

George Miller, California 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 12, 2011 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Woolsey, Hon. Lynn, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ............................................................................................ 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Additional submissions: 

Kelley, Colleen M., national president, National Treasury Employees Union: 

Prepared statement of ................................................................ 56 

Table: Periodic Roll Breakdown by Weekly Salary and Age 

(a) .............................................................................................. 58 

Table: Periodic Roll Breakdown by Weekly Salary and Age 

(b) .............................................................................................. 59 

List: Appropriated Fund Agencies in FECA Which Do Not 

Reimburse for Administrative Costs ...................................... 59 

List: ‘‘Fair Share’’ Agencies Which Reimburse DOL for Administrative Costs Under FECA ............................................ 61 

List: Mixed ‘‘Fair Share’’ and Appropriated Fund Agencies .... 61 

Beaudoin, Joseph A., president, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, prepared statement of .................... 61 

Rodrı ́guez, Milagro, occupational health and safety specialist, 

American Federation of Government Employees ......................... 63 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bertoni, Daniel, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

Issues, Government Accountability Office .................................................. 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Carney, Sue, national human relations director, American Postal Workers 

Union (AFL–CIO) .......................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Lewis, Elliot P., Assistant Inspector General for Audit, Office of Inspector 

General, U.S. Department of Labor ............................................................ 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

Steinberg, Gary, Acting Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor ............................................................... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Szymendera, Scott, analyst in disability policy, Congressional Research 

Service ............................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

(1) 

REVIEWING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

Thursday, May 12, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Kline, Rokita, Bucshon, Woolsey, Payne, Kucinich, and Bishop. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Press Assistant; Casey 

Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, 

Director of Workforce Policy; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Ryan 

Kearney, Legislative Assistant; Donald McIntosh, Professional 

Staff Member; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Molly McLaughlin 

Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Linda Stevens, Chief 

Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy 

Clerk; Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; Kate Ahlgren, 

Minority Investigative Counsel; Aaron Albright, Minority Communications Director for Labor; Tylease Alli, Minority Hearing Clerk; 

Daniel Brown, Minority Junior Legislative Assistant; Brian Levin, 

Minority New Media Press Assistant; Jerrica Mathis, Minority Legislative Fellow, Labor; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy 

Advisor; Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; and Michele 

Varnhagen, Minority Chief Policy Advisor and Labor Policy Director. 

Chairman WALBERG. Good morning. A quorum being present, the 

subcommittee will come to order. 

Welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for taking the time to 

be with us today. We appreciate you sharing your thoughts and expertise on federal workers’ compensation. 

It has been nearly 100 years since the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. 

The law establishes a program for federal workers to receive compensation for lost wages, medical care and rehabilitation services 

resulting from injury or illness incurred in a work-related activity. 

In the event of a death from a work-related injury or illness, survivor benefits are provided to the worker’s immediate family and 

loved ones. The law reflects our commitment to support the men 

and women who serve our nation in the federal workforce. 
2 

The program is administered by the Department of Labor’s Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs. Claims for compensation are 

received, processed and reviewed by OWCP staff. While several 

avenues for appeal are available to employees, decisions rendered 

by the Department of Labor are final and not subject to review by 

any federal agency or court. 

Today, roughly three million federal workers are eligible to participate in the program. During fiscal year 2010, an estimated $2.8 

billion in compensation was paid to beneficiaries. Yet, despite the 

size and cost of the program, it has not been significantly updated 

or reformed in nearly 40 years. 

As with any federal program left unchecked, waste and inefficiencies often emerge and can result in a program that serves neither workers nor taxpayers well. This is unacceptable. In recent 

years, the challenges facing the FECA program have become more 

and more evident. 

Workers in rural areas can have limited access to medical care, 

undermining their ability to file a claim. The level of compensation 

in many ways is outdated, such as providing assistance for funeral 

expenses based on average costs that existed in 1949. The law limits access to rehabilitation services designed to help an employee 

return to work. 

We have also seen some cases where employees can receive compensation in excess of their total wages, creating a strong disincentive for those employees to return to work. These are just a few of 

the deficiencies that must be addressed. Toward that end, the administration is to be commended for putting together and forward 

a number of ideas to reform the FECA program. 

The administration’s proposal includes streamlining compensation for lost wages for all beneficiaries and allowing physician assistants and nurse practitioners to sign off on a worker’s initial 

claim. To address the accuracy of the program, the administration’s 

proposes allowing greater access to wage information housed at the 

Social Security Administration. 

The administration’s proposals build upon the efforts of previous 

administrations to modernize federal workers’ compensation. However, these ideas are not without question or concerns, and that is 

why we are here today—to ask the tough questions, discuss the 

concerns of members and interested stakeholders and begin moving 

forward in a responsible way. 

Especially during times of economic uncertainty and trillion-dollar deficits, it is critical policymakers work to ensure every taxpayer dollar is being well spent. Any opportunity to better serve 

workers in need of assistance and spend taxpayer dollars more efficiently should be encouraged. 

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in advancing 

this shared goal. 

And so, at this time, I would like to recognize my colleague from 

California, Ms. Lynn Woolsey, the senior Democrat member of the 

subcommittee, for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Mr. Walberg follows:] 
3 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Good morning. Welcome to our witnesses, and thank you for taking the time to 

be with us today. We appreciate you sharing your thoughts and expertise on federal 

workers’ compensation. 

It has been nearly 100 years since the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act was 

signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. The law establishes a program for 

federal workers to receive compensation for lost wages, medical care, and rehabilitation services resulting from an injury or illness incurred in a work-related activity. 

In the event of a death from a work-related injury or illness, survivor benefits are 

provided to the worker’s immediate family and loved ones. The law reflects our commitment to support the men and women who serve our nation in the federal workforce. 

The program is administered by the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs. Claims for compensation are received, processed, and reviewed by OWCP staff. While several avenues for appeal are available to employees, 

decisions rendered by the Department of Labor are final and not subject to review 

by any federal agency or court. 

Today, roughly three million federal workers are eligible to participate in the program. During fiscal year 2010, an estimated $2.8 billion in compensation was paid 

to beneficiaries. Yet, despite the size and cost of the program, it has not been significantly updated or reformed in nearly forty years. 

As with any federal program left unchecked, waste and inefficiencies often emerge 

and can result in a program that serves neither workers nor taxpayers well. This 

is unacceptable. In recent years, the challenges facing the FECA program have become more and more evident. 

Workers in rural areas can have limited access to medical care, undermining their 

ability to file a claim. The level of compensation in many ways is outdated, such 

as providing assistance for funeral expenses based on average costs that existed in 

1949. The law limits access to rehabilitation services designed to help an employee 

return to work. We have also seen some cases where employees can receive compensation in excess of their total wages, creating a strong disincentive for those employees to return to work. 

These are just a few of the deficiencies that must be addressed. Toward that end, 

the administration is to be commended for putting forward a number of ideas to reform the FECA program. 

The administration’s proposal includes streamlining compensation for lost wages 

for all beneficiaries and allowing physician assistants and nurse practitioners to 

sign off on a worker’s initial claim. To address the accuracy of the program, the administration’s proposes allowing greater access to wage information housed at the 

Social Security Administration. 

The administration’s proposals build upon the efforts of previous administrations 

to modernize federal workers’ compensation. However, these ideas are not without 

questions or concerns, and that’s why we are here today: to ask the tough questions, 

discuss the concerns of members and interested stakeholders, and begin moving forward in a responsible way. 

Especially during times of economic uncertainty and trillion-dollar deficits, it is 

critical policymakers work to ensure every taxpayer dollar is being well-spent. Any 

opportunity to better serve workers in need of assistance and spend taxpayer dollars 

more efficiently should be encouraged. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in advancing this shared goal. 

At this time, I would like to recognize my colleague from California, Ms. Lynn 

Woolsey, the senior Democrat member of the subcommittee, for her opening remarks. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling this hearing today to discuss the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, or FECA. 

This committee has primary jurisdiction over workers’ compensation laws and has overseen and repeatedly improved FECA since 

1949. FECA has been the governing statute providing benefits for 

federal civilian workers injured or killed on the job since 1916. 

Some of the key principles that underpin this law include FECA 

benefits being made available to ensure that workers and their 
4 

families are no better off or no worse off than if the worker had 

not been injured. Secondly, all federal civilian workers, regardless 

of their employer, are eligible for the same benefit. 

Another underpinning is that claims for benefits are administered on a no-fault basis. If workers give up the right to bring tort 

claims for injuries, they need to be fairly compensated in a timely 

manner with benefits administered in a non-adversarial way. 

Consistent with these principles, Mr. Chairman, FECA benefits 

include compensation for lost wages, medical care and vocational 

rehabilitation. FECA ensures that injured workers are not impoverished while they are claims are being processed by providing 

their current income for 45 days following an injury. FECA also 

provides a cost of living adjustment. 

Today, we will be reviewing the administration’s legislative proposal. Some parts of it are straightforward. For example, the proposal increases payments for funeral costs, which have not been adjusted since 1949. It provides the Department of Labor permanent 

authority to access Social Security wage information in order to improve program integrity. 

However, other aspects of the administration’s proposal warrant 

scrutiny, and that is what we should be talking about today. For 

example, it cuts wage loss payments for injured workers with dependents and reduces the maximum survivor’s death benefit. While 

these changes may simplify the FECA program, we have to assess 

the impact on federal workers who have been permanently disabled 

on the job. 

The administration also argues that FECA unfairly allows some 

injured workers to receive more from FECA after they reach retirement age than if they had earned a retirement on the job. The Inspector General has called for a redesign, but has not actually specified what that redesign would be. 

The administration’s redesign cuts FECA benefits for permanently disabled workers with dependents from 75 percent of the average wage to 50 percent when they reach normal social security 

eligibility age. Perhaps this decision was made on the assumption 

that individuals leave the workforce and don’t pursue employment 

after age 66 but, you know, that is not true anymore. So we have 

to take that into consideration. 

Furthermore, this one-size-fits-all approach could result in unfair 

treatment of injured workers whose wages were low in the first 

place, and possibly violate a core principle of FECA that no one 

should be economically worse off because of a work-related injury. 

Before we make an across-the-board change, Mr. Chairman, we 

will need to really better understand how the proposed changes 

will impact the diverse pool of federal employees covered by FECA. 

So I hope today’s hearing will help us begin to answer these questions, and I too, look forward to working with you on this. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn Woolsey, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Chairman Walberg, thank you for calling this hearing today to discuss the Federal Employees Compensation Act, or FECA. This Committee has primary jurisdiction over workers’ compensation laws, and has overseen and repeatedly improved 
5 

FECA since 1949. FECA has been the governing statute providing benefits to federal civilian workers injured or killed on the job since 1916. 

I think it’s important to list some of the key principles that underpin this law: 

• FECA benefits are made available to ensure that workers and their families are 

no better off, and no worse off, than if the worker had not been injured. 

• All federal civilian workers, regardless of their employer, are eligible for the 

same benefit. 

• Claims for benefits are administered on a no-fault basis. If workers give up 

their right to bring tort claims for injuries, they need to be fairly compensated in 

a timely manner, with benefits administered in a non-adversarial way. 

Consistent with these principles, FECA benefits include compensation for lost 

wages, medical care, and vocational rehabilitation. FECA ensures that injured workers are not impoverished while their claims are being processed by providing their 

current income for 45 days following an injury. FECA also provides a cost of living 

adjustment. 

Today we will be reviewing the Administration’s legislative proposal. 

Some parts of it are straightforward: for example, the proposal increases payments for funeral costs which have not been adjusted since 1949. It provides the 

Department of Labor permanent authority to access Social Security wage information in order to improve program integrity. 

However, other aspects of the Administration’s proposal warrant scrutiny. For example, it cuts wage loss payments for injured workers with dependents, and reduces 

the maximum survivor’s death benefit. While these changes may simplify the FECA 

program, we need to assess the impact on federal workers who have been permanently disabled on the job. 

The Administration also argues that FECA unfairly allows some injured workers 

to receive more from FECA after they reach retirement age than if they had earned 

a retirement. The Inspector General has called for a redesign, but has not specified 

how. 

The Administration’s ‘‘redesign’’ cuts FECA benefits for permanently disabled 

workers with dependents from 75 percent of the average wage to 50 percent when 

they reach ‘‘normal’’ social security eligibility age. Perhaps this decision was made 

on the assumption that individuals leave the workforce and don’t pursue employment after age 66, which we know is not true anymore. 

Furthermore, this one-size-fits-all approach could result in unfair treatment of injured workers whose wages were low, and possibly violate a core principal of FECA 

that no one should be economically worse off because of a work related injury. 

Before we make an across-the-board-change, we will need to better understand 

how the proposed changes will impact the diverse pool of federal employees covered 

by FECA. 

I hope today’s hearing can help us begin to answer these questions. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to include in the permanent record— 

hearing record, and without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow questions for the record, statements 

and extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. Mr. Scott Szymendera is an analyst in disability policy with 

the Congressional Research Service. Mr. Szymendera’s primary responsibilities with CRS include federal workers safety and compensation programs. 

Prior to his service with CRS, Mr. Szymendera was an analyst 

for the Rutgers University Program for Disability Research. Mr. 

Szymendera holds an MA and a Ph.D. in political science from 

Michigan State University. Go green. Go white. That is a paid commercial for Michigan. An undergraduate degree in government and 

politics from the University of Maryland. Welcome. 
6 

Mr. Daniel Bertoni is the director of Education, Workforce and 

Income Security with the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 

Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Bertoni began his career with GAO in 1989 and, over the 

course of his career, has led numerous management, operational 

and program integrity reviews of the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and 

other federal agencies. 

Mr. Bertoni holds a master’s degree in political science from the 

Rockefeller School of Public Affairs & Policy in Albany, New York. 

Welcome. 

Mr. Gary Steinberg is acting director of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs at the U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. 

Steinberg has served the federal government in a variety of positions throughout his career, including roles with the Department of 

Health and Human Services, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, 

and NASA. 

Mr. Steinberg holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Connecticut, and he received his MBA from the University 

of Hartford. 

Ms. Susan Carney is the director of Human Relations Department with the American Postal Workers Union. Ms. Carney has 22 

years of experience serving the American Postal Workers Union. In 

her current position as director of Human Relations, Ms. Carney 

addresses inquiries related to community activities, civil rights, 

employee assistance, and equal opportunity employment, workplace 

violence and workplace injury compensation. Welcome. 

And, finally, Mr. Elliot Lewis is the assistant inspector general 

for the audit with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General. Mr. Lewis has been with the Office of Inspector General since 1991, serving in a variety of positions within the Office 

of Financial Management Audits. 

Before joining the federal government, Mr. Lewis was a partner 

at T.R. McConnell & Company, an accounting firm in Columbia, 

South Carolina. Mr. Lewis holds an undergraduate degree in accounting from the University of South Carolina. Welcome. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. You will each have approximately 5 minutes. Let’s try to keep it under that if at all possible 

to present your testimony. 

When you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. When 

one minute is left, the light will turn yellow, and when your time 

has expired, the light will turn red, at which point, if I am not excessively interested in what you have to say, which is a problem 

for me, and I have a ranking member who will help me on that— 

but nonetheless, your time will have expired, and I will ask you to 

wrap it up. After everyone has testified, members will each have 

5 minutes to ask questions of the panel. 

And so we will begin by recognizing Mr. Szymendera for your 

testimony. Thank you. 
7 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SZYMENDERA, CONGRESSIONAL 

RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Mr. SZYMENDERA. Thank you. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Woolsey, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Scott 

Szymendera, and I am an analyst at the Congressional Research 

Service. Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections on the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act, or FECA, and a complete statement has been 

provided for the record. 

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the grand bargain of 

workers’ compensation in the United States, in which employees 

receive no-fault compensation for economic losses associated with 

employment-related injuries, illnesses and deaths while giving up 

their right to sue their employers for damages associated with employment-related accidents and illnesses. 

One of the general principles of workers’ compensation is universal or near-universal coverage. Today, nearly 97 percent of all 

workers covered by the unemployment insurance system are also 

covered by workers’ compensation. Workers’ compensation provides 

medical care for covered injuries and disability benefits which are 

intended to replace a portion of a worker’s wages or wage-earning 

capacity lost due to a covered condition. 

In most systems, disability benefits are based on a standard benefit of two-thirds of the worker’s pre-disability wage. If a worker 

dies on the job, his or her survivors are entitled to benefits to partially replace his or her capacity to provide for the family. Pursuant 

to the Internal Revenue Code, workers’ compensation benefits are 

not subject to the federal income tax. 

The first workers’ compensation laws for federal employees were 

enacted in 1882 and 1908, did not provide for medical coverage and 

only applied to the United States Lifesaving Service and other hazardous activities, such as construction of the Panama Canal. 

In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt called the lack of a workers’ compensation program for all federal employees quote—‘‘a matter of humiliation to the nation.’’ The original FECA act was enacted in 1916 and created a modern workers’ compensation system 

for nearly all federal employees. The 1916 legislation remains the 

basis for the workers’ compensation system for federal employees. 

Amendments passed in 1949 created a schedule of benefits for 

permanent partial disabilities and provided for augmenting compensation in cases in which an injured worker had at least one dependent. This augmented compensation brought the level of FECA 

benefits for workers with dependents up to the current level of 75 

percent of the worker’s pre-disability wage. The benefit level for 

survivors was similarly increased. 

The 1949 amendments also provided for a reduction of benefits 

when employees reached the age of 70 to account for age-related 

loss of earning capacity and establish that the FECA program 

would be the exclusive remedy against the federal government for 

federal workers with employment-related conditions. 

Amendments passed in 1966 made two significant changes to 

FECA that remain part of the program today. The use of the GS 

scale as the basis for the maximum and minimum FECA benefit 

levels with the maximum level set at 75 percent of the highest rate 
8 

of basic pay at the GS-15 level, and an annual cost of living adjustment for FECA benefits. 

The most recent major amendments to the FECA program came 

in 1974 and provided for up to 45 days of continuation of pay from 

a worker’s employing agency in cases of traumatic injuries, authorized employees to select their own treating physicians rather than 

use doctors employed or selected by the federal government, and 

removed the reduction of benefits at age 70. 

Today’s FECA program covers all civilians employed by the federal government including employees in the executive, legislative 

and judicial branches of the government and provides full medical 

coverage from the employees chosen doctor, up to 45 days of continuation of pay after traumatic injuries, disability benefits of up 

to 75 percent of an employees pre-disability wage, and benefits for 

the survivors of a deceased employee. Benefits continue for the duration of disability or until death. 

Additional benefits are paid if attendant care is needed, and an 

employee killed while working with the armed forces in a contingency operation is entitled to an additional death gratuity of up to 

$100,000. Vocational rehabilitation services paid by the government are also available to assist FECA beneficiary’s return to the 

workforce. The FECA program is administered by the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs at the Department of Labor, and 

the cost of FECA benefits are charged back to each beneficiary’s 

host agency. 

This concludes the testimony, and I welcome any questions from 

the subcommittee. 

[The statement of Mr. Szymendera follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Scott Szymendera, Analyst in Disability Policy, 

Congressional Research Service 

Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Woolsey, and Members of the subcommittee, my name is Scott Szymendera and I am an analyst at the Congressional 

Research Service. Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee on 

Workforce Protections on workers’ compensation for federal employees. 

For nearly 100 years, members of America’s civil service have been protected from 

economic losses associated with employment-related injuries and illnesses, and their 

families have been protected in cases of employment-related deaths, by the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act, or FECA, a workers’ compensation program administered by the Department of Labor. In my testimony today, I will provide an overview of workers’ compensation in the United States, the original intent of Congress 

when creating FECA, a legislative history of the FECA program, and a plain-language summary of the features of the FECA program that serves federal employees 

today. 

Overview of Workers’ Compensation 

Origins of Workers’ Compensation 

This year marks the 100th anniversary of workers’ compensation in the United 

States.1 Prior to the advent of the modern workers’ compensation system, workers 

who were injured, became ill, or died on the job could bring lawsuits against their 

employers to recover economic and non-economic losses. However, while employers 

could be held legally liable for losses associated with employment-related injuries, 

illnesses, and deaths, they were armed with the common-law defenses of ‘‘contributory negligence,’’ ‘‘assumption of risk,’’ and the ‘‘fellow-servant doctrine’’ which often 

made it difficult for workers to prevail in employment injury and illnesses cases.2

While this system generally favored employers, employees who were successful in 

suits against their employers could be awarded non-economic damages that could 

prove costly to employers. In addition employers had to bear the legal costs of defending themselves against suits from workers, even if these suits ultimately proved 

unsuccessful. 
9 

The Grand Bargain 

Workers’ compensation is commonly referred to as ‘‘the grand bargain’’ between 

employees and employers. Employees receive compensation for economic losses associated with employment-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths, without regard to 

fault. In exchange for this no-fault coverage, workers are prohibited from suing their 

employers for damages related to covered injuries, illnesses, or deaths, giving employers protection from large judgments for non-economic losses such as pain and 

suffering or punitive damages. 

Principles of Workers’ Compensation 

No-Fault Coverage 

Workers’ compensation in the United States, including workers’ compensation provided to federal employees under FECA, is a no-fault system. As a no-fault system, 

employees are compensated for covered injuries, illnesses, and deaths regardless of 

who is at fault or whether or not fault can be determined.3

Exclusive Remedy 

Workers’ compensation is an exclusive remedy for workplace injuries, illnesses, 

and deaths. Employees are generally not permitted to sue their employers for compensatory or punitive damages relating to covered injuries, illnesses, and deaths. In 

some cases, suits by employees may be brought against employers for intentional 

harms and against third parties who may share in the liability for the covered injury, illness, or death. 

The exclusive remedy and no-fault coverage principles are intended to create a 

workers’ compensation system that is largely non-adversarial. Many workers’ compensation systems, including FECA, use administrative rather than judicial proceedings to resolve disputes over claims and benefits. However, despite the desire 

of the creators of workers’ compensation to remove cases involving work injuries 

from the courts, the 100-year history of workers’ compensation in the United States 

has been marked by what historian Edward Berkowitz has termed a ‘‘persistence 

of litigation’’ as both employees and employers dispute workers’ compensation 

claims decisions or appeal the decisions of administrative bodies to the courts.4 In 

nearly all states, but not the FECA system, workers’ compensation disputes and litigation can result in lump-sum settlements that release employers from all future 

responsibilities related to settled cases. 

Universal Coverage of Employees 

Workers’ compensation systems generally do not exclude certain classes of employees because of the dangerous nature of their jobs or their increased risk of injury, illness, or death. While state workers’ compensation laws vary in exactly who 

is covered, one of the general principles of workers’ compensation systems is universal, or near-universal, coverage. For example, several of the recommendations 

issued in 1972 by the National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation 

Laws created by the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act relate to bringing 

states towards universal workers’ compensation coverage of public and private-sector employees, regardless of risk or size of employer.5 The National Academy of Social Insurance estimates that nearly 97% of all workers covered by the unemployment insurance system are also covered by workers’ compensation.6

Coverage of Employment-Related Injuries, Illnesses, and Deaths Only 

Workers’ compensation only provides compensation for injuries, illnesses, and 

deaths that occur in the course of employment. Generally, this means that an employee must be at a work site when the injury, illness, or death was caused and 

the injury, illness, or death must have been caused by a situation related to the employee’s job. Injuries, illnesses, and deaths that occur outside of work hours or while 

commuting to or from work, or that are caused by acts unrelated to employment, 

such as working on personal projects in the workplace, are generally not covered 

by workers’ compensation.7

Compensation for Medical Care 

Workers’ compensation provides all of the costs of medical care associated with 

a covered injury or illness. Covered medical costs include necessary treatments, procedures, and medications and in some states and under FECA, certain costs associated with travelling to receive medical services. Employees are not required to contribute to the cost of this care through their own private insurance or through 

deductibles or coinsurance. Medical coverage under workers’ compensation is limited 

only to the covered injury or illness and is not intended to provide for the general 
10 

healthcare needs of the worker. Workers’ compensation systems vary on the rights 

of workers to choose their treating physicians. 

Compensation for Disability and Death 

Workers’ compensation is intended to compensate workers for economic losses associated with employment-related injuries and illnesses and their families for economic losses associated with employment-related deaths. This compensation is provided in the form of cash disability benefits which are intended to replace a portion 

of a worker’s wages, or wage-earning capacity, lost due to a covered injury, illness, 

or death. Total disability benefits are paid when a worker is unable to work or otherwise totally disabled and in most systems are based on a standard benefit of twothirds of the worker’s pre-disability wage. 

Benefits for partial disabilities may be based on statutory or regulatory schedules 

which assign benefit amounts to specific conditions, such as the loss of a limb, or 

on other measures of partial disability such as wage-earning capacity, functional capacity, or overall level of impairment.8 Disability benefits are generally subject to 

system-specific minimum and maximum levels which are often based on average 

wages in a state. Benefits generally last for the duration of disability, however, 

some systems do limit the duration of benefits or have age limits for the receipt of 

disability benefits. 

If a worker dies on the job or from an employment-related injury or illness, his 

or her survivors are entitled to benefits to partially replace his or her capacity to 

provide for the family. Workers’ compensation systems often also provide benefits 

to partially cover the costs of a workers’ funeral. 

Pursuant to Section 104(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, workers’ compensation benefits are not subject to the federal income tax. 

Legislative History of FECA 

The FECA program has its origins in a law from the late 1800’s that covered only 

the employees of a federal agency that has long since ceased to exist on its own. 

The modern FECA system has its roots in legislation enacted in 1916, and many 

of the basic provisions of this original law, such as the basic rate of compensation, 

are still in effect today. Congress passed major amendments to the 1916 legislation 

in 1949, 1960, 1966, and most recently in 1974.9 While these amendments made significant changes to the FECA program, the basic framework of the program endures 

as does the overall intent of Congress through the years to maintain a workers’ compensation system for federal employees that is in-line with the basic principles that 

have governed workers’ compensation in this country for a century. 

Limited Workers’ Compensation for the United States Life Saving Service and 

Other Hazardous Federal Occupations 

The first workers’ compensation law for federal employees was enacted in 1882 

and provided up to two years of salary to any member of the federal United States 

Life Saving Service disabled in the line of duty and two years of salary to his or 

her survivors in case of a line of duty death.10 In 1908, Congress passed a more 

comprehensive workers’ compensation law for federal employees engaged in certain 

hazardous occupations such as laborers at federal manufacturing facilities and arsenals or working on the construction of the Panama Canal. This law provided workers with up to one year of salary, after a 15-day waiting period, if disabled due to 

an employment-related injury and their survivors with up to a year of salary in case 

of death. 

The 1882 and 1908 federal workers’ compensation laws did not provide universal 

coverage for all federal employees. It is estimated that only one-fourth of the federal 

workforce was covered by the 1908 law and the law was clearly designed only to 

provide coverage for what were seen to be the most hazardous jobs in the civil service.11 President Theodore Roosevelt recognized this shortcoming of the law he would 

eventually sign as before the 1908 law’s passage, he called on Congress to pass a 

workers’ compensation bill that would cover ‘‘all employees injured in the government service’’ and stated that the lack of such a comprehensive workers’ compensation law was ‘‘a matter of humiliation to the nation.’’ 12

In addition to only covering a small portion of the federal workforce, the 1882 and 

1908 laws did not provide for medical benefits for disabled workers, and the 1908 

law only applied in cases of disability or death arising from injuries and not illnesses. 

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act of 1916 

President Woodrow Wilson singed the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, P.L. 

64-267, into law on September 7, 1916, and in so doing extended the protections of 

the modern workers’ compensation system to nearly all federal employees. This 
11 

original FECA act remains the basis for the workers’ compensation system for the 

federal civil service. 

The FECA act provided coverage for nearly all civilian employees of the federal 

government injured or killed in line of duty. Coverage was not provided for occupational illnesses.13 The law provided full medical coverage for covered injuries provided by government physicians and hospitals or private providers selected by the 

government. Disability compensation was provided, after a three-day waiting period, 

at a rate of two-thirds of the worker’s wage for total disability, with adjustments 

for partial disabilities. Disability benefits were subject to minimum and maximum 

levels specified in the law and neither benefits nor these levels were subject to any 

cost-of-living or other annual adjustments. The survivors of an employee killed on 

the job were entitled to cash benefits based on the worker’s wage and were also entitled to a benefit to help offset funeral costs. 

The 1916 legislation created the Federal Employees’ Compensation Commission, 

with three members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the 

Senate, to administer the FECA program. Benefit and administrative costs associated with the program were paid out of the Employees’ Compensation Fund created 

by the law and financed with permanently authorized appropriations. 

Congressional Intent 

Bringing the federal system in line with the states 

Congress had several clear intentions when drafting the FECA act in 1916. One 

such intention was to bring the protections offered to federal employees in line with 

those being offered by a majority of the states at the time, with the House Judiciary 

Committee reporting that such state laws were ‘‘working with most excellent results.’’ 14 In addition, the committee reported that the schedule of compensation for 

disability in the FECA act was ‘‘in line with the best precedents found in State compensation acts’’ especially those in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio.15

Providing coverage to all federal employees 

An additional intention of Congress was to provide workers’ compensation coverage to all federal employees regardless of occupation, thus correcting what was 

seen as a shortcoming of the 1908 act. The House Judiciary Committee’s report on 

the 1916 FECA legislation criticizes the limited coverage of the 1908 law and states: 

The present law, in denying compensation to an injured employee if his occupation was not ‘‘hazardous’’ goes counter to the theory on which all compensation acts 

are based, viz, that the industry shall bear the burden of injuries caused by it.16

This criticism of the limited coverage provided by the 1908 act and the intention 

of the FECA legislation to correct this shortcoming, was echoed by the FECA legislation’s sponsor in the Senate, Senator George Sutherland. Senator Sutherland, in 

a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the legislation, stated: 

The theory upon which compensation laws are drawn is that you are to compensate for the injury, not for the risk that the man ran in bringing about the injury; and under modern thought there is no logical reason for making distinction 

between what is hazardous and non-hazardous employment.17

Senator Sutherland reinforced his point with a rather graphic example stating 

‘‘the clerk who has his leg cut off in his work about a store is just as effectively 

deprived of his leg as if it was cut off by a machine.’’ 18

Major FECA Amendments 

Congress has passed major amendments to the FECA program in 1949, 1960, 

1966, and most recently in 1974. 

1949 Amendments 

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1949, P.L. 81-357, 

brought about the first set of significant changes to the FECA program since its inception in 1916. The 1949 amendments, in the words of the House Committee on 

Education and Labor, sought to ‘‘modernize and liberalize’’ the FECA program, 

which, according to the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare provided 

‘‘only illusory security for most workers or their families.’’ 19

Increased FECA coverage 

The 1949 amendments expanded the scope of workers covered by the FECA program to include those classified as ‘‘officers’’ of the United States. The amendments 

also doubled the maximum disability benefit level thus essentially providing FECA 

coverage to a larger portion of federal employee wages. 

In addition to better meeting the goal of universal coverage of all employees, the 

inclusion of federal government officers was intended to provide FECA protections 

to previously-excluded employees, such as Foreign Service Officers, who may serve 
12 

in dangerous overseas areas. The increase in the maximum benefit level was necessary since, at the time, it was estimated by the Department of Labor that 90% 

of FECA cases involved workers with wages that were essentially not covered by 

the program because of the low maximum benefit level.20

Increased FECA benefits 

Several provisions of the 1949 amendments effectively increased FECA benefits 

for workers and their survivors. The three-day waiting period was eliminated in 

cases of disability lasting more than 21 days. A schedule of benefits for permanent 

partial disabilities was created for the first time which permitted partial disability 

benefits to be paid without regard to actual impairment or wage loss. The elimination of the waiting period and creation of a benefits schedule were intended to 

bring the FECA program in line with state workers’ compensation programs and the 

federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act program. 

The 1949 amendments provided for augmented compensation, in the amount of 

8.33% of a workers’ pre-disability wage, in cases in which an injured worker had 

at least one dependent. This augmented compensation, along with the standard 

compensation rate of two-thirds of the workers’ wage brought the level of FECA 

benefits for workers with dependents up to the current level of 75% of the worker’s 

pre-disability wage. The benefit level for survivors was similarly increased. The intent of the augmented compensation provision was to better insure that disabled 

workers and the survivors of workers killed on the job could provide economically 

for their dependents. The two-thirds benefit level for dependents was criticized by 

the House and Senate Committees which reported the bill as ‘‘not sufficient as to 

ensure reasonable economic security to a family of a deceased worker where there 

is a large family.’’ 21 Similar concerns over the adequacy of the two-thirds benefit 

level were expressed at a House Committee on Education and Labor hearing on the 

1949 amendments.22

Reduced benefits at age 70 

While the 1949 amendments generally increased the level of FECA benefits, the 

amendments also required the FECA administrator to review the amount of compensation paid to any person aged 70 or older. The administrator was provided the 

authority to reduce the amount of such benefits if it was determined that the worker’s wage-earning capacity had been reduced because of age, independent of his or 

her disability. This provision was opposed by several representatives from federal 

employee organizations who testified before the House Education and Labor Committee that such a provision was inconsistent with the mandatory federal employee 

retirement age of 70 in place at the time and could cause undue hardships to workers who, because of their disabilities, had not been able to reach their full earning 

potential or who had reduced pensions because of many years of limited or no earnings.23

Provisions for vocational rehabilitation 

The 1949 amendments permitted the FECA program administrator to send beneficiaries to receive vocational rehabilitation services at the government’s expense. 

The amendments also created a special supplemental benefit for workers participating in vocational rehabilitation programs. These provisions were intended to improve the return-to-work prospects of FECA claimants which, it was thought, would 

ultimately benefit both the employee through a return to earning wages and the 

government through a reduction in FECA benefit costs.24

The exclusive remedy rule 

The 1949 amendments established that the FECA program would be the exclusive 

remedy against the federal government for federal workers with employment-related 

injuries, illnesses, and deaths. This provision prohibited employees from seeking to 

recover economic or non-economic damages from the government for injuries, illnesses, and deaths covered by FECA and brought the FECA program in line with 

one of the general principles of workers’ compensation which was already written 

into the workers’ compensation laws in the states. 

When the FECA program was created, an exclusive remedy rule was seen as unnecessary because of the general prohibition against suits against the federal government. However, by 1949 three factors had combined to result in significant numbers of federal employees choosing to bring lawsuits against the federal government 

rather than file for FECA benefits. First, the passage after 1916 of laws such as 

the Federal Tort Claims Act which permitted some suits against the government. 

Second, some injuries to federal employees occurred while they worked for government corporations subject to lawsuits. Finally, because FECA benefits are limited 

by statute to partial wage replacement and medical benefits, employees felt that 
13 

they could secure greater financial benefits from the courts than from the FECA 

program.25

1960 Amendments 

The chargeback process 

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1960, P.L. 86-767, created the chargeback process in which the Secretary of Labor is required to bill each 

federal agency for the costs of FECA benefits provided to their employees in the previous fiscal year so that these agency may reimburse the Employees’ Compensation 

Fund. In addition, these amendments required that government corporations also 

pay their ‘‘fair share’’ of FECA administrative costs to the government. The 

chargeback process was intended by Congress to ‘‘further the promotion of safety’’ 

among federal agencies by making the agencies ultimately responsible for the costs 

of injuries, illnesses, and deaths of their employees.26

1966 Amendments 

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1966, P.L. 89-488, 

made two significant changes to the FECA program. These changes continue to be 

in effect today. 

Use of the GS scale to set minimum and maximum benefit levels 

Prior to the enactment of the 1966 amendments, the maximum and minimum levels of FECA benefits were set by statute and not subject to any automatic adjustments. In 1966 FECA benefits were still subject to levels enacted as part of the 1949 

amendments. According to the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, the 

statutory maximum provided for full benefits for over 99% of claimants in 1949, but 

only 85% of claimants by 1966.27 To address the difficulty inherent in using statutory changes to keep pace with the growth in federal employees’ wages, the 1966 

amendments provide for use of the general schedule (GS) scale as the basis for the 

maximum and minimum FECA benefit levels with the maximum level set at 75% 

of the highest rate of basic pay at the GS-15 level. 

Cost-of-living adjustment for benefits 

The 1966 amendments provided for an annual cost-of-living adjustment for FECA 

benefits.28 This annual adjustment is a unique feature of the FECA program not 

found in other workers’ compensation systems. 

1974 Amendments 

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-416, 

made three major changes to the FECA program. These three changes remain key 

elements of the program today. 

Continuation of pay 

The 1974 amendments provided for up to 45 days of continuation of pay from a 

worker’s employing agency in cases of traumatic injuries covered by FECA. During 

this period, an injured employee may receive his or her full pay rather than FECA 

compensation. Because continuation of pay is considered income rather than a benefit, it is subject to the federal income tax and is reduced by all standard payroll 

deductions. 

Congress felt that 45 days of continuation of pay were needed because of the time 

it often took for FECA claims to be processed and compensation benefits to begin. 

In its report on the 1974 amendments, the Senate Committee on Labor and Public 

Welfare cited a General Accounting Office report that stated that the average processing time for FECA claims was between 49 and 70 days, a delay that the committee found ‘‘creates economic hardship on the injured employee and his or her 

family and causes difficult administrative problems for the Secretary of Labor and 

the employing agencies.’’ 29

Employee choice of physician 

The 1974 amendments authorized employees to select their own treating physicians rather than use doctors employed or selected by the federal government. The 

right of employees to have free choice over who provides their medical care was one 

of the recommendations of the National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws in 1972 and the this provision brought the FECA program in line 

with that recommendation as well as some other workers’ compensation systems. 

Elimination of reduced benefits after age 70 

The 1974 amendments removed the provision, enacted as part of the 1949 amendments, requiring that FECA benefits be reviewed and permitting FECA benefits to 
14 

be reduced after a claimant reached age 70 to account for the reduced earning capacity that may come with age independent of any disability. In its report on the 

1974 amendments, the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare provided the 

following justification for eliminating the reduced benefit provision: 

The Committee finds that such a review places an unnecessary burden on both 

the employees receiving compensation and the Secretary. Further, the fact that an 

employee reaches 70 has no bearing on his or her entitlement to benefits and is considered discriminatory in the Committee’s opinion.30

Recent FECA Amendments 

There have been no major amendments to the FECA program since 1974. However, the 109th and 110th Congresses did make changes to FECA that partially address two of the issues currently facing the program. 

Change to the FECA Waiting Period for Postal Employees 

Section 901 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, P.L. 109-435, 

changed the way the FECA three-day waiting period for compensation is applied to 

employees of the United States Postal Service. This provision requires that postal 

employees satisfy the three-day waiting period before the continuation of pay period 

can begin. All other federal employees continue to serve the three-day waiting period after the conclusion of the continuation of pay period and before FECA compensation benefits begin. 

This provision was based on a recommendation of the President’s Commission on 

the United States Postal Service. The commission’s recommendation was part of a 

larger package of FECA reforms for postal employees intended to reduce the Postal 

Service’s workers’ compensation costs. Because of what the commission termed the 

‘‘unique businesslike charter’’ of the Postal Service, the commission recommended 

that the service’s workers’ compensation system become more in line with the state 

workers’ compensation systems that provide coverage for most private-sector businesses.31

Death Gratuity for Federal Employees Killed While Serving Alongside the 

Armed Forces 

American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been supported by an 

unprecedented number of civilian employees, some of whom are serving in hostile 

areas alongside the armed forces. These deployed civilian employees are covered by 

FECA, but concerns have been raised about the adequacy of FECA benefits for those 

injured or killed while serving in areas of combat, especially when compared to the 

benefits available to members of the armed forces from the Departments of Defense 

and Veterans Affairs.32

Section 1105 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, P.L. 

110-181, provides for a death gratuity of up to $100,000 to be paid to the survivors 

of any federal employee, or employee of a non-appropriated fund instrumentality, 

who ‘‘dies of injuries incurred in connection with the employee’s service with an 

Armed Force in a contingency operation.’’ This death gratuity is paid in addition to 

the regular FECA compensation for survivors, but is offset by any other death gratuities paid by the federal government. 

Overview of the FECA Program Today 

This section of my testimony provides a plain-language overview of the major features of the FECA program in effect today. 

Statutory and Regulatory Authorities 

The FECA program is authorized in statute at 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 et seq. Regulations implementing the FECA are provided at 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.00-10.826. The FECA 

program is administered by the Department of Labor, Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Program Financing 

Benefits under FECA are paid out of the federal Employees’ Compensation Fund. 

This fund is financed by appropriations from Congress which are used to pay current FECA benefits and which are ultimately reimbursed by federal agencies 

through the chargeback process. 

Each quarter OWCP provides to all federal agencies with employees receiving 

FECA benefits an estimate of the cost of these benefits to assist these agencies in 

preparing their budget requests. By August 15 of each year, OWCP sends each 

agency a statement of their FECA costs for the previous fiscal year. Each agency 

must include in its next budget request an appropriation to cover its FECA costs 

for the previous fiscal year. Upon receiving this appropriation, or if a non-appro-
15 

priated entity of the government, by October 15, the agency must reimburse the 

Employees’ Compensation Fund for the costs of the FECA benefits provided to its 

employees. 

The administrative costs associated with the FECA program are provided to the 

Department of Labor through the appropriations process. In addition, the United 

States Postal Service and certain other government corporations are required to pay 

for the ‘‘fair share’’ of the costs of administering benefits for their employees. 

Employees Covered by FECA 

The FECA program covers all civilians employed by the federal government, including employees in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. Both full-time and part-time workers are covered as are most volunteers and 

all persons serving on federal juries. Coverage is also extended to certain groups including state and local law enforcement officers acting in a federal capacity, Peace 

Corps volunteers, students participating in Reserve Officer Training Corps programs, and members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary and Civil Air Patrol. 

Conditions Covered by FECA 

Under FECA, workers’ compensation benefits are paid to any covered employee 

for any disability or death caused by any injury or illness sustained during the employee’s work for the federal government. There is no list of covered conditions nor 

is there a list of conditions that are not covered. However, no injury, illness, or 

death may be compensation by FECA if the condition was: • caused by the willful misconduct of the employee; • caused by the employee’s intention to bring about the injury or death of himself 

or another person; or • proximately caused by the intoxication of the employee. 

In addition, any person convicted of a felony related to the fraudulent application 

for or receipt of FECA benefits forfeits his or her rights to all FECA benefits for 

any injury that occurred on or before the date of conviction. The benefits of any person confined in jail, prison, or an institution pursuant to a felony conviction are suspended for the duration of the incarceration and may not be recovered. 

FECA Claims Process 

All FECA claims are processed and adjudicated by OWCP. Initial decisions on 

claims are made by OWCP staff based on evidence submitted by the claimant and 

his or her treating physician. The law also permits OWCP to order a claimant or 

beneficiary to submit to a medical examination from a doctor contracted to the federal government. An employee dissatisfied with a claims decision may request a 

hearing before OWCP or that OWCP review the record of its decision. A final appeal 

can be made to the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB). The decision 

of the ECAB is final, cannot be appealed, and is not subject to judicial review. 

Time Limit for Filing a FECA Claim 

In general, a claim for disability or death benefits under FECA must be made 

within three years of the date of the injury or death. In the case of a latent disability, such as a condition caused by exposure to a toxic substance over time, the 

three-year time limit does not begin until the employee is disabled and is aware, 

or reasonably should be aware, that the disability was caused by his or her employment. 

FECA Compensation Benefits 

Continuation of Pay 

In the case of a traumatic injury, an employee is eligible for Continuation of 

Pay.33 Continuation of pay is paid by the employing agency and is equal to 100% 

of the employee’s rate of pay at the time of the traumatic injury. Since continuation 

of pay is considered salary and not compensation, it is taxed and subject to any deductions normally made against the employee’s salary. Any lost work time beyond 

45 days, or lost time due to a latent condition, is considered either a partial or total 

disability under FECA. 

Employees of the United States Postal Service must satisfy a three-day waiting 

period before becoming eligible for continuation of pay. 

Partial Disability 

If an employee is unable to work full-time at his or her previous job, but is able 

to work either part-time or at a job in a lower pay category, then he or she is considered partially disabled and eligible for the following compensation benefits: 

• if the employee is single, a monthly benefit equal to two-thirds of the difference 

between the employee’s pre-disability and post-disability monthly wage; or 
16 

• if the employee has at least one dependent, a monthly benefit equal to 75% of 

the difference between the employee’s pre-disability and post-disability monthly 

wage. 

The compensation benefits paid for partial disability are capped at 75% of the 

maximum basic pay at rate GS-15, are not subject to federal taxation, and are subject to an annual cost-of-living adjustment. 

If an employee’s actual wages do not accurately represent his or her true wageearning capacity, or if he or she has no wages, then his or her partial disability benefit is based on his or her wage-earning capacity as determined by OWCP using a 

combination of vocational factors and ‘‘degree of physical impairment.’’ 

Scheduled awards 

In cases in which an employee suffers a permanent partial disability, such as the 

loss of a limb, he or she is entitled to a scheduled benefit. The scheduled benefit 

is in addition to any other partial or total disability benefits received and an employee may receive a scheduled award even if he or she has returned to full-time 

work.34 If an employee suffers a disfigurement of the face, head or neck that is of 

such severity that it may limit his or her ability to secure or retain employment, 

the employee is entitled to up to $3,500 in additional compensation. 

Total Disability 

If an employee is unable to work at all, then he or she is considered totally disabled and eligible for the following compensation benefits: 

• if the employee is single, a monthly benefit equal to two-thirds of the employee’s 

pre-disability monthly wage; or 

• if the employee has at least one dependent, a monthly benefit equal to 75% of 

the employee’s pre-disability monthly wage. 

The compensation benefits paid for total disability are capped at 75% of the maximum basic pay at rate GS-15, are not subject to federal taxation, and are subject 

to an annual cost-of-living adjustment. Benefits are payable until it is determined 

that the employee is no longer totally disabled and may continue until the employee’s death. 

Death 

If an employee dies on the job or from a latent condition caused by his or her 

employment, the employee’s survivors are eligible for the following compensation 

benefits: 

• if the employee’s spouse has no children, then the spouse is eligible for a monthly benefit equal to 50% of the employee’s monthly wage at the time of death; 

• if the employee’s spouse has one or more children, then the spouse is eligible 

for a monthly benefit equal to 45% of the employee’s monthly wage at the time of 

death and each child is eligible for a monthly benefit equal to 15% of the employee’s 

monthly wage at the time of death, up to a maximum family benefit of 75% of the 

employee’s monthly wage at the time of death. 

Special rules apply in cases in which an employee dies without a spouse or children or with only children. 

If a spouse remarries before age 55, then he or she is entitled to a lump-sum payment equal to 24 months of benefits, after which all benefits cease. If a spouse remarries at age 55 or older, benefits continue for life. A child’s benefits end at age 

18, or age 23 if the child is still in school. A child’s benefits continue for life if the 

child is disabled and incapable of self-support. 

The compensation benefits paid for death are capped at 75% of the maximum 

basic pay at rate GS-15, are not subject to federal taxation, and are subject to an 

annual cost-of-living adjustment. 

Additional death benefits 

The personal representative of the deceased employee is entitled to reimbursement, up to $200, of any costs associated with terminating the deceased employee’s 

formal relationship with the federal government. The personal representative of the 

deceased employee is also entitled to a reimbursement of funeral costs up to $800 

and the federal government will pay any costs associated with shipping a body from 

the place of death to the employee’s home. An employee killed while working with 

the military in a contingency operation is also entitled to a special gratuity payment 

of up to $100,000 payable to his or her designated survivors. 

FECA Medical Benefits 

Under FECA, all medical costs, including medical devices, therapies and medications, associated with the treatment of a covered injury or illness are paid for, in 

full, by the federal government. A FECA beneficiary is not responsible for any coin-
17 

surance or any other costs associated with his or her medical treatment and does 

not have to use any personal insurance for any covered medical costs. Generally, 

a beneficiary may select his or her own medical provider and is reimbursed for the 

costs associated with transportation to receive medical services. 

A FECA beneficiary who is blind, paralyzed, or otherwise disabled such that he 

or she needs constant personal attendant care may receive an additional benefit of 

up to $1,500 per month. 

Vocational Rehabilitation 

The Secretary of Labor may direct any FECA beneficiary to participate in vocational rehabilitation, the costs of which are paid by the federal government. While 

participating in vocational rehabilitation, the beneficiary may receive an additional 

benefit of up to $200 per month. However, any beneficiary who is directed to participate in vocational rehabilitation and fails to do so may have his or her benefit reduced to a level consistent with the increased wage earning capacity that likely 

would have resulted from participation in vocational rehabilitation. 

ENDNOTES

1The first general workers’ compensation law in the United States was the Federal Employers’ Compensation Act, P.L. 16-176, enacted in 1908. This law will be discussed later in my testimony. New York passed a workers’ compensation law in 1910, but it was ruled unconstitutional 

by the state’s courts in 1911. In 1911, Wisconsin enacted a workers’ compensation law that is 

now generally considered to be the first such law in the United States. 2For a detailed discussion of these common-law defenses see Edward M. Welch, Employer’s 

Guide to Workers’ Compensation (Washington: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1994), pp. 30- 

31. 3 Employees are covered even if they are at fault in the accident. However, if the injury, illness, or death was caused by the willful misconduct of the employee or if the employee was 

under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident, then the injury, illness, or 

death may not be covered by workers’ compensation. 4 Edward D. Berkowitz, Disabled Policy: America’s Programs for the Handicapped (New York: 

Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 21-27. 5 National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws, The Report of the National 

Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws, Washington, DC, July 1972, Chapter 2. 6 Ishita Sengupta, Virginia Reno, and John F. Burton, Jr., Workers’ Compensation: Benefits 

Coverage, and Costs, 2008, National Academy of Social Insurance, Washington, DC, September 

2010, p. 8. 7 Employees travelling for the purposes of work, such as driving a delivery truck or attending 

a conference, are covered by workers’ compensation. 8 How workers’ compensation systems determine levels of partial disability benefits and specifically the use of the sixth edition of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Impairment, was the subject of a hearing before this subcommittee on November 17, 

2010 (U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections, Developments in State Workers’ Compensation Systems, hearing, 111th Cong., 2nd 

sess., November 17, 2010 (Washington: GPO, 2010)). 9This section of my testimony does not discuss minor, technical, or administrative amendments. 10 Act of May 4, 1882, ch. 117, 22 Stat. 55 (1882). In 1915 the United States Life Saving Service was merged with the Revenue Cutter Service to form the United States Coast Guard. 11Willis J. Nordlund, ‘‘The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act,’’ Monthly Labor Review, 

September 1991, p. 5, hereafter cited as Nordlund 1991. 12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Safety and 

Compensation, Amendments to Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, hearings on H.R. 1196 

and other bills to amend the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., February 10, 23, 24 and March 8, 23, 24, 1960 (Washington: GPO, 1960), p. 124. 13 Coverage for occupational illnesses was added to the FECA program in 1924 by P.L. 68- 

195. 14 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Compensation of Government Employees 

Suffering Injuries While on Duty, report to accompany H.R. 15316, 64th Cong., 2nd sess., May 

11, 1916, H. Rept. 64-678 (Washington: GPO, 1916), p. 7. 15 Ibid., p. 9. 16 Ibid., p. 8. 17 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Accident Compensation to Government 

Employees, hearing on S. 2846, 64th Cong., 1st sess., February 26, 1916 (Washington: GPO, 

1916), p. 27. 18 Ibid. 19 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Amendments to Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, report to accompany H.R. 3141, 81st Cong., 1st sess., June 6, 1949, H. 

Rept. 81-729 (Washington: GPO, 1949), p. 23, hereafter cited as H. Rept. 81-729; and U.S. Congress, Senate Labor and Public Welfare, Amendments to Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 

report to accompany H.R. 3141, 81st Cong., 1st sess., August 4, 1949, S. Rept. 81-836 (Washington: GPO, 1949), p. 29, hereafter cited as S. Rept. 81-836. 20 Nordlund 1991, p. 10. 21 H. Rept. 81-279, p. 11; and S. Rept. 81-836, p. 20. 
18 

22 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Special Subcommittee, Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1949, hearing on H.R. 3191 and companion bills, 

81st Cong., 1st sess., April 11-13 and May 2, 1949. 23 Ibid. 24 H. Rept. 81-279, p. 16; and S. Rept. 81-836, p. 24. 25 H. Rept. 81-279, p. 14; and S. Rept. 81-836, p. 23. 26 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1960, report to accompany H.R. 12383, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., June 2, 

1960, H. Rept. 86-1743 (Washington: GPO, 1960), p. 3; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee 

on Labor and Public Welfare, Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1960, report to accompany H.R. 12383, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., August 27, 1960, S. Rept. 86-1924 (Washington: GPO, 1960), p. 3. 27 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1966, report to accompany H.R. 10721, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 

June 16, 1966, S. Rept. 89-1285, p. 3. 28The current cost-of-living adjustment is based on changes in the Consumer Price Index (all 

items-United States city average). 29 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Federal Employees’ Compensation Act of 1970, report to accompany H.R. 13781, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., August 8, 1974, 

S. Rept. 93-1081 (Washington: GPO, 1974), pp. 3-4, hereafter cited as S. Rept. 93-1081; and U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Need for a Faster Way to Pay Compensation Claims to Disabled Federal Employees, B-157593, November 21, 1973, p. 1. 30S. Rept. 93-1081, p. 7. 31President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service, Embracing the Future: Making 

the Tough Choices to Preserve Universal Mail Service, Report of the President’s Commission 

on the United States Postal Service, July 31, 2003, p. 134. 32See for example: U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia, A Call to Arms: 

A Review of Benefits for Deployed Federal Employees, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., September 16, 2009; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia, Deployed Federal Civilians: Advancing Security and Opportunity 

in Afghanistan, hearing, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., April 14, 2010. 33 Certain groups, including federal jurors, Peace Corps volunteers, and Civil Air Patrol members, are not eligible for continuation of pay. 34The list of FECA scheduled benefits are provided in statute at 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c) and in 

regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 10.40(a). 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Szymendera, and thank 

you for the promptness. I appreciate that. 

I recognize Mr. Bertoni. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. BERTONI. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Woolsey, members of the subcommittee, good morning. 

I am pleased to discuss issues related to potential changes to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, or FECA, which provides 

critical wage loss compensation and other benefits to federal employees who are unable to work due to injuries sustained on the 

job. 

Concerns have been raised that federal employees on FECA receive benefits that can be more generous than under the traditional 

federal retirement system, and that the program may incentivize 

individuals to remain on the rolls well beyond retirement age. 

Over the past 30 years, there have bee numerous proposals to 

change FECA, and more recent options for revising the program for 

older beneficiaries are similar to those that we have discussed in 

prior work. 

My statement discusses stakeholder views surrounding previous 

proposals for change and policy questions and issues that still 

merit consideration today in crafting legislation to change benefits 

for older beneficiaries. 
19 

In 1996, we reported that a perception among many that older 

FECA beneficiaries were receiving overly generous benefits generated two proposals to change benefits once individuals reach retirement age. The first would convert FECA benefits to federal retirement benefits at age 65 with certain protections, such as making adjustments for regular pay increases over time. 

A bill recently introduced in the Congress includes a similar approach requiring FECA recipients to retire upon reaching social security retirement age. A second proposal we reviewed involved converting FECA wage loss benefits to an annuity and reducing benefits 2 years after a beneficiary reach civil service retirement age. 

More recently, the Department of Labor proposed a similar 

change that would reduce FECA benefits for retirement age recipients to 50 percent of their salary at the time of injury. In our past 

work, we have noted that proponents for change felt that reforms 

were necessary to control escalating costs and ensure benefit equity. 

Those in opposition were concerned that benefit reductions would 

cause economic hardships and reduce incentives for employers to 

manage claims or develop safer work environments. In soliciting 

views from various experts and stakeholders, we identified a number of issues that merit consideration in crafting legislation to 

change benefits for older FECA beneficiaries. 

And going forward, Congress may wish to consider the following 

questions as it assesses current reform proposals: First, how would 

benefits be computed? For some proposals, as in the annuity option, calculating this FECA benefit may be fairly simple. For others, consideration of more complex adjustments may be necessary 

to address expended time out of the workforce and other variables. 

Second, which FECA beneficiaries would be affected and should 

some workers be exempt under some proposals, such as those already on the rolls or those who are ineligible for federal retirement. 

Third, what criteria would initiate a benefit change? Would age or 

retirement eligibility alone trigger events, or would secondary criteria be needed such as a delayed transition period for those at or 

near retirement age at the time of enactment. 

And fourth, how would other benefits be treated, such as survivor and medical benefits under a reformed system? And lastly, 

the critical question of how will benefits be funded? Depending on 

the proposal, funding alternatives may be needed. 

In particular, we note in our 1996 report that if beneficiaries 

were converted to federal retirement, alternatives may be necessary. While the annuity option would likely remain funded under 

the traditional FECA charge back system. 

In conclusion, FECA continues to play a vital role in providing 

compensation to federal employees who are unable to work because 

of injuries sustained while performing their duties. Prior and current reform proposals continue to raise a number of important 

issues with implications for both beneficiaries and federal agencies 

responsible for administering the program. 

While not exhaustive, the analytical framework in questions 

posed in our prior work are still relevant today and can help all 

stakeholders and interested parties better understand program 
20 

complexities and key issues to consider as they move forward in assessing specific proposals for change. 

As you may know, we have recently begun a new review of the 

FECA program, which will include an analysis of the characteristics of the beneficiary population as well as how potential changes 

to the program could impact cost and benefits, and we look forward 

to working with Labor as we move forward with this analysis. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee 

may have. Thank you, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Bertoni follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Daniel Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and 

Income Security Issues, Government Accountability Office 

Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Woolsey and Members of the Committee: I 

am pleased to be here today to comment on issues related to possible changes to 

the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) program, a topic that we have 

reported on in the past. At the end of chargeback year 2010, the FECA program, 

administered by the Department of Labor (Labor) paid more than $1.88 billion in 

wage-loss compensation, impairment, and death benefits, and another $898.1 million for medical and rehabilitation services and supplies.1 Currently, FECA benefits 

are paid to federal employees who are unable to work because of injuries sustained 

while performing their federal duties, including those who are at or older than retirement age. Concerns have been raised that federal employees on FECA receive 

benefits that could be more generous than under the traditional federal retirement 

system and that the program may have unintended incentives for beneficiaries to 

remain on the FECA program beyond the traditional retirement age. Over the past 

30 years, there have been various proposals to change the FECA program to address 

this concern. Recent policy proposals to change the way FECA is administered for 

older beneficiaries share characteristics with past proposals we have discussed in 

prior work. In August 1996, we reported on the issues associated with changing benefits for older beneficiaries.2 Because FECA’s benefit structure has not been significantly amended in more than 35 years, the policy questions raised in our 1996 report are still relevant and important today. 

My statement today will focus on (1) previous proposals for changing FECA benefits for older beneficiaries and (2) questions and associated issues that merit consideration in crafting legislation to change benefits for older beneficiaries. This statement is drawn primarily from our 1996 report in which we solicited views from selected federal agencies and employee groups to identify questions and associated 

issues with crafting benefit changes. In that report, we also reviewed relevant laws 

and analyzed previous studies and legislative proposals that would have changed 

benefits for older FECA beneficiaries. For purposes of this testimony, we did not 

conduct a legal analysis to update the results of our prior work, but instead relied 

upon secondary sources such as the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The 

work on which this testimony was based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

In summary, we have reported that the perception that many retirement-age 

beneficiaries were receiving more generous benefits on FECA had generated two alternative proposals to change benefits once beneficiaries reach the age at which retirement typically occurs: (1) converting FECA benefits to retirement benefits and, 

(2) changing FECA wage-loss benefits by establishing a new FECA annuity. We also 

discussed a number of issues to be considered in crafting legislation to change benefits for older beneficiaries. Going forward, Congress may wish to consider the following questions in assessing current proposals for change: (1) How would benefits 

be computed? (2) Which beneficiaries would be affected? (3) What criteria, such as 

age or retirement eligibility, would initiate changed benefits? (4) How would other 

benefits, such as FECA medical and survivor benefits, be treated and administered? 

(5) How would benefits, particularly retirement benefits, be funded? 
21 

Background: FECA 

FECA is administered by Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP) and currently covers more than 2.7 million civilian federal employees from 

more than 70 different agencies. FECA benefits are paid to federal employees who 

are unable to work because of injuries sustained while performing their federal duties. Under FECA, workers’ compensation benefits are authorized for employees who 

suffer temporary or permanent disabilities resulting from work-related injuries or 

diseases. FECA benefits include payments for (1) loss of wages when employees cannot work because of work-related disabilities due to traumatic injuries or occupational diseases; (2) schedule awards for loss of, or loss of use of, a body part or function; (3) vocational rehabilitation; (4) death benefits for survivors; (5) burial allowances; and (6) medical care for injured workers. Wage-loss benefits for eligible workers with temporary or permanent total disabilities are generally equal to either 662⁄3

percent of salary for a worker with no spouse or dependent, or 75 percent of salary 

for a worker with a spouse or dependent. Wage-loss benefits can be reduced based 

on employees’ wage-earning capacities when they are capable of working again. 

OWCP provides wage-loss compensation until claimants can return to work in either 

their original positions or other suitable positions that meet medical work restrictions.3 Each year, most federal agencies reimburse OWCP for wage-loss compensation payments made to their employees from their annual appropriations. If claimants return to work but do not receive wages equal to that of their prior positions— 

such as claimants who return to work part-time—FECA benefits cover the difference between their current and previous salaries.4 Currently, there are no time 

or age limits placed on the receipt of FECA benefits. 

With the passage of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act of 1916, members 

of Congress raised concerns about levels of benefits and potential costs of establishing a program for injured federal employees.5 As Congress debated the act’s provisions in 1916 and again in 1923, some congressional members were concerned that 

a broad interpretation threatened to make the workers’ compensation program, in 

effect, a general pension. The 1916 act granted benefits to federal workers for workrelated injuries. These benefits were not necessarily granted for a lifetime; they 

could be suspended or terminated under certain conditions. Nevertheless, the act 

placed no age or time limitations on injured workers’ receipt of wage compensation. 

The act did contain a provision allowing benefits to be reduced for older beneficiaries. The provision stated that compensation benefits could be adjusted when 

the wage-earning capacity of the disabled employee would probably have decreased 

on account of old age, irrespective of the injury. 

While the 1916 act did not specify the age at which compensation benefits could 

be reduced, the 1949 FECA amendments established 70 as the age at which a review could occur to determine if a reduction were warranted.6 In 1974, Congress 

again eliminated the age provision.7

Federal Retirement Systems 

Typically, federal workers participate in one of two retirement systems which are 

administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM): the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), or the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). 

Most civilian federal employees who were hired before 1984 are covered by CSRS. 

Under CSRS, employees generally do not pay Social Security taxes or earn Social 

Security benefits. Federal employees first hired in 1984 or later are covered by 

FERS. All federal employees who are enrolled in FERS pay Social Security taxes 

and earn Social Security benefits. Federal employees enrolled in either CSRS or 

FERS also may contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP); however, only employees enrolled in FERS are eligible for employer matching contributions to the TSP. 

Under both CSRS and FERS, the date of an employee’s eligibility to retire with 

an annuity depends on his or her age and years of service. The amount of the retirement annuity is determined by three factors: the number of years of service, the accrual rate at which benefits are earned for each year of service, and the salary base 

to which the accrual rate is applied.8 In both CSRS and FERS, the salary base is 

the average of the highest three consecutive years of basic pay. This is often called 

‘‘high-3’’ pay. 

According to CRS, an injured employee cannot contribute to Social Security or to 

the TSP while receiving workers’ compensation because Social Security taxes and 

TSP contributions must be paid from earnings, and workers’ compensation payments are not classified as earnings under either the Social Security Act or the Internal Revenue Code. As a result, the employee’s future retirement income from Social Security and the TSP may be reduced. Legislation passed in 2003 increased the 

FERS basic annuity from 1 percent of the individual’s high-3 average pay to 2 percent of high-3 average pay while an individual receives workers’ compensation, 
22 

which would help replace income that may have been lost from lower Social Security 

benefits and reduced income from TSP.9

Proposals to Change Benefits for Older Beneficiaries 

Concerns that beneficiaries remain in the FECA program past retirement age 

have led to several proposals to change the program. Under current rules, an ageeligible employee with 30 years of service covered by FERS could accrue pension 

benefits that are 30 percent of their average high-3 pay and under CSRS could accrue almost 60 percent of their high-3 average pay. Under both systems benefits can 

be taxed. 10 FECA beneficiaries can receive up to 75 percent of their preinjury income, tax-free, if they have dependents and 662⁄3 percent without dependents. Because returning to work could mean giving up a FECA benefit for a reduced pension 

amount, concerns have been raised by some that the program may provide incentives for beneficiaries to continue on the program beyond retirement age. 

In 1996, we reported on two alternative proposals to change FECA benefits once 

beneficiaries reach the age at which retirement typically occurs: (1) converting 

FECA benefits to retirement benefits, and (2) changing FECA wage-loss benefits to 

a newly established FECA annuity. 

The first proposal would convert FECA benefits for workers who are injured or 

become ill to regular federal employee retirement benefits at retirement age. In 

1981, the Reagan administration proposed comprehensive FECA reform, including 

a provision to convert FECA benefits to retirement benefits at age 65. The proposal 

included certain employee protections, one of which was calculating retirement benefits on the basis of the employee’s pay at time of injury (with adjustments for regular federal pay increases). According to proponents, this change would improve 

agencies’ operations because their discretionary budgets would be decreased by 

FECA costs, and, by reducing caseload, it would allow Labor to better manage new 

and existing cases for younger injured workers. A bill recently introduced in Congress includes a similar provision, requiring FECA recipients to retire upon reaching retirement age as defined by the Social Security Act.11

The second proposal, based on proposals that several agencies developed in the 

early 1990s, would convert FECA wage-loss compensation benefits to a FECA annuity benefit. These agency proposals would have reduced FECA benefits by a set percentage two years after beneficiaries reached civil service retirement eligibility. Proponents of this alternative noted that changing to a FECA annuity would be simpler 

than converting FECA beneficiaries to the retirement system, would result in consistent benefits, and would allow benefits to remain tax-free. Proponents also argued 

that a FECA annuity would keep the changed benefit within the FECA program, 

thereby avoiding complexities associated with converting FECA benefits under 

CSRS and FERS. For example, converting to retirement benefits could be difficult 

for some employees who currently are not participating in a federal retirement plan. 

Also, funding future retirement benefits could be a problem if the FECA recipient 

has not been making retirement contributions. Labor recently suggested a change 

to the FECA program that would reduce wage-loss benefits for Social Security retirement-aged recipients to 50 percent of their gross salary at the date of injury, but 

would still be tax-free. 12 Labor’s proposal would still keep the changed benefit within the FECA program. 

In our 1996 report, however, we identified a number of issues with both alternative proposals. For example, some experts and other stakeholders we interviewed 

noted that age discrimination posed a possible legal challenge and that some provisions in the law would need to be addressed with new statutory language.13 Others 

noted that benefit reductions would cause economic hardships for older beneficiaries. Some noted that without the protections of the workers’ compensation program, injured employees who have few years of service or are ineligible for retirement might suffer large reductions in benefits. Moreover, opponents to change also 

viewed reduced benefits as breaking the workers’ compensation promise. Another 

concern was that agencies’ anticipation of reduced costs for workers’ compensation 

could result in fewer incentives to manage claims or to develop safer working environments. 

Questions and Issues to Consider if Crafting FECA Changes 

We also discussed in our 1996 report a number of issues that merit consideration 

in crafting legislation to change benefits for older beneficiaries. Going forward, Congress may wish to consider the following questions as it assesses and considers current reform proposals: (1) How would benefits be computed? (2) Which beneficiaries 

would be affected? (3) What criteria, such as age or retirement eligibility, would initiate changed benefits? (4) How would other benefits, such as FECA medical and 
23 

survivor benefits, be treated and administered? (5) How would benefits, particularly 

retirement benefits, be funded? 

How Would Benefits Be Computed? 

The retirement conversion alternative raises complex issues, arising in part from 

the fact that conversion could result in varying retirement benefits, depending on 

conversion provisions, retirement systems, and individual circumstances. A key 

issue is whether or not benefits would be adjusted. The unadjusted option would 

allow for retirement benefits as provided by current law. The adjusted option would 

typically ensure that time on the FECA rolls was treated as if the beneficiary had 

continued to work. This adjustment could (1) credit time on FECA for years of service or (2) increase the salary base (for example, increasing salary from the time of 

injury by either an index of wage increases or inflation, assigning the current pay 

of the position, or providing for merit increases and possible promotions missed due 

to the injury). 

Determining the FECA annuity would require deciding what percentage of FECA 

benefits the annuity would represent. Under previous proposals benefits would be 

two-thirds of the previous FECA compensation benefits. Provisions to adjust calculations for certain categories of beneficiaries also have been proposed. Under previous 

proposals, partially disabled individuals receiving reduced compensation would receive the lesser of the FECA annuity or the current reduced benefit. FECA annuity 

computations could also be devised to achieve certain benchmarks. For example, the 

formula for a FECA annuity could be designed to approximate a taxable retirement 

annuity. One issue concerning a FECA annuity is whether it would be permanent 

once set, or whether it would be subject to adjustments based on continuing OWCP 

reviews of the beneficiary’s workers’ compensation claim. 

Which Beneficiaries Would Be Affected? 

Currently most federal employees are covered by FERS, but conversion proposals 

might have to consider differences between FERS and CSRS participants, and participants in any specialized retirement systems. 14 Other groups that might be 

uniquely affected include injured workers who are not eligible for federal retirement 

benefits, individuals eligible for retirement conversion benefits, but not vested; and 

individuals who are partially disabled FECA recipients but active federal employees. 

With regard to vesting, those who have insufficient years of service to be vested 

might be given credit for time on the FECA rolls until vested. There is also the 

question of whether changes will focus on current or future beneficiaries. Exempting 

current beneficiaries delays receipt of full savings from FECA cost reductions to the 

future. One option might be a transition period for current beneficiaries. For example, current beneficiaries could be given notice that their benefits would be changed 

after a certain number of years. 

What Criteria Would Initiate Changed Benefits? 

Past proposals have used either age or retirement eligibility as the primary criterion for changing benefits. If retirement eligibility is used, consideration must be 

given to establishing eligibility for those who might otherwise not become retirement eligible. This would be true for either the retirement conversion or the annuity 

option. At least for purposes of initiating the changed benefit, time on the FECA 

rolls might be treated as if it counted for service time toward retirement eligibility. 

Deciding on the criteria that would initiate change in benefits might require developing benchmarks. For example, if age were the criteria, it might be benchmarked 

against the average age of retirement for federal employees, or the average age of 

retirement for all employees. Another question is whether to use secondary criteria 

to delay changed benefits in certain cases. The amount of time one has received 

FECA benefits is one possible example of secondary criteria. Secondary criteria 

might prove important in cases where an older, injured worker may face retirement 

under the retirement conversion option even when recovery and return to work is 

almost assured. 

How Would Other Benefits, Such As FECA Medical Benefits Or Survivor Benefits, Be Treated and Administered? 

In addition to changing FECA compensation benefits, consideration should be 

given to whether to change other FECA benefits, such as medical benefits or survivor benefits. For example, the 1981 Reagan administration proposal would have 

ended survivor benefits under FECA for those beneficiaries whose benefits were converted to the retirement system. Another issue to consider is who will administer 

benefits if program changes shift responsibilities—OPM administers retirement annuity benefits for federal employees, and Labor currently administers FECA benefits. Although it may be advantageous to consolidate case management in one agen-
24 

cy, such as OPM, if the retirement conversion alternative were selected, the agency 

chosen to manage the case might have to develop an expertise that it does not currently possess. For example, OPM might have to develop expertise in medical fee 

schedules to control workers’ compensation medical costs. 

How Would Benefits, Particularly Retirement Benefits, Be Funded? 

For the retirement conversion alternative, another issue is the funding of any retirement benefit shortfall. Currently, agencies and individuals do not make retirement contributions if an individual receives FECA benefits; thus, if retirement benefits exceed those for which contributions have been made, retirement funding shortfalls would occur. Retirement fund shortfalls can be funded through payments made 

by agencies at the time of conversion or prior to conversion. First, lump-sum payment could be made by agencies at the time of the conversion. This option has been 

criticized because the start-up cost was considered too high. Second, shortfalls could 

be covered on a pay-as-you-go basis after conversion. In this approach, agencies 

might make annual payments to cover the shortfall resulting from the conversions. 

Third, agencies’ and employees’ contributions to the retirement fund could continue 

before conversion, preventing shortfalls at conversion. Proposals for the FECA annuity alternative typically keep funding under the current FECA chargeback system. 

This is an annual pay-as-you-go system with agencies paying for the previous year’s 

FECA costs. 

In total, these five questions provide a framework for considering proposals to 

change the program. 

Concluding Remarks 

In conclusion, FECA continues to play a vital role in providing compensation to 

federal employees who are unable to work because of injuries sustained while performing their duties. However, continued concerns that the program provides incentives for beneficiaries to remain on the program at, and beyond, retirement age have 

led to calls for the program to be reformed. Although FECA’s basic structure has 

not significantly been amended for many years, there continues to be interest in reforming the program. Proposals to change benefits for older beneficiaries raise a 

number of important issues, with implications for both beneficiaries and federal 

agencies. These implications warrant careful attention to outcomes that could result 

from any changes. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the committee may have at 

this time. 

ENDNOTES

1FECA benefits are paid out of the Employees’ Compensation Fund and most are charged 

back to the employee’s agency. Labor’s chargeback year for FECA agency billing purposes ends 

June 30, 2010. 2GAO, Federal Employees’ Compensation Act: Issues Associated With Changing Benefits for 

Older Beneficiaries, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-96-138BR (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 14, 1996). 3 Employees eligible for FECA benefits could also be eligible for retirement disability benefits 

from the Office of Personnel Management or Social Security Disability Insurance benefits from 

the Social Security Administration. Depending on which benefits employees are entitled to, employees might have to make an election between them. In many cases in which individuals receive benefits from different programs simultaneously, one benefit would likely be offset against 

the other. 4The maximum monthly FECA compensation payment cannot exceed 75 percent of the basic monthly pay for a GS-15, step 10 employee ($129, 517 per year as of Jan. 2, 2011). In general, 

OWCP continues to pay claimants the difference between their current salary and the salary 

they were earning at the time of their injury for as long as this difference exists and their medical work restrictions remains the same. (FECA benefits are indexed to the cost of living.) 

OWCP would not continue to pay this difference for claimants who quit their job without good 

cause (for example, if they quit because they did not like their work hours). 5 39 Stat. 742. 

6 63 Stat. 854. 

7Public Law No. 93-416. 88 Stat. 1143. According to Senate Report 93-1081, the Committee 

on Labor and Public Welfare stated that (1) the provision requiring the review of compensation 

was an unnecessary burden on both the injured employees and the Secretary of Labor (who had 

the authority to conduct the review); (2) age 70 had no bearing on one’s entitlement to benefits; 

and (3) such a provision was discriminatory. FECA currently does not include a provision to 

change benefits based on retirement age. 8 Under CSRS, a worker with at least 30 years of service can retire at the age of 55; a worker 

with at least 20 years of service can retire at the age of 60; and a worker with 5 or more years 

of service can retire at the age of 62. The FERS minimum retirement age for an employee with 

30 or more years of service is 55 for workers born before 1948. A worker who has reached the 

minimum retirement age and has completed at least 30 years of service can retire with an im-
25 

mediate, unreduced annuity. A worker with 20 or more years of service can retire with an unreduced annuity at age 60, and a worker with at least 5 years of service can retire at age 62 with 

an unreduced annuity. 9Pub. L. No. 108-92, 117 Stat. 1160 (2003). 

10The replacement rate for a federal worker who retires with 30 years of service under CSRS 

is 56.25 percent. FERS accrual rates are lower than the accrual rates under CSRS because employees under FERS pay Social Security payroll taxes and earn Social Security retirement benefits. Estimating replacement rates under FERS is complicated by the fact that income from two 

of its components—Social Security and the TSP—will vary depending on the individual’s work 

history, contributions to the TSP, and the investment performance of his or her TSP account. 11Federal Employees’ Compensation Reform Act of 2011, S. 261, 112TH Cong. (2011). 12 According to CRS, an injured employee cannot contribute to Social Security or to the TSP 

while receiving workers’ compensation because Social Security taxes and TSP contributions 

must be paid from earnings, and workers’ compensation payments are not classified as earnings 

under either the Social Security Act or the Internal Revenue Code. 13Some argued that changing benefits for older beneficiaries violates protections against age 

discrimination contained in federal law by forcing them into accepting retirement benefits or a 

reduced annuity at a certain age. 14One conversion decision concerns whether to exempt injured workers who are ineligible for 

federal retirement benefits. Ineligible workers include, for instance, those without 5 years of federal service under CSRS, those who have withdrawn retirement contributions, temporary workers, and state and local police covered under special FECA provisions. 

Chairman WALBERG. Mr. Bertoni, thank you. 

Now I recognize Mr. Steinberg for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GARY A. STEINBERG, ACTING DIRECTOR OF 

THE OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mr. STEINBERG. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Woolsey, and committee members. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act today. On behalf of Secretary Solis, I would like 

to share a set of balanced proposals that would enhance our ability 

to assist beneficiaries to return to work, provide a more equitable 

array of benefits, and generally modernize the program. 

Almost 95 years ago, Congress enacted FECA to provide workers’ 

compensation coverage to all federal employees and their survivors 

for disabilities or death due to work-related injuries or illnesses. 

The faces of FECA include the postal worker who is hurt when 

his truck is hit while delivering the mail; the FBI agent who is 

killed or injured in the line of duty; and the VA nurse who hurts 

her back while lifting a patient. 

DOL’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs works hard to 

administer the program fairly, objectively and efficiently. We seek 

to continuously improve the quality and service delivery to our customers, enhance internal and external communication, and reduce 

costs to the taxpayer. 

We have made major strides in disability management that have 

resulted in significant reduction in the average number of days lost 

from the most serious injuries. Over the last 10 years, the average 

number of days lost due to serious injuries has declined 20 percent, 

producing an annual savings of $53 million. 

Our administrative costs are only 5 percent of total program 

costs, far below the average of all state self-insurance programs, 

which is over 11 percent. To further improve FECA, we have made 

comprehensive recommendations to Congress, and I wish to highlight some of the major recommendations now. 

To help injured employees return to work, we request authority 

to start vocational rehabilitation activities without waiting until an 
26 

injury is deemed permanent in nature. We seek a mandate to develop a return to work plan with the claimants early in the rehabilitation process and the authority to deploy an assisted re-employment program with the federal agencies similar to the program 

that we have successfully implemented with the private sector. 

The proposed changes will also have a positive impact on the 

government’s ability to achieve the president’s executive order on 

hiring individuals with disabilities, which we believe is extremely 

important. 

We also suggest changes to the benefit structure. For example, 

the payment of schedule awards for loss or loss of the use of a limb, 

one’s sight, one’s hearing, is often very complicated and that is 

often delayed. Although not intended to replace economic loss, payments are based on the individual salary. 

So a letter carrier’s knee injury is compensated at less than half 

the rate of her GS-15 manager with the same injury. We think 

these awards should be paid by DOL concurrently with wage loss 

compensation, made more rapidly, and to be fair, they should be 

calculated at a uniform level for all employees. 

We also propose increases to the benefit levels for burial expenses and for facial disfigurement. Under current law, the majority of injured workers receive wage replacement at 75 percent of 

their salary, tax free and COLA. This rate is higher than the takehome pay for many federal workers and can serve as an obstacle 

to the department’s effort to encourage every worker to make the 

hard and sometimes painful effort to overcome their injuries and 

go back to work. 

We, therefore, recommending shifting the benefit for the majority 

of claimants to 70 percent rather than 75 percent. To provide equity for other federal employees, we also recommend establishing 

a lower conversion rate for beneficiaries beyond retirement age, 

which would more closely mirror OPM’s retirement rates. 

Both of these changes we propose as prospective in nature. In addition, elements of the statute need to be simplified to enable us 

to further reduce processing time. For example, the current statute 

increases the compensation rate for anyone with a dependent from 

the standard 66 and two-thirds wage loss rate to 75 percent. Paying all non-retirement age beneficiaries at 70 percent would simplify the process by eliminating the continuing need to obtain and 

validate documentation regarding dependent eligibility. 

A single rate would be simpler, more equitable, and would 

produce a significant savings to the taxpayer. This change alone 

would yield a 10-year savings of over $500 million. My testimony 

also outlines other important provisions that would streamline and 

improve the program. 

In summary, while FECA is a model workers’ compensation system and 95 years old, it has limitations that need to be addressed. 

The reforms that we suggest today, they are not new. They have 

been proposed by both the current and previous administrations. 

They are careful. They are balanced. We believe that they are reflective of good government, and they will help bring the program 

into the 21st century. 
27 

Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you today to 

discuss FECA reform, and I will be pleased to answer any questions as we continue on. 

[The statement of Mr. Steinberg follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Gary Steinberg, Acting Director, 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor 

Chairman Tim Walberg, Ranking Member Lynn Woolsey, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: My name is Gary Steinberg, and I am the Acting Director of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

OWCP administers a number of workers’ compensation programs, including the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), which covers 2.7 million Federal and 

Postal workers and is one of the largest self-insured workers’ compensation systems 

in the world. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss legislative reforms to FECA that would enhance our ability to assist FECA beneficiaries to return to work, provide a more equitable array of FECA benefits, and generally modernize the program and update 

the statute. Almost 95 years ago, on September 7, 1916, Congress enacted FECA 

to provide comprehensive Federal workers’ compensation coverage to all Federal employees and their survivors for disability or death due to an employment injury or 

illness. FECA’s fundamental purpose is to provide compensation for wage loss and 

medical care, facilitate return to work for employees who have recovered from their 

injuries, and pay benefits to survivors. The faces of FECA include the Postal worker 

whose mail truck is hit while delivering mail, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) agent injured or killed in the line of duty, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs 

nurse who hurts her back while lifting patients, and the Federal employee injured 

in the recovery efforts in Japan. All of these employees will receive benefits provided 

by this Act. 

Since FECA has not been significantly amended in over 35 years, there are areas 

where the statute could be improved. Thus we have developed a number of proposals to reform and maintain FECA as the model workers’ compensation program 

for the twenty-first century. In the 2012 Budget we estimated 10-year savings of 

around $400 million, but we think the potential savings are likely higher. After 

briefly discussing the current status of the FECA program, I am pleased to outline 

possible changes to the statute for consideration. 

Many of the proposals are based on the results of studies by the program, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Inspectors General, as well as discussions with stakeholder organizations over the past 20 years. Recently, we have 

shared these proposed changes with staff of this and other Congressional committees and various outside parties such as representatives of Federal employee unions 

and members of the disability community. 

FECA Today 

Benefits under the FECA are payable for both traumatic injuries (injuries sustained during the course of a single work shift) and occupational disease due to sustained injurious exposure in the workplace. If OWCP’s review of the evidence determines that a covered employee has sustained a work-related medical condition, the 

FECA program provides a wide variety of benefits including payment for all reasonable and necessary medical treatment; compensation to the injured worker to replace partial or total lost wages (paid at two-thirds of the employees’ salary or at 

three-fourths if there is at least one dependent); a monetary award in cases of permanent impairment of limbs or other parts of the body; medical and vocational rehabilitation assistance in returning to work as necessary; and benefits to survivors 

in the event of a work related death. 

FECA benefits are based upon an employee’s inability to earn pre-injury wages 

with no time limit on wage loss benefit duration as long as the work-related condition or disability continues; the amount of compensation is based upon the employee’s salary up to a maximum of GS-15 Step 10. More than 70% of FECA claimants 

are paid at the augmented (three-fourths) level. As workers’ compensation benefits, 

they are tax free; long-term benefits are escalated for inflation after the first year 

of receipt. 

FECA is a non adversarial system administered by OWCP. While employing agencies play a significant role in providing information to OWCP and assisting their 

employees in returning to work, the adjudication of FECA claims is exclusively 

within the discretion given to the Secretary of Labor by statute and is statutorily 

exempt from court review. Claimants are provided avenues of review within OWCP 
28 

through reconsideration and hearing as well as an appellate forum, the Employees’ 

Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB), a quasi-judicial appellate board within the 

DOL, completely independent of OWCP. 

FECA benefits are paid out of the Employees’ Compensation Fund and most are 

charged back to the employee’s agency. During the 2010 chargeback year, which 

ended on June 30, 2010, the Fund paid more than $1.88 billion in wage-loss compensation, impairment, and death benefits and another $898.1 million to cover medical and rehabilitation services and supplies. (These totals include outlays for nonchargeable costs for war risk hazards that total $86.2 million, primarily for overseas 

Federal contractor coverage under the War Hazards Compensation Act (WHCA). 

Benefits paid have remained relatively stable at these levels for the past 10 years, 

with the exception of war risk hazard payments. In addition, the administrative 

costs to manage the program have consistently averaged a very modest 5% of total 

outlays. 

Although the program is almost 95 years old, OWCP’s administration of FECA 

is by no means antiquated. All new claims are electronically imaged into a sophisticated paperless claims management system. Video and teleconferencing options are 

available to claimants to expedite the OWCP appeals process. Electronic Data Interchange capabilities are utilized by many of the program’s agency partners. A secure, 

web-based electronic document-filing portal is currently under development; this 

new access will be deployed later this year and for the first time will be available 

to all system stakeholders, including injured workers and their physicians. This new 

tool will further reduce reliance on paper documents and shrink data input and imaging costs while speeding claim processing and reducing administrative costs. 

Maintaining Program Integrity 

OWCP actively manages the FECA program so that benefits are properly paid. 

After a case is accepted as covered, OWCP monitors medical treatment for consistency with the accepted condition—if more than a very brief disability is involved, 

OWCP often assigns a nurse as part of our early nurse intervention program to assist with the worker’s recovery and facilitate the return-to-work effort. If disability 

is long-term, but the claimant can work in some capacity, a vocational rehabilitation 

counselor may be assigned to the case. 

Once a claim is accepted for ongoing, periodic payments, injured workers are required to submit medical evidence to substantiate continued disability (either annually or on a two or three year schedule for those less likely to regain the ability to 

work). Injured workers must cooperate with OWCP-directed medical examinations 

and vocational rehabilitation, accept suitable employment if offered and annually report earnings and employment (including volunteer work) as well as the status of 

their dependents and any other government benefits. OWCP claims staff carefully 

review these submissions and can require claimants to be examined by outside medical physicians to resolve questions on the extent of disability or appropriateness of 

medical treatment such as surgery. OWCP also conducts monthly computer matches 

with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to identify FECA claimants who have 

died so that payments can be terminated to avoid overpayments. 

In addition, OWCP has conducted program evaluation studies to identify areas for 

process and policy improvements. I noted earlier some of our case processing improvements. Based on the resulting recommendations and our claims experience, we 

have also improved how the program approaches disability management and return 

to work. The program’s early nurse intervention and quality case management initiatives are particularly noteworthy as the program evolves to reflect a renewed 

focus on return to work We have partnered with the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) and our federal agencies to improve timely filing of 

claims and reduce lost production days. As result of these efforts, the average number of days lost as a result of the most serious injuries each year has declined from 

195 days in 1996 to 156 in 2010. By speeding the average time to return to work 

in these cases, OWCP saves the government millions of dollars just in the first year 

of the injury; this also helps to avoid long term disability that can last for years 

thereafter. 

A History of Performance 

Under most circumstances FECA claims are submitted by employees to their employing agency, which completes the agency information required on the form and 

forwards the claim to OWCP. Over the past 5 years, an average of 133,000 new injury and illness claims were filed annually and processed by OWCP. The acceptance 

rate for new injury claims was 85%. Eighty-four percent (84%) were submitted within program timeliness standards of 10 working days and approximately 95% were 

processed by OWCP within program timeliness standards which vary depending on 
29 

the complexity of the injury. Fewer than 15,000 of the accepted claims per year involve a significant period of disability. Eighty-five percent (85%) of claimants return 

to work within the first year of injury and a total of 89% return to work by the 

end of the second year. Due in part to OWCP’s efforts to return injured employees 

to work, less than 2% of all new injury cases remain on the long-term compensation 

rolls two years after the date of injury. Currently, approximately 45,000 injured 

workers have long term ongoing disability benefits for partial or total wage loss, 

which they receive every 4 weeks. Some 15,000 are 66 years of age or older. (It 

should be noted however, that of this 15,000, over 7,000 have been determined to 

have no return-to-work potential, largely because of the substantial nature of their 

disability.) 

FECA Reform 

As I have discussed, OWCP has made significant administrative and technical 

changes to improve the administration of FECA. These changes were legally permissible within the existing statutory framework and had a demonstrable effect in advancing our progress. The current FECA reform proposal embodies certain reforms 

that can only be gained through statutory amendment that transforms FECA into 

a model twenty-first century workers’ compensation program, increasing equity and 

efficiency while reducing costs. These amendments fall within three categories: 

• Return to Work and Rehabilitation 

• Updating Benefit Structures 

• Modernizing and Improving FECA 

Return to Work and Rehabilitation 

The proposal that we have crafted for consideration would provide OWCP with 

enhanced opportunities to facilitate rehabilitation and return-to-work while simultaneously addressing several disincentives that may impact timely return to work by 

applying a new set of benefit rates prospectively to new injuries and new claims for 

disability occurring after enactment of the FECA amendments. 

We propose additional statutory tools that would enhance OWCP’s ability to return injured workers to productive employment. While FECA currently has the authority to provide vocational rehabilitation services and to direct permanently injured employees to participate in vocational rehabilitation, we suggest removing the 

permanency limitation in the statute to make clear that such services are available 

to all injured workers and that participation in such an effort is required. It is generally accepted and consistent with our experience that the earlier the claimant is 

involved in a vocational rehabilitation and a Return-to-Work program, the greater 

likelihood of a successful and sustained return to work post injury. 

The proposal would amend FECA to explicitly allow for vocational rehabilitation, 

where appropriate, as early as six months after injury. It provides OWCP the authority to require injured claimants unable to return to work within six months of 

their injury to participate with OWCP in creating a Return—to-Work Plan where 

appropriate. The Return-to-Work Plan would generally be implemented within a 

two-year period. This provision would send a strong signal to all Federal workers, 

whether injured or not, that the Federal government as a model employer is committed to doing everything it can to return employees to work as early as possible. 

Our proposal would also amend FECA to provide permanent authority for what 

we call Assisted Reemployment. Assisted Reemployment is a subsidy designed to encourage employers to choose qualified rehabilitated workers whom they might otherwise not hire. As disabled Federal workers with skills transferable to jobs within 

the general labor market may prove difficult to place due to economic factors, Assisted Reemployment is designed to increase the number of disabled employees who 

successfully return to the labor force by providing wage reimbursement to potential 

employers. Recent DOL appropriations bills gave OWCP the authority to provide up 

to three years of salary reimbursement to private employers who provide suitable 

employment for injured federal workers. Our data from our currently limited private 

sector program shows that when we enter into an Assisted Reemployment agreement with a private employer, the employee is permanently hired by that employer 

at or beyond the 3 year period over 55% of the time. Of the employees not working 

for the same employer, approximately half are working with other employers. Because most Federal employees desire continued employment with the Federal government, our proposal to expand this program to the Federal sector would significantly increase its appeal and effectiveness. We are working closely with OPM and 

our partner agencies to actively seek re-employment opportunities for Federal workers who become disabled as a result of work related injuries or illnesses. These provisions would assist with that effort and comport with and support the President’s 

Executive Order 13548 to increase hiring of individuals with disability in the Fed-
30 

eral government. Under this proposal, OWCP would reimburse in part the salaries 

paid by Federal agencies that hire workers with work-related injuries. 

Return to work following an injury is often a difficult, painful process, requiring 

physical, mental and emotional adjustments and accommodations. If a workers’ compensation system contains disincentives to return to work, that difficult transition 

back to work will occur more slowly, or in some cases, not at all. Where the medical 

evidence of ability to work is ambiguous and returning to work would require an 

employee to overcome actual physical limitations, these disincentives will exact a 

high price. That high price means a more costly program, lost productivity to the 

employing agency, and, for the workers themselves, disrupted lives and diminished 

self-esteem. 

As currently structured, FECA creates direct disincentives to return-to-work in 

two significant ways. The first and most far-reaching is that while the basic rate 

of FECA compensation, 662⁄3%, is comparable to most state systems, many Federal 

employees receive an augmented benefit, 75%, if they have at least one dependent. 

Computed at 75% tax free, FECA benefits often exceed the employee’s pre-injury 

take home pay. Few state systems provide any augmentation for dependents, and 

none approaches the Federal level. 

Since the 75% compensation rate can result in benefits greater than the injured 

worker’s usual take home pay, we also suggest amending FECA to provide that all 

claimants receive compensation at one uniform level of 70%. This compensation adjustment would remove disincentive to return to work, respond to equity concerns, 

and significantly simplify administration by greatly reducing documentation requirements for claimants and eliminating potential overpayments that can occur 

due to changes in dependency status. At this level compensation would remain quite 

adequate. A similar rate reduction is also proposed in death claims. 

A second significant disincentive to return to work is created by the disparity that 

exists between the level of retirement benefits, provided by the OPM, received by 

most Federal employees and the level of long-term FECA benefits for retirement age 

FECA recipients. Under current law, the thousands of long-term FECA beneficiaries 

who are over normal retirement age have a choice between Federal retirement system benefits and FECA benefits, but they overwhelmingly elect the latter because 

FECA benefits are typically far more generous. OPM informs us that the average 

Federal employee retiring optionally on an immediate annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System will receive about 60% of their ‘‘high-three’’ average salary, 

most of which is taxable, compared to a tax free 75% or 66.66% FECA benefit. The 

newer Federal Employees’ Retirement System is designed to provide a comparable 

level of retirement replacement income from the three parts of its structure. Because returning to work could mean giving up a FECA benefit in favor of a lower 

OPM pension amount at eventual retirement, injured workers may have an incentive to consciously or unconsciously resist rehabilitation and instead, in certain 

cases, may cling to the self-perception of being ‘‘permanently disabled.’’ In any 

event, the considerable difference between FECA benefits and OPM retirement benefits results in certain FECA claimants receiving far more compensation in their 

post retirement years than if they had completed their Federal careers and received 

normal retirement benefits like their colleagues. This disparity also suggests that 

a statutory remedy is needed. 

This proposal provides claimants with a ‘‘Conversion Entitlement Benefit’’ upon 

reaching regular Social Security retirement age (and after receiving full benefits for 

at least one year) that would reduce their wage-loss benefits to 50% of their gross 

salary at date of injury (with cost of living adjustments), but would still be tax free. 

This benefit more closely parallels a regular retirement benefit, as opposed to a full 

wage-loss benefit, so that FECA recipients are not overly advantaged in their retirement years compared to their non-injured counterparts on OPM retirement. An injured worker receiving this retirement level conversion benefit would no longer be 

subject to several of the sanction provisions outlined in the FECA, such as forfeiture 

for failure to report earnings or the requirement to seek/accept suitable employment 

or participate in vocational rehabilitation. Even at this reduced rate, however, an 

injured worker would still be required to substantiate continuing injury-related disability or face suspension of compensation benefits. 

Updating Benefit Structures 

We also propose a number of changes to the current FECA benefit structure. One 

relates to the schedule award provision, which is designed to address the impact of 

impairment on an individual’s life function, such as the loss of vision, hearing, or 

a limb. Impairment is permanent, assessed when an individual reaches maximum 

medical improvement, and is based upon medical evidence that demonstrates a percentage of loss of the affected member. Each member, extremity or function is as-
31 

signed a specific number of weeks of compensation and the employee’s salary is used 

to compute his or her entitlement to a schedule award. This payment structure results in considerable disparities in compensation: for example, a manager is paid far 

more than a letter carrier for loss of a leg even though the impact on the letter carrier may in reality be far more severe. In that instance, a GS-15 would receive twice 

what a GS-7 receives for the same loss of ability to get around, engage in recreational activities, etc., for this permanent impairment. Paying all schedule awards 

at the rate of 70% of $53,630 (the equivalent of the annual base salary of a GS 11 

step 3) adjusted annually for inflation would certainly be more equitable. 

Similarly, allowing injured workers to receive FECA schedule award benefits in 

a lump sum concurrently with FECA wage loss benefits for total or partial disability 

would provide a more equitable benefits structure for claimants. The current process 

is complicated and convoluted, often leaving injured workers frustrated and confused. It also can generate substantial unnecessary administrative burdens, as 

schedule award payments cannot be paid concurrently with FECA wage-loss benefits. To avoid the concurrent receipt prohibition some eligible claimants may elect 

OPM disability or retirement benefits, which they are allowed to receive for the duration of a schedule award. When the schedule award expires, they may elect to return to the more advantageous FECA wage-loss benefits. While they are collecting 

OPM benefits, OWCP and employing agency efforts to assist the employee in returning to work are stymied. In addition to switching to OPM benefits during the period 

of a schedule award, claimants can also switch back and forth between benefit programs over the life of a claim. As a result of these overly complex provisions and 

benefit streams, claimants sometimes do not return to work as early or as often as 

they could. By allowing concurrent receipt of these benefits, the claimant is timely 

compensated for the loss to the scheduled member and switching back and forth between OPM and OWCP benefits for this reason is eliminated. This allows a returnto-work or vocational rehabilitation effort to continue uninterrupted, thereby improving the chances of a successful return to employment. 

Finally, this proposal increases benefit levels for funeral expenses and facial disfigurement, both of which have not been significantly updated since 1949, to bring 

FECA in line with increases in other workers’ compensation statutes. 

Modernizing and Improving FECA 

Because FECA has not been amended in over 35 years, updates are needed to 

modernize and improve several provisions of the statute. One such change was 

made several years ago but only applied to workers employed by the U. S. Postal 

Service (USPS). In order to discourage the filing of claims for minor injuries that 

resolve very quickly, state workers’ compensation programs generally impose a waiting period before an injured worker is entitled to wage-loss compensation. Because 

of the way in which the 1974 amendments to FECA adding the ‘‘Continuation of 

Pay’’ provisions were drafted, the waiting period under FECA for traumatic injuries 

was effectively moved after the worker has received 45 days of ‘‘Continuation of 

Pay,’’ thus defeating the purpose of a waiting period. The Postal Enhancement and 

Accountability Act of 2006 amended the waiting period for Postal employees by placing the three-day waiting period immediately after an employment injury; we suggest placing the three-day waiting period immediately after an employment injury 

for all covered employees. 

Another longstanding concern addressed by the proposal relates to the application 

of FECA subrogation provisions to claims. Workers’ compensation systems generally 

provide that when a work-related injury is caused by a negligent third party the 

worker who seeks damages from that third party must make an appropriate refund 

to the workers’ compensation system. As a result of the way in which the 1974 

‘‘Continuation of Pay’’ provision was drafted, OWCP cannot include amounts paid 

for Continuation of Pay in calculating the total refund to OWCP when a recovery 

is received by a FECA beneficiary from a third party. 

OWCP also seeks the authority to match Social Security wage data with FECA 

files. While the SSA collects employment and wage information for workers, OWCP 

presently does not have authority to match that data to identify individuals who 

may be working while drawing FECA benefits. OWCP currently is required to ask 

each individual recipient to sign a voluntary release to obtain such wage information. Direct authority would allow automated screening to ensure that claimants are 

not receiving salary, pay, or remuneration prohibited by the statute or receiving an 

inappropriately high level of benefits. 

This proposal would also increase the incentive for employing agencies to reduce 

their injury and lost time rates. Currently the USPS and other agencies not funded 

by appropriations must pay their ‘‘Fair Share’’ of OWCP administrative expenses, 

but agencies funded by appropriations are not required to do so. Amending FECA 
32 

to allow for administrative expenses to be paid out of the Employees’ Compensation 

Fund and included in the agency chargeback bill, would increase Federal agencies’ 

incentive to reduce injuries and more actively manage return to work when injuries 

do occur. 

To improve access to medical care, we suggest a provision that would increase the 

authority and use of Physicians’ Assistants or Nurse Practitioners. We suggest 

amending FECA to allow Physicians’ Assistants and Nurse Practitioners to certify 

disability during the Continuation of Pay period so that case adjudication is not delayed and treatment can be provided more rapidly. The provision allowing Physicians’ Assistants and Nurse Practitioners to certify disability during the Continuation of Pay period would also reduce the burden of disability certifications in war 

zone areas because access to a physician may be even more limited in these circumstances. 

To further address injuries sustained in a designated zone of armed conflict, 

FECA should be amended to provide Continuation of Pay for wage loss up to 135 

days for such injuries. This increase from the standard 45 days would allow additional flexibility for claims handling in these challenging areas and is an outgrowth 

of a cooperative effort with OPM, the Department of State and the Department of 

Defense to address the needs of deployed civilian employees. 

Conclusion 

This proposal provides a fair and reasonable resolution to the disincentives and 

inadequacies that have arisen within the current FECA statute. Since any FECA 

reform should be prospective only, it would apply to new injuries and new claims 

of disability after enactment. Injured workers currently in receipt of disability benefits would see no changes in their benefit level. This will allow all federal employees 

and federal agencies to embrace and adopt a more pro-active and progressive attitude about return to work and disability employment, and avoid any unfair interruption of benefits. Even with this prospective approach, the ten-year cost savings 

are estimated to be around $400 million, or potentially even higher. 

We believe that our proposals, if adopted, would allow all Federal employees and 

Federal agencies to embrace and adopt a more pro-active and progressive attitude 

about return to work and disability employment, and avoid any unfair interruption 

of existing benefit streams. 

The FECA program is at a critical juncture. We have done our best to keep the 

program current and responsive to the changing world we live in through administrative, technological and procedural innovations and investments. Without these 

statutory reforms, OWCP’s best efforts may yield some further gains. However, we 

cannot overcome the fundamental disincentives in the current law and achieve the 

breakthrough improvements that we know are possible within the FECA program 

which will allow FECA to maintain its status as a model of workers’ compensation 

programs. 

The federal workforce comprises dedicated, hard working women and men that 

are committed to serving the public. OWCP is fully committed to ensuring that all 

injured workers receive the medical care and compensation they deserve, as well as 

the assistance needed to return to work when able to do so. FECA reform will enable OWCP to achieve those goals more effectively. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or the other 

members of the Committee may have. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Steinberg. 

Now I recognize Ms. Carney for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN CARNEY, HUMAN RELATIONS 

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION 

Ms. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman, Madam Woolsey, and members of 

the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to share our 

views regarding the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act and its 

reform. 

If we are to achieve the true objective of FECA, we must acknowledge there are various facets of the Act that need improvement. The reform proposals being suggested address a small portion of them. Sadly, however, there are many aspects of this reform 

that will negatively affect public servants and their families. 
33 

Injured workers do not lack motivation to return to work, nor do 

they reap greater benefits. To the contrary, their losses are monumental. They suffer losses to leave, to TSP, to their Family Medical 

Leave balances. They miss out on pay increases. They are separated for disability, lose credible service time, and in some cases, 

health benefits and life insurance. 

Vocational rehabilitation efforts cause a loss or reduction to compensation even when workers are unable to obtain other employment. This enables employers to escape a large portion of their 

chargeback and motivates them to refuse or withdraw suitable 

work. This has happened in cataclysmic proportions within the 

Postal Service. 

Thousands of injured workers ready, willing and able to work 

who are injured on the job, many of whom are veterans, have been 

refused work or have had their work withdrawn. FECA’s supposed 

to be non-adversarial, yet many workers and their physicians 

would disagree. 

These proposals, in many ways, will compound the adversity forcing employees with temporary medical restrictions into voc-rehab 

programs and creates additional disincentives for employers to return employees to work, and would interfere with employees’ prescribed recovery processes, or force employees to exceed, or feel the 

need to exceed, their physical capacities. 

With only 2 percent of new claimants remaining on the compensation rolls beyond 2 years, which often is a normal recovery 

period for a given injury, there is little need to add additional expensive rehabilitation costs to the program. 

We are gravely concerned that re-employment efforts would result in a reduction of compensation benefits because there is no 

mechanism to reinstate compensation when subsidized employment 

ends, and a reduction or a loss in compensation would occur even 

when the worker is unsuccessful in procuring one of these positions. 

Since federal jobs can’t be used as a basis to determine wage 

earning capacities, the Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation has advised it will look to comparable private sector positions 

for this purpose. As has happened in the Postal Service, employers 

would be motivated to refuse their employees rather than to restore 

them. 

To support their continuing work-related disabilities, 

compensationers are required to provide medical documentation on 

a fairly regular basis in order to remain on the OWCP rolls. Regardless of their age, they are subjected to OWCP-directed medical 

examinations, and if their medical documentation illustrates they 

are able to work, they too are subject to voc-rehab programs, which 

means an employee is not staying on workers’ comp because they 

have self-certified themselves to be there. 

It is a flawed comparison to measure annuitants who are able to 

achieve a 30-year career and obtain a true high three against 

compensationers whose wage loss is not augmented with employer 

pay increases. Fifty-six percent of a high versus 50 percent of a 

low—employees who are the greater majority are barred from 

building their retirement savings. Compensationers cannot contribute to social security and cannot receive credit for substantial 
34 

earnings. Unlike their coworker annuitants, compensationers can’t 

supplement their income if they are totally disabled. 

Under these circumstances, any reduction would be an unfair reduction and discriminatory. Of all of the proposed changes, this is 

one of our top priorities. Changing wage loss compensation to 70 

percent in our opinion lacks equity. Wage earners with dependents 

net more than single earners. Wage earners are able to recoup tax 

withholdings by filing annual tax returns. Compensationers cannot. 

APWU is opposed to any change that would burden families or 

penalize workers because they are married or have children. 

Shrouding harmful changes as modernization, return to work and 

administration simplification is simply and, frankly, disingenuous. 

We have enumerated our additional concerns in our written testimony and have provided for your review viable reasonable alternatives which are conducive to the President’s executive order, improving workplace safety, restoring injured workers to their place 

of employment, and significantly reducing costs. 

Although we are disappointed with the Offices recent actions, 

most specifically its apparent desire to appease agencies while 

stripping workers of benefits as demonstrated through these proposals and its recent proposed rule changes, APWU still believes 

the Department of Labor remains the best means available to handle the claims process for all federal and postal workers; although, 

there is vast room for improvement. 

We would implore the committee to carefully consider our recommendations and exhaust all options and avenues to avoid bringing harm to injured workers and their families. We further recommend taking legislative measures to prevent the Office from 

making rule changes without legislative review. 

In closing, as we examine our options, we should be mindful not 

to regress, but progress. Before we consider passing legislative 

changes, we must ensure they are meaningful changes and examine how the consequences of our actions will impact workers and 

their families. 

Thank you, and I am available for questions to the committee. 

[The statement of Ms. Carney follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Sue Carney, National Human Relations Director, 

American Postal Workers Union (AFL–CIO) 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Sue Carney, and 

I am the National Human Relations Director for the American Postal Workers 

Union, AFL-CIO. The American Postal Workers Union is the world’s largest postal 

union, representing more than 220,000 postal employees in the clerk, maintenance, 

and motor vehicle divisions and in support services; 50, 000 of which are veterans. 

We are employed in approximately 32,000 sites throughout the country, providing 

a public service in every city, town and community in our nation. 

Workplace injuries, illnesses and deaths negatively impact a significant number 

of postal employees so we appreciate the opportunity to share our views regarding 

the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) and the Department of Labor’s 

proposed Federal Injured Employees Re-employment Act (FIERA). We believe various aspects of FECA and FIERA, if adopted as written, are disparaging and will 

negatively affect public servants and their families. 

Furthermore, we would like to add that during a DOL briefing, the unions were 

adamantly advised that our concerns and objections would not be considered. Seemingly DOL used the occasion to gauge our response, rather than consider the validity of our concerns, consequently amending some of their ‘‘marketing strategies’’ to 

make the proposal appear more equitable. Additionally, they claim their reform proposals will ‘‘produce potential cost savings of approximately $400 million over a 10- 
35 

1War risk hazard payment $86.2 million(WHCA); increase cost for medical services $281.1 

million 2 Excerpt from Joseph Perez’s statement when appearing before The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Government Management, Information and Technology Subcommittee on July 6, 1998. Perez is a former OWCP DFEC Claims Examiner and currently 

practices law. 3The TSP Calculator illustrates that an employee who is earning $40,000 annually, contributing 10% and receiving the employer’s maximum 5% contribution over the span of a 30 year 

career, and who is earning an average of 5% interest is estimated to realize more than$416,000 

towards his/her retirement savings 4Division of Federal Employees Compensation Procedure Manual Part 2 Chapter 0814 Sections 7 and 8. These actions are known as loss wage earning capacity (LWEC) determinations. 

In basic terms, a LWEC is a comparison between wages of actual or potential earnings against 

wages at the time of injury. The difference is what the claimant is entitled to receive in wage 

loss compensation. For example, a worker was making $20 hr when injured. They normally 

would receive $15 in WLC if they have dependents, but if the Office finds a potential job that 

pays $18 hourly, the employee is then only entitled to receive 75% of the difference, which in 

this scenario would be $1.50 hourly, even when the employee was an unsuccessful applicant. 

Continued 

year period for the American taxpayer.’’ To our understanding the Office has not 

shared how it derived this figure, nor produced documentation to support it. It’s 

noteworthy to point out that not all of the costs related to workplace injuries are 

borne by taxpayers. Also significant, wage loss compensation and death benefit costs 

have remained stable since 2001; however war risk hazard payments and escalating 

costs for medical and rehabilitation services and supplies brought a combined $367.3 

million increase to the program.1 It’s our understanding that this figure includes all 

OWCP directed medical exams. 

The FECA represents a longstanding covenant that our government made with 

federal workers. Each side gave up something to make it equitable and fair to both 

parties. Its primary purpose is to shield injured federal employees and their families 

from loss while limiting the employers’ liabilities. ‘‘The employer relinquished the 

defenses enjoyed under the common law, but this loss was offset by a known level 

of liability for work-place injuries and deaths. The employee gave up the opportunity 

for large settlements provided under the common law, but receives the advantage 

of prompt payment of compensation and medical bills. These tradeoffs make the federal workers’ compensation system fair and equitable to both parties. However, 

where either party does not receive the benefits of this covenant, the system becomes unacceptable. When FECA was amended in 1974, Congress stated it is essential that injured or disabled employees of all covered departments and agencies, including those of the United States Postal Service, be treated in a fair and equitable 

manner. The Federal Government should strive to attain the position of being a 

model employer’’.2

As we begin, it is important to point out that postal and federal workers are injured on the job because of the circumstances they encounter in performing a public 

service. These employees are victims of traumatic injuries such as slips and falls, 

muscle tears and herniated disc injuries. They are victims of poor ergonomic working conditions, like those that cause repetitive stress disease, making it difficult to 

perform simple tasks that involve grasping, holding and reaching. They suffer motor 

vehicle accidents, sustain injuries caused by faulty equipment and are innocent victims of unforeseeable, heinous crimes. Workplace injuries and diseases change lives; 

in many cases forever. No one ever goes to work wanting it to be the day they are 

injured or the day they will not return home to their family. 

Injured workers do not reap greater benefits, nor do they lack motivation to return to work when capable, as some have wrongfully implied. In addition to the 

physical, mental and emotional pain that workplace injuries bring, it is important 

to understand the losses compensationers presently suffer before we consider asking 

more of these workers. They do not earn annual or sick leave. They are not able 

to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan nor can they receive matching funds; this, 

in and of itself, causes a substantial loss for injured federal workers.3 Their compensation rate remains locked at their date of injury (or first disability) pay rate. 

These employees do not receive the ‘‘employer pay increases’’ they would otherwise 

be entitled to had it not been for their injury; only a COLA based on the Consumer 

Price Index (CPI), which has averaged just 2.1% annually over the last decade. 

Their lost workdays erode their Family Medical Leave balance, and they are often 

separated because of their disabilities. If separated prior to achieving the retention 

of health benefits and life insurance, these benefits are lost. When placed in the 

OWCP’s vocational rehabilitation program they can expect to have their wage loss 

compensation reduced whether they are successful in obtaining employment or not.4
36 

And if the employee procured the job but subsequently the job was withdrawn, the employee 

would still only be entitled to $1.50 per hour in WLC. 5 RIN 1240-AA03 

In our opinion, these Division of Federal Employees Compensation (DFEC) procedures motivate and enable employers to refuse or withdrawal medically suitable 

work in order to escape a large portion of their chargeback liabilities; leaving injured workers with a significantly reduced or eliminated source of income. 

FECA is supposed to be a non-adversarial, yet many workers and their physicians 

would disagree. In addition to the losses that were previously presented, let me 

share just a few examples of the adversarial scrutiny they are often subjected to. 

Physicians are frustrated. OWCP requires an extraordinary amount of paperwork 

from them and pays poorly for medical services; just 5% over the Medicare fee 

schedule. It is not enough for treating physicians to give their expert-medical opinion, confirming that a condition is work-related based on their examinations, testing 

and findings; their medical narratives are often rejected by claims examiners who 

have no medical background stating the doctor’s opinion is not good enough because 

the doctor failed to share his or her reasoning. Prescribed medical treatment is often 

delayed or denied. In recent testimony presented by OWCP, the Acting Director 

stated ‘‘overcoming actual physical limitations exact a high price’’, which ‘‘means a 

more costly program’’. Taken in context, he seemed to imply that the Program will 

forgo the expense of medical treatment if it won’t clearly result in a return-to-work. 

Additionally, claimants are subjected to second opinions, and independent medical 

examinations, rather than trusting the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician 

who understands the extent of the disability and is responsible for prescribing medical treatment. All of this needlessly adds to the cost of the program. These factors 

have made it difficult for claimants to find and keep doctors. When claimants do 

find doctors that are willing to treat them, claimants have been barred from using 

them if they are located further than 25 miles away. To the contrary, the Office regularly finds it acceptable to send claimants more than 100 miles away for their directed exams. DFEC also refuses to adjudicate questionable job offers for suitability; 

rather a claimant is required to refuse a job offer and risk going without income 

while the program takes months to make a suitability determination. These factors, 

coupled with the Office’s recent and sweeping Proposed Rulemaking changes5 and 

portions of the FIERA, all bring additional favor to employing agencies; cause unnecessary harm, in some cases irreparable harm, to injured workers and their families and do little to promote the non-adversarial program FECA is intended to be. 

They should not be permitted to stand. 

Examining FIERA Proposals 

Vocational Rehabilitation 

We agree measures should be taken to help all injured workers return to suitable 

employment when their treating physician states that they are physically capable; 

however, granting authority to place employees with temporary medical restrictions 

into OWCP’s vocational rehabilitation program is an objectionable approach. It 

would serve as further disincentive to employers who believe workers with disabilities are crippling their production. Currently, only employees with permanent medical restrictions can be voc-rehabbed. It’s been our experience that employers regularly refuse work to these employees because they can escape chargeback through 

OWCP’s vocational rehabilitation program due to loss wage earning capacity determinations. Comparatively, employers are more compelled to return employees with 

temporary restrictions to employment because they cannot be voc-rehabbed. In addition, premature vocational rehabilitation could interfere with the employees’ prescribed recovery process or force employees to exceed their physical capacities. Recently, a Jacksonville OWCP District Office rehab counselor required a worker, who 

was only capable of working four hours a day, to interview for fifty jobs by the end 

of the week. 

Additionally, the Office has not disclosed the specifics of its new Return-To-Work 

Plan for employees who are physically unable to be voc-rehabbed, nor has it shared 

if the employee’s treating physician will be partnered into the process. According to 

figures provided by OWCP, only a mere 2% of all new injury claims remain on the 

long-term compensation rolls for more than two years. This demonstrates there is 

little need to compound the Program with additional rehabilitation costs. 

To accomplish the goal of returning injured workers more readily to employment, 

we recommend that OWCP be more prompt in authorizing all recommended medical 

treatment, including physical therapy and surgeries which are often denied or delayed for extended periods of time. 
37 

6 April 1—September 30, 2010 

7 Employers are permitted and generally do separate employees who are collecting wage loss 

compensation for one continuous year. 

Assisted Reemployment Program 

The APWU can appreciate the Office’s efforts to subsidize federal employment opportunities where suitable work does not actually exist within the worker’s own employing agency; however, we are gravely concerned that such efforts would result 

in a reduction of compensation benefits. Again, the problem lies within the Office’s 

LWEC procedures. DFEC procedure permits a reduction to wage loss compensation 

based on actual earnings. This alone is not objectionable, but, when the subsidized 

employment ends and residual disabilities remain there is no mechanism to reinstate the compensation that was eliminated. Another DFEC procedure permits 

LWECs based on constructed positions. Essentially, this permits a reduction in compensation even when the worker is unsuccessful in procuring a position. How is this 

fair and equitable? 

We recognize that federal work cannot be used as a basis for making LWEC determinations, but the reality is, DFEC has advised it will look to comparable private 

sector positions to LWEC these employees. The Office has offered its Private-Sector 

Assisted Reemployment Program as an indicator of potential success for its Federal 

Assisted Reemployment Program. Interestingly, the Office has not disclosed how 

many private-sector program candidates they successfully placed in the program, 

nor has it advised how many LWEC’s were issued as a result of the program, but 

we do know, based on figures provided by OWCP, that 45% of the employees who 

secured private—sector subsidized employment were not hired at or beyond the 3 

year agreement period; consequently leaving many injured workers and their families at a deficit. 

We recommend employers be required to provide compelling evidence when they 

assert that do not have medically suitable work for partially recovered employees 

and prove that they have taken all mandated measures to make reasonable accommodations for their disabled workers, before these workers are sent looking for work 

with other employers. In our opinion, the ‘‘Federal’’ Assisted Reemployment Program would only be favorable if changes were made to reinstate lost compensation 

when employment stops and if constructed LWECs were eliminated. These actions 

would aid in facilitating employer cooperation, they are conducive to the President’s 

Executive Order 13548, and would compel employers to retain their injured employees. On the surface, this proposal with all of its employer incentives could appear 

to inspire employers to hire injured workers; however, when you examine the existing procedures it would trigger, failure to incorporate our recommended changes creates the potential to bring irreparable harm to workers. 

Conversion to Reduced Benefits for Total and Partial Disability at Retirement 

Age 

To put matters into proper perspective, we should point out that regulations and 

procedures are so stringent it is virtually impossible to ‘‘milk’’ the system as is often 

implied. This is evidenced in OIG’s recent Semiannual Report to Congress where 

only twenty-three convictions for medical provider and claimant fraud were reported.6 Compensationers are required to provide medical documentation on a fairly 

regular basis to support their disabilities in order to remain on the OWCP rolls. 

Compensationers aren’t permitted to self-certify so it is meaningless for anyone to 

assert that injured workers may have an incentive ‘‘to cling to the self-perception 

of being permanently disabled.’’ Even if they had that perception, it wouldn’t be 

enough to keep them on the rolls. Furthermore, compensationers are regularly subjected to OWCP directed second opinion and independent medical examinations. Additionally, there is the existing and unforgiving OWCP Vocational Rehabilitation 

Program, so we must presume that many of the long-term compensationers are permanently and totally disabled; otherwise regardless of age, they would have been 

placed in OWCP’s Vocational Rehabilitation Program to seek alternate employment. 

It is wrong to infer that OWCP is a lucrative retirement program marked by disincentives that preclude employees from returning-to-work, as some have stated. It 

is also misleading and inequitable to compare annuitants who are able to achieve 

a 30 year career and obtain a true high three to compensationers who stop earning 

creditable service when they are separated for disability.7 Compensationers do not 

receive the same salary increases their uninjured coworkers do. As we previously 

mentioned, their compensation is locked at their date of injury pay rate. It is disingenuous to cite CSRS as comparable. The federal retirement system converted to 

FERS in 1983. Since that was 28 years ago, and since FIERA is supposed to be prospective, the greatest majority of workers will fall under FERS. In either case, 
38 

8The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that as of 2007, 56.3% of workers age 65 and older 

have opted for fulltime employment over part-time employment. That employment of workers 

ages 65 and over has increased 101 % between 1977 and 2007: men rose by 75%; women climbed 

by 147%; while workers 75 and over had the most dramatic gain, increasing by 172%. There 

is also an apparent failure to acknowledge that projected growth in the labor force for workers 

between the ages of 65 and 74 is predicted to soar by 83.4 percent between 2006 and 2016. The 

number of workers age 55-64 is expected to climb by 36.5 percent. By 2016, workers age 65 and 

over are expected nearly double its participation in the total labor force from that of 2006. 

compensationers are not able to TSP, and are ineligible to receive matching contributions. Compensationers cannot contribute to Social Security and cannot receive 

credit for substantial earnings. Unlike their uninjured coworkers who can work 

after retirement to supplement their income, totally disabled compensationers are 

incapable of performing any work. The loss injured workers sustain by comparison 

is monumental. To reduce their compensation to 50% at a pre-selected and arbitrary 

age on the basis that CSRS annuitants receive a slightly higher but taxable percentage than that which is being proposed, is unfounded. To assume any age a ‘‘normal’’ 

retirement age would be unjust, age discriminatory and presumptive. To the contrary, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports more senior employees are opting to 

work well into their golden years to stay active and because they cannot afford to 

retire.8 Do we really want to penalize seniors with work-related medical restrictions 

because of their age? 

We would be remiss in assuming that our senior compensationers would have retired had they not been injured. We have to presume, based on existing OWCP procedures, that these employees are incapable of working otherwise OWCP would be 

derelict in performing its duties. For those who have temporary medical restrictions, 

it’s important that we recognize they may be capable of working in the future once 

OWCP approves all prescribed treatment and the employee is given appropriate recovery time consistent with the nature of their injury. It would be punitive to reduce 

their wage loss compensation based on age and the time spent on the rolls. Recovery 

for extensive injuries can often take longer than a year. 

Several measures can be taken to make FECA more fair and equitable. Laws 

could be changed to allow TSP withholdings and matching contributions; or a retirement fund, comparable to TSP could be created for compensationers that would permit employee withholdings and mandate employer contributions. Compensationers 

could be afforded the option to elect retirement based on an estimation of what their 

high-three would have been had they been able to continue their federal career. As 

it currently stands, employing agencies are the only benefactor. 

Augmentation 

Currently workers with dependents receive 75% of their pay, while workers without dependents receive 662⁄3%. DOL originally offered its proposal to convert all 

compensationers to 70% on the premise that workers with dependents do not earn 

more than those without. They also state the change would ease entitlement calculations for its claims examiners. Although it is true that workers with dependents 

do not earn more, tax deductions for these workers are less. This creates a larger 

net check to better support their families; workers without dependents net less. As 

to DOL’s newer argument that FECA benefits frequently exceed the employee’s preinjury tax-home pay; there is no equity in being locked in at a rate that does not 

allow your usual pay increases. Additionally, uninjured coworkers are able to recoup 

tax withholdings by filing annual tax returns to add to their income; 

compensationers cannot. It is a ridiculous notion that claims examiners are being 

challenged by wage loss calculations with the technology that is available. The installation of a computer program or the use of a calculator would resolve the nuisance without going to the extreme of reducing benefits of worker families. APWU 

is opposed to any change that would burden families, or penalize workers because 

they are married and /or have children. 

Scheduled Awards 

Our primary objection to this proposal is based upon the change in pay rate percentages. It is our opinion that claimants should continue to receive their benefits 

based on their dependent status (75% dependents, 662⁄3% no dependents) for reasons 

we offered under augmentation. Moreover, we object to the GS 11 Step 3 rate ($53, 

639.00) being used to calculate the value of scheduled awards. Historically, the employee’s actual pay rate, at time of injury or first disability, whichever is greater, 

has been used to calculate scheduled awards. Today, this change would result in an 

increase for some claimants but a decrease for others. In the future however, it is 

likely that the GS-11 Step 3 rate would be even less reflective of the actual pay 

rates for some workers. Coupled with the DOL’s recent adoption of the AMA Guide 
39 

Sixth Edition, which significantly reduces impairment ratings and in turn considerably reduces the value of scheduled awards, the utilization of the GS 11 Step 3 rate 

would be a double-blow to compensationers who suffer a permanent loss of use. 

In order to be equitable and fair the APWU recommends that scheduled awards 

remain based on the employee’s pay rate. We strongly urge the DOL to convert back 

to using the AMA Guide Fifth Edition, in order to facilitate a more accurate means 

to rate impairments. There are no regulations that require DOL to use the latest 

edition of the AMA. In fact, AMA Guides Task Force Member, Matthew Dake, reports the AMA Sixth Edition is a flawed process that produces flawed results. 

Death Benefits 

Our objection to this proposal is based upon the change in pay rate percentages. 

It is our opinion that survivors should continue to receive their benefits based on 

the historic compensatory rate of 75%. A reduction does little more than swipe income from the spouses and children of federal workers who died providing a public 

service to our country. 

Definition of New Claim for Disability 

APWU has strong objections to this proposal. This is a veiled attempt to corral 

all compensationers, even those with existing approved claims into the FIERA. Passage would gather individuals submitting short-lived disability claims caused by a 

need to recover from physical therapy, spinal injection, surgery or other intermittent 

medical treatment. It would net claimants that experience a spontaneous worsening 

of an already accepted medical condition, and would also capture claimants who 

have medically suitable job offers withdrawn by employers, as is happening within 

the Postal Service in cataclysmic proportion. This is perhaps the slyest of all the 

DOL proposals. The DOL leaves many with the impression that FIERA is prospective as it will only affect individuals with ‘‘new’’ claims, but in reality DOL is attempting to change the understood definition of what is ‘‘new’’. Passage of this proposal would afford employing agencies even greater favor by burdening a significantly greater number of injured workers and their families. All Compensation Act 

submissions require adjudication but traditionally only two are considered new 

claims. The definition of a new claim should remain limited to traumatic injuries 

and occupational disease. 

Burial Expenses 

This update is long overdue; however APWU would suggest the benefit be more 

reflective of actual final expenses. According to the National Funeral Directors Association, the average cost in 2009 was $7,755.00. 

Computation of Pay 

Workplace injuries are not supposed to cause loss to workers. Therefore, compensation is purposeful in including all of the pay factors that an employee would 

have been entitled to had they not been injured. Traditionally, compensation is 

based on an employee’s salary, including night differential, Sunday premium pay 

and holiday pay, and for some workers includes overtime. Quite simply, APWU objects to compensation being paid at any rate other than the employee’s actual pay 

rate at time of injury or first disability, inclusive of all usual entitlements to Sunday 

premium, night differential, holiday pay and where appropriate overtime pay. It 

should not be based or capped on an arbitrarily selected GS rating, which would 

create a pay increase for some employees and a decrease for others. It is neither 

fair nor equitable to generate savings for employers off the backs of injured workers. 

Furthermore, we will restate that it is a ridiculous notion that claims examiners are 

being challenged by wage loss calculations with the technology that is available. 

Waiting Period 

Continuation of Pay, its very spirit is stated in its name. It is in place to ensure 

employees and their families have an income while OWCP adjudicates their claim. 

Despite OWCP’s testimony, it often takes 60—120 days for claims to be approved 

and for wage loss compensation to begin. The APWU is opposed to federal employees being subjected to a three-day waiting period. All workplace injuries are real; 

even minor ones. This fact does not make them frivolous. Employees are subjected 

to the same scrutiny and requirements for minor injuries. They still need to meet 

the same five requirements to achieve claim approval, one of which includes a medical narrative with medical reasoning. A three day waiting period has been unjustly 

imposed upon Postal Workers in order to save money for the employer. The same 

should not be imposed upon federal workers. APWU would request the three day 

waiting period be removed from COP for postal workers. This action would satisfy 

the stated goal of uniformity and enable COP to fulfill its intended purpose. 
40 

Sanction for Non-Cooperation with Nurses 

To impose sanctions for non-cooperation with nurses means to eliminate eligibility 

for wage loss compensation and scheduled awards. The nurse intervention program 

is already fraught with overzealous nurses who attempt to impede or redirect the 

prescribed medical treatment of the claimant’s treating physician, and who impose 

themselves in private examinations and doctor patient discussions. APWU is opposed to giving these nurses the authority to have sanctions initiated without first 

giving claimants access to due process. 

Compensation for Foreign Nationals 

Upgrades to this provision are long overdue. However, since these foreign nationals are performing a public service for our country, APWU believes they should be 

compensated using the same percentage ratings that apply to our claimants (75% 

dependents, 662⁄3% no dependents). 

Conclusion 

Although we are very disappointed with portions of FECA, many of the FIERA 

proposals, and some of the Office’s action, we still believe the Department of Labor 

is the best means available to handle the claims process for all federal and postal 

workers. APWU feels strongly that the Federal Workers Compensation Program 

(OWCP DFEC) should continue to strive to be a model program, not work to be comparable to insufficient state programs. To help OWCP meet its burden, it is our 

opinion that more claims examiners are needed. To eliminate some of the erratic 

decisions claimants are receiving all claims examiners should be required to receive, 

on a regular basis, more comprehensive training regarding regulations, procedures 

and precedent setting Employees Compensation Appeals Board decisions. 

We also believe efforts should be made to recreate the non-adversarial atmosphere 

that the Program is intended to be. To help accomplish this we recommend more 

substantive outreach to employee representatives and more meaningful technical assistance to treating physicians and claimants who are often confused by the processes. Efforts should be made to make the Program more palatable for doctors. 

Many forgo treating claimants because of the extraordinary reporting requirements and low reimbursement rate for services. It is our opinion that OWCP should 

be granted moderate enforcement authority to compel employers, who have been 

skirting return-to-work obligations and other responsibilities to comply. We would 

also implore the Committee to work to create more meaningful safety and health 

mandates to protect workers, and provide better mechanisms to enforce them. These 

initiatives alone could reduce the overall cost of workplace injuries and disease. 

Bending policy and recreating procedures to favor agencies do little to maintain 

a fair and equitable atmosphere. Shrouding them as ‘‘modernization, return-to-work 

and administration simplification’’ is disingenuous. As we examine the history presented by the Congressional Research Service, we would request that we be mindful 

not to regress but rather progress. Before we consider passing legislative changes, 

we must ensure they are meaningful changes and examine how the consequences 

of our actions will impact workers and their families. 

We thank you for your time and consideration regarding this paramount issue. 

I am available to answer any questions you may have to further clarify your understanding of the compensation processes and of our concerns. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Ms. Carney. 

I recognize Mr. Lewis for your testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ELLIOT P. LEWIS, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR 

GENERAL FOR AUDIT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on the work of 

the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General regarding the 

FECA program. 

Over the years, the OIG has conducted numerous audits and investigations related to the FECA program. Our audits have identified opportunities for program administration improvements related to eligibility, determination of re-employment status and customer service. 
41 

Moreover, our investigations have focused on FECA claimants 

who work while continuing to receive benefits and all medical or 

other service providers who bill the program for services not rendered. 

As a result of our work and observations, for more than a decade, 

the OIG has been recommending changes to strengthen the FECA 

program with respect to the 3-day waiting period, benefit payments 

beyond the federal or social security retirement age, and access to 

federal data basis to aid in fraud detection. 

The OIG has recommended that the benefit structure be examined to determine whether a change in benefit rate should occur at 

some point at or near the normal federal or social security retirement age. FECA program benefits currently do not change once a 

beneficiary reaches the federal or social security retirement age. 

While the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries return to work 

within the first couple of years of their injury, a small percentage 

remain on FECA for life. According to OWCP, tax-free FECA benefits, which are set at 66 and two-thirds percent or 75 percent, are 

typically more generous in federal retirement. 

We are aware the administration is considering a proposal to reduce tax-free FECA wage loss benefits to 50 percent at the normal 

social security retirement age. As the department begins to consider changes, careful consideration is needed to ensure that the 

percent of benefits that may ultimately be established will have the 

desired effect, while ensuring fairness to injured workers, especially those who will never be able to return to work. 

We have also recommended that the department be granted statutory access to social security wage information in a national directory of new hires. Information from these wage and employment 

data bases would enable the department to identify FECA beneficiaries who are working while receiving wage loss benefits. 

In addition to our recommendations, Mr. Chairman, there are a 

couple of related issues under review by the administration that 

are of interest given OIG’s prior work. The department is considering a proposal to set a 70 percent level of benefits for all claimants regardless of whether they have dependents. 

The department indicates that this change will reduce over payments and documentation requirements. While we defer to OWCP 

as to the benefits structure level and what it should be, it is important to note that our prior audit work found that obtaining documentation on dependents has been a challenge for OWCP. 

For example, in 13 percent of FECA claims we reviewed during 

a 2007 audit, we found that compensation payments were continued even though claimants had provided—had not provided required evidence of dependent’s continued eligibility. We also found 

that compensation payments had not been reduced for claimants 

who had provided evidence indicating a reduction was warranted. 

Therefore, as reforms are considered, it is important to examine 

the challenges posed by dependent eligibility documentation requirements given that FECA’s a wage loss compensation program. 

The department is also planning improvements in its return-towork process, another area which we have previously identified 

weaknesses. 
42 

In 2009, we looked at FECA’s claimants on the period roll whose 

re-employment or wage-earning capacity had not yet been determined. In other words, these claimants were receiving regular 

monthly wage loss compensation but OWCP had not determined 

whether these claimants could return to work in some capacity. 

At the time of our audit, their re-employment status had not 

been determined for more than 20,000 claimants, and almost 3,000 

had been in the temporary status for 15 years or longer. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on our work. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the subcommittee may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Lewis follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Elliot P. Lewis, Assistant Inspector General for 

Audit, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify on the work of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), in the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) program. My name is Elliot Lewis, and I am the Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

in the OIG. Today I will discuss the OIG’s recommendations for improvement in this 

important program. As you know, the OIG is an independent agency within the Department of Labor, and the views expressed in my testimony are based upon the 

independent observations and recommendations of the OIG, and are not intended 

to reflect the Department’s position. 

DOL administers several programs and statutes designed to provide and protect 

the benefits of workers. FECA is a comprehensive workers’ compensation law covering some three million Federal and Postal workers around the world with workrelated injuries or occupational diseases. FECA benefits include payment of medical 

expenses and compensation for lost wages. In the case of work-related deaths, survivor benefits are payable to family members. 

The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) is responsible for administering the FECA program and ensuring that it serves injured workers in an efficient and effective manner. It is important to note that FECA benefits constitute 

Federal workers’ sole remedy for a work-related injury or death, as employees or 

surviving dependents are not entitled to sue the government to recover damages. 

Therefore, it is incumbent on OWCP to promptly adjudicate claims, pay medical 

bills and compensation in accepted cases, and do everything possible to help employees return to work. It is also important to note that the overwhelming majority of 

injured workers return to work within the first year of injury. 

FECA benefits are paid from the Employees’ Compensation Fund, which is principally funded through chargebacks to the Federal agency that employs the injured 

or ill worker. Therefore, the FECA program affects the budgets of all Federal agencies and quasi-Federal agencies such as the United States Postal Service. For the 

Chargeback Year ending June 30, 2010, the FECA program provided almost $2.8 

billion in compensation to approximately 250,000 workers and survivors for workrelated injuries or illnesses. 

Over the years, the OIG has conducted numerous audits and investigations related to the FECA program. Our audits have identified opportunities for program 

administration improvements related to eligibility, determination of reemployment 

status, and customer service. Moreover, our investigations have focused on FECA 

claimants who work while continuing to receive benefits, and on medical or other 

service providers who bill the program for services not rendered. We also process 

hundreds of complaints through our hotline from dissatisfied claimants. These complaints generally involve disagreements with OWCP’s adjudication of claims. As a 

result of our work and observations, for more than a decade the OIG has been recommending changes to strengthen the FECA program with respect to: the 3-day 

waiting period, benefit payments beyond the Federal or Social Security retirement 

age, and access to Federal databases to aid in fraud detection. 

Recommendations to Improve the FECA Program 

Changing the 3-Day Waiting Period 

FECA currently has a provision that allows employees who sustain work-related 

injuries to receive continuation of pay (COP) for a period not to exceed 45 calendar 

days. The intent of this provision is to eliminate interruption of the employee’s in-
43 

come while OWCP is processing the claim. The FECA legislation provides for a 3- 

day waiting period which is intended to discourage frivolous claims. However, as 

currently written, the legislation places the 3-day waiting period at the end of the 

45-day COP period; therefore negating the purpose of the 3-day waiting period. In 

2006, the legislation was amended to require that the 3-day waiting period for Postal workers precede the 45-day continuation of pay period. We continue to recommend moving the 3-day waiting period to the beginning of the 45-day continuation of pay period for all injured Federal employees. 

Reviewing the Benefit Structure for Retirement Age Beneficiaries 

As currently designed, FECA program benefits do not change once a beneficiary 

reaches the Federal or Social Security retirement age. While the overwhelming majority of FECA beneficiaries return to work within the first couple of years of their 

injury, a small percentage remain on FECA for life. According to OWCP, tax-free 

FECA benefits which are set at 662⁄3 percent (or 75 percent if the claimant has dependents) are typically more generous than Federal retirement. The OIG recommends that this benefit structure be examined to determine whether a change 

in benefit rate(s) should occur at some point at or near the normal Federal or Social 

Security retirement age. 

We are aware that the Administration is considering a proposal to reduce tax-free 

FECA wage loss benefits to 50 percent at the normal Social Security retirement age. 

As the Department begins to consider a change to the benefit structure, careful consideration is needed to ensure that the percent of benefits ultimately established 

will have the desired effect while ensuring fairness to injured workers, especially 

those who have been determined to be permanently impaired and thus unable to 

return to work. 

Accessing Earnings Information 

Our third recommendation has been for the Department to be granted statutory 

authority to access Social Security wage information and the National Directory of 

New Hires (New Hire Directory), which is maintained by the Department of Health 

and Human Services. Information from these wage and employment databases 

would enable the Department of Labor to identify FECA beneficiaries who are working while receiving wage loss benefits. If it is determined that a claimant has unreported outside employment or income, any inappropriately paid benefits can be reduced or withdrawn, and criminal remedies may be pursued. Currently, the Department can only access Social Security wage information if the claimant gives it permission to do so. Obviously Mr. Chairman, claimants who are defrauding the FECA 

program are unlikely to willingly grant OWCP or the OIG the authority to access 

information about their earnings. Likewise, access to the New Hire Directory, which 

contains employer-reported information on newly hired individuals, is not available 

to OWCP or the OIG. Congressional action would be required for OWCP and OIG 

to have access to Social Security data and the New Hire Directory. 

As previously indicated, Mr. Chairman, the OIG investigates FECA claimant 

fraud, as well as fraud committed against the program by medical and other service 

providers. Whether it is a mechanic for the Navy who receives total disability benefits while operating his own business, or a Smithsonian security guard who fails to 

disclose his employment with a private security firm, our case work demonstrates 

the need for OWCP and OIG to have access to these databases. 

Related Issues 

In addition to our recommendations, Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of related 

issues under review by the Administration that are of interest to the OIG based on 

our prior audit work. As you know, currently OWCP requires that claimants receiving payments at the 75 percent rate periodically verify their marital status and the 

eligibility of dependent children. Beneficiaries in death cases are required to annually submit a report regarding their marital status and continuing eligibility of dependent children. A beneficiary is required to submit proof of continuing eligibility 

for children over the age of 18 who are students or who are physically or mentally 

incapable of self support. We are aware that the Department is considering a proposal to set a 70 percent level of benefits for all claimants regardless of whether 

they have dependents. The Department indicates that this change will reduce overpayments and documentation requirements. While we defer to OWCP as to what the 

benefit structure and level should be, it is important to note that prior audit work 

found that obtaining documentation on dependents has been a challenge for OWCP. 

For example, in 13 percent of FECA claims we reviewed during our 2007 audit of 

OWCP’s largest FECA district office in Jacksonville, Florida, we found that compensation payments were continued even though claimants had not provided required evidence of their continuing eligibility. We also found that compensation pay-
44 

ments had not been reduced on claims for which claimants had provided evidence 

indicating a reduction was warranted. Therefore, as reforms are considered, it is important to examine the challenges posed by dependent eligibility documentation requirements given that FECA is a wage-loss compensation program. 

The Department is also planning improvements in its return-to-work processes 

and incentives that do not require legislative action. This is another area for which 

we believe improvements are needed based on our prior-audit findings. Specifically, 

in 2009 we looked at FECA claimants whose reemployment or wage-earning capacity had not yet been determined. The audit, which examined cases from OWCP’s 

Jacksonville and New York District Offices, found that in 11 percent of the cases 

reviewed, claims examiners did not perform critical required activities such as referring claimants for nursing and vocational rehabilitation to determine if claimants 

could return to work in some capacity. We also found lax monitoring of cases. For 

example, in 34 percent of cases reviewed, claims examiners did not take timely actions on referrals for second opinions or independent medical examinations, and/or 

had not acted on completed medical examinations. Furthermore, we noted at the 

time that the reemployment status had not been determined for 37 percent of claimants (20,236 out of 54,674) and that 2,860 claimants had been in this temporary status for 15 years or longer. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our work and recommendations have focused on improving the operation and integrity of the program. Our work continues to this end. 

For example, we are currently looking at the Department’s efforts to comply with 

recently-enacted improper payments legislation, as well as whether OWCP has adequate controls to prevent improper durable medical equipment and medical travel 

payments. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my written statement; I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or the other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

And we thank the full panel. 

And, members of the subcommittee, I think we have a high 

standard to reach up to in the brevity efficiency of their testimonies 

in keeping, generally, to the time limit and underneath that. 

Let me begin the questioning. Asking Mr. Steinberg, one of the 

challenges associated with modernizing workers’ compensation is 

transitioning individuals from collecting FECA benefits to retirement benefits. 

Many long-term beneficiaries may find themselves in situations 

where they have substantial gaps in contributions to retirement 

plans. Has there been any discussion on allowing individuals receiving workers’ compensation benefits to contribute a portion of 

these funds to a retirement account? 

Mr. STEINBERG. No, sir. There have not been those discussions. 

We have been in the discussions with OPM with regards to the proposal to move individuals to the OPM retirement program, if you 

will. We see complications associated with that, both from a management as well as from an administration perspective. 

I think it has been pointed out. One of our key tenets is to try 

to ensure opportunities for return to work, and if we are able to 

keep individuals on the FECA program, then even after retirement 

age, we do have the opportunity to find work positions for them 

and return them to work. 

So, again, we have not had discussions about that type of contribution. That is something that would be complicated and an unfunded mandate at this point. 

Chairman WALBERG. Would be complicated, but if there were 

provisions that—even voluntarily with the compensated individual 

to be able to contribute a portion to a retirement account and not 

be caught in a trap at the end of their compensation period and in 
45 

retirement years with nothing to show for it, nothing available 

wouldn’t that be a direction that would be good to go? 

Mr. STEINBERG. That is certainly, sir, something that can be complicated—contemplated. It is an issue that should also be discussed 

with OPM, who really is the expert in terms of retirement compensation and pensions. 

Chairman WALBERG. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis? In your testimony, you recommended the OWCP be 

granted access to social security wage information and the national 

directory for new hires. How would access to this information benefit FECA, and is this in the Department of Labor’s proposal? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, I believe it is their proposal—access to the social 

security records. I am not sure that the National Directory of New 

Hires is in the proposal. It would be a more efficient way for them 

to focus in on claimants who may have underreported or not reported earnings—claimants we find in our investigations that have 

returned to work that they have not reported that to OWCP. Currently, that is a self-certification. 

OWCP really has no way to verify if what the claimants are reporting is correct. An automated match would allow them to more 

efficiently focus in on the claimants that they need to investigate 

further. 

Chairman WALBERG. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Bertoni, in 1996, the GAO reported two proposals for addressing benefit changes for current FECA beneficiaries once they 

reach retirement age. How would reforms safeguard employees’ retirement? Secondly, what types of calculations and considerations 

would be used to determine retirement benefits? 

And then, finally, what affects would this have on agencies’ 

budgets in regards to paying FECA costs? I would be glad to go 

through those three questions again. 

Mr. BERTONI. How would reform help? The second one was? 

Chairman WALBERG. Reform safeguard employee’s retirement. 

What types of calculations and considerations would be used to determine retirement benefits, and then, thirdly, what affects would 

this have on agencies’ budgets in regards to paying FECA costs? 

Mr. BERTONI. I think the short answer is, we don’t know. Based 

on the prior work that we did—I guess the questions that we surfaced with that is exactly what you really want to do when you are 

starting to go down the road of thinking about implementation. 

We tried to tease out the issues that you need to consider as you 

develop these proposals and you think about implementation. So 

how would it help? I think, from just a strictly budgetary standpoint, the agency has to look at if we cut benefits by 50 percent, 

what is the upside in terms of cost savings. 

But I do believe an important issue or consideration is to know 

where the inequities might occur also to assess the data, look at 

where at some point who may be worse off—how big that population is, and then it is a policy question as to what you want to 

do about that. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ranking Member 

Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
46 

Mr. Steinberg? Just following on the question between the chairman and Mr. Bertoni, you and we are going to stay on, I believe, 

this recommendation in your testimony that FECA benefits are cut 

from 75 to 50 percent at retirement age providing that the average 

worker is the comparable. 

You don’t address what happens to the lower income workers 

under this scenario. I am wondering did you work that out? Do you 

know who wins and who loses? Mr. Bertoni said they weren’t sure 

about that. I mean, what happens to the lower income worker? 

Mr. STEINBERG. It is difficult to segregate between the lower income worker, the average income worker, the high income worker. 

What we look at is, in essence, the way that the program is implemented and, I think, has been discussed. The program has an annual increase. I would suggest that this year reflects the advantage 

of the program, where using the CPI index, an individual is receiving a cost of living increase, whereas the normal federal employee 

is not receiving an increase this year. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I would like to suggest that there is modern 

21st century technology. I would think there could be a program 

set up easy pie and figure out who wins and who loses when you 

make a cut to that degree. I mean, that is 25 percent. 

So I hope we can do that before we can buy into a program that 

saves a lot of money for the federal government, but on whose back 

is our question. 

Mr. STEINBERG. You make a very good point, and we will research that further. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, very much. 

Ms. CARNEY. The department’s testimony implies that workers 

have a disincentive to return to work once they are healed, and 

that we should cut the replacement benefits to encourage return to 

work. 

One, I would like you to comment on do you see this as being 

something that actually happens with the workforce? And, two, 

they also have a great recommendation, I believe, but you comment 

on it also, to put in place a plan to help workers re-enter the workforce and be, you know, with them throughout the incidents of 

their injury. 

So would you respond to both of those? 

Ms. CARNEY. Yes, and you might have to help me with the reminder on the second part—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. 

Ms. CARNEY [continuing]. When I get through with the first—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I will. 

Ms. CARNEY [continuing]. Part, but as I mentioned, you know, I 

think the losses that I have listed out already demonstrate that 

there isn’t a disincentive for employees not to return to work. To 

the contrary, if they return to work, they would be getting, you 

know—kick in their pay increases again. It would start bringing up 

their family medical leave, and they would be able to contribute 

since the greatest majority are FERS employees in TSP. 

And let me just say on the TSP, you know, the average worker 

giving 10 percent with a matching contribution from the employer 

of 5 percent over a course of 30 years—these folks that are out on 
47 

compensation extended periods: $416,000 in retirement savings 

lost. So there is a great incentive for them to get back to work. 

I also spoke on the national reassessment programs that the 

Postal Service has. When I said thousands, I mean thousands of 

postal workers have come back to work following compensable injury, and thousands of them were put back out of work under these 

programs. So I think that is—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Explain to me what you mean by that. 

Ms. CARNEY. It is a complicated program, but—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY [continuing]. And then what happens. 

Ms. CARNEY. But basically, the national reassessment program— 

you know, there is job offers when you come back to work. That 

happens before the NRP was in place, and then the employer decided, well, you know, we need to look and see if we really have 

work for these workers. 

And while the work still existed—and that was the premise of 

the program—they actually took those workers that were offered 

those job offers—that were conducive to their medical restrictions 

and said, sorry, that is not there anymore and they have got other 

workers, you know, working in behind them. 

So the work was withdrawn, or if somebody was newly injured, 

it was just not offered, but there is work there. So, okay, so to answer the second part of the question, and you will have to remind 

me. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, the department’s suggesting a plan where 

the manager works with the employee, I would assume, the manager. 

Ms. CARNEY. You are talking about the federal reemployment— 

our concern with the subsidy really lies wholly with procedures 

that are called loss wage earning capacity determinations. And this 

is where, you know, an employee who is collecting wage loss compensation—if they are employed—would have their wage loss compensation reduced. 

We have no objection with that, but when the subsidized employment ends, there is no mechanism—and it is likely to end, because 

it is subsidized—there is no mechanism to reinstate that wage loss 

compensation, and we have to assume those jobs are going to be 

available, and if they don’t get one of those positions, they also can 

have their wage loss compensation reduced because the job was 

available but the employee didn’t obtain it through no fault of their 

own. 

Now, the department will tell you can’t use federal jobs to do 

wage earning capacity determinations, but as I said in my earlier 

testimony, they will look to private sector jobs for that purpose to 

reduce the wages, and this is how they will achieve savings on the 

back of injured workers for their program. 

And while I think it is a great idea to get workers back into employment, I think we have to make this favorable by eliminating 

the LWEC procedures first. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

And I want to recognize the chairman of the full committee, gentleman from Minnesota, and especially today since you finished up 

our markup at 2:30 this morning in another committee, and ended 
48 

up being the first one to arrive to this committee. I am delighted 

to introduce you before you fall asleep. 

Mr. KLINE. You know me too well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank all of the witnesses for being here today, for your testimony, for engaging in this issue, and educating us in this issue. 

Mr. Steinberg, the administration has a plan, which you have 

been talking about. Are you going to formally introduce legislation 

to the Congress. And, if so, when might we expect that? 

Mr. STEINBERG. No, sir. 

Mr. KLINE. No. 

Mr. STEINBERG. We are here to provide technical assistance. We 

have a number of proposals that we are anxious to talk with you 

about, but a formal legislative proposal will not be submitted. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. Thank you. 

I want to pick up on a couple of things we have already talked 

about. One, let’s go to the—and I guess I will stay with you, Mr. 

Steinberg, since you have the plan out there and you are dealing 

with this all the time—on the issue of social security records, which 

was discussed earlier, you would like the ability to have direct access to those records. 

As I understand, it would simplify your ability to process claims 

and make the job easier if you had direct access. 

Mr. STEINBERG. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Mr. KLINE. So what is happening now? You can ask for the information, correct, on a routine basis, or do you have OWCP going up 

to employees and they are refusing to give the information—what 

happens now? 

Mr. STEINBERG. You characterized it correctly. On an annual 

basis, we ask for information about medical, about wages, about dependent status and so forth. If we don’t receive the information, or 

if we believe that there are issues associated with the information, 

on a case-by-case basis, we contact Social Security, and obviously, 

it is a time-consuming process in terms of interacting with the individuals, getting the information, making sure that the information 

is complete. 

What we would like to be able to do is to have, if you will, ongoing access to all files associated with our claimants so that any 

point of time, we can access the information, and we can verify the 

accuracy of the information. 

Or, if we see that there are issues, then we will share it with the 

IG or with the IG of the employing organization. So, again, it is a 

matter of increased efficiency for us. 

Mr. KLINE. I am not at all sure that I am opposed to that, but 

I am just trying to understand the scale of—or scope of the problem. Is this something that happens two or three times a year, 

hundreds of times a year, thousands of times a year where you are 

just having difficulty getting the information. 

Mr. STEINBERG. It happens hundreds of times a year. So, again, 

it is time consuming for our claims examiners. It delays the process 

at times and, again, we think that this would improve the situation 

both for the claimants as well as for us so that we can reinvest our 

time into reemployment type of activities. 
49 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. Thank you. I want to stay with you, if I might, 

because I, like Ms. Woolsey, am interested in this putting people 

back to work part of the program. 

Right now, according to your testimony, there are limitations in 

the areas of vocational rehabilitation and the return to work process. And you touched on that in testimony, but can you take a little 

bit of time here and expand on what is in the way here? 

Mr. STEINBERG. Certainly. There are a few different aspect of 

this. One is the timing. As we know—and I worked at the Department of Veterans Affairs for 9 years and worked closely with the 

medical community and learned from them the earlier that we can 

get an individual diagnosed and into rehabilitation, the more likely 

it is that we are going to have a timely opportunity for return to 

work. 

So being able to accelerate that process when we know that an 

individual is most likely permanently disabled, we would like to 

begin that process. The next stage is working with the claimant 

and working with their physicians to develop a rehabilitation plan, 

and that is a plan that would look at the issue, the injury—look 

at the opportunities for employment and then work through, if you 

will, the rehabilitation process. 

The last phase of that is the assisted reemployment where right 

now we work with private sector firms and, granted, the universe 

of claims that we have actually placed is less than 200. But in this 

circumstance, we would be able to subsidize the payment and, 

again, this is cost neutral, because we already collect the information in terms of chargeback. 

This is the wage replacement, and it would be used to subsidize 

the employment. It is a great opportunity for us to help people get 

back to work, and I have to emphasize that that is really our primary issue and focus is returning people to work. 

Mr. KLINE. The light has turned yellow here, and I want to just 

make sure I understand this assisted reemployment piece. So far, 

you have only been able to place the individual with the private 

sector, or can you—have you been able—only to the private sector 

not another federal agency? 

Mr. STEINBERG. That is correct. We only have permission to do 

it in the private sector. We are asking for the ability to do it in the 

federal government. We think it is very promising. 

Mr. KLINE. Okay. Thank you, very much. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. 

I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, very much. 

Ms. Carney, the DOL testimony implies that workers lack motivation, sort of, as the other questioners—to return to work when 

capable and, thus, wage replacement benefits should be cut to create incentives to force them to return to work. Could you address 

this or give me your opinion on this matter? 

Ms. CARNEY. On the motivation? 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, or do you agree with the DOL that—— 

Ms. CARNEY [continuing]. Partially addressed it with Ranking 

Member Woolsey, but let me suggest—because we talked about the 

national reassessment process and the Postal Service not letting 
50 

those employees come in and those losses, but one of the points I 

didn’t get to—so I can build on what we have already spoke about 

is my recommendations on how to correct that. 

And I would recommend that legislation be considered to eliminate the loss wage earning capacities on those constructed positions, which is what we talked about—constructed positions is 

when it is—you didn’t actually get it. You know, because that is 

what motivates the employers—hey, if I can get people—you know, 

not take them back to work and rather dump them on another employing agency, I don’t get hit with the chargeback. In the meantime, it is on the back of the injured worker. 

So those wage earning capacity determinations really motivate 

employers not to return their injured workers—at least in the case 

of the Postal Service, and it was, like I said, cataclysmic in that 

case, not to return their injured workers to employment. Or when 

they did, it was just for a brief period of time, because the regulation says if you have been returned back to work for 60 days and 

they put you out, you know, then they can LWEC you too, because 

you no longer have a loss in wage earning capacity. 

So I think we really have to spend some time—I know I am getting a little into the weeds—but as we look at this focusing on that. 

The other thing, I think, that would be helpful is when an employing agency says there is no work available—right now, there is no 

measures in place for the Department of Labor to challenge that. 

They have to take them at their word, and I think there should 

be mechanisms put in place where the employing agencies would 

actually have to prove that, you know, they truly don’t have work 

available before these employees are pushed off onto another agency and, you know, subsidy’s going to cost something. You don’t 

want to burden the program with anything else. I hope that addresses part of your concerns. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. I have another question in regard—in 1998 

OSHA became involved in the Postal Service, and since OSHA coverage began at that time, do you have any kind of verification that 

there has been a noticeable reduction in workplace injuries since 

OSHA has come in and, I assume, makes suggestions and so forth? 

Ms. CARNEY. Since OSHA came in, there has been a huge reduction with postal employee claims being filed. You know, that was 

in 1998. I came into office in 2000—I know, one, the reports had 

said there were like 84,000 postal workers that filed claims. We are 

now at 40,500. 

Now, part of that, obviously, is because we have had a reduction 

in employee population, but it is not that vast considering the cut 

in half. And also, there is people that are just scared to death to 

file claims at this point because of the national reassessment process. But you can’t discount OSHA has had a very positive impact 

on safety on the workforce, whether it is because of their programs 

or because of enforcement. 

And where we see the best progress is when there is these voluntary programs where management and unions can participate. 

And, of course, you have got to get management to, you know, buy 

into that program. But, yes, it has been successful. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Thank you, very much. 
51 

Mr. Lewis, in your testimony, you said ‘‘careful consideration’’ 

needs to be given to DOL proposal to reduce FECA benefits at retirement age from 75 percent to 50 percent. What are the questions 

that should be asked, in your opinion, to ensure ‘‘careful consideration’’ is given as this is being moved forward? 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, I think a lot of those have been raised this 

morning through Ms. Carney’s testimony and GAO’s but, we would 

advise to look at, you know, are you paying a benefit that is fair 

and equitable and that you are not—you don’t have an adverse impact that you are putting someone in a worse situation than they 

would have been in. 

So to look at those issues of where were they at their career 

when they became injured. You know, what has happened to them 

since then? What would have happened to them? What position 

would they have been in that kind of analysis. 

So I think it is, you know, it is certainly worthwhile to look at 

this and reassess it, but I think as GAO, particularly, has brought 

out in their report there, there are a lot of issues that need to be 

addressed to make sure you don’t have an unintended consequence. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, very much. 

Yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank the gentleman. 

Now I turn to recognize the gentleman from Indiana. Dr. 

Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Good morning, and thank you for testifying in 

front of our committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was a practicing physician prior to being in Congress. So I have 

some questions related to the assessment of the disability in the 

first place and ongoing disability. In circumstances that are not 

otherwise obvious—there is obvious disabilities and—so, Mr. Steinberg, do you think we have an adequate program for the federal 

government to assess the disability of our workers initially or as 

an ongoing process? 

Mr. STEINBERG. Yes, sir, I believe we do. Again, one of the key 

components, I believe, of the program is the right to first choice, 

if you will, for our patients to choose their physician. 

We think this is core. We think it is extremely important in 

terms of having a comfortable dialogue, and so forth. We believe 

that the physicians provide a good and reasonable assessment of 

the circumstance. 

As I talk about in terms of the rehabilitation plan, I think, again, 

that provides a forum—an opportunity for continued dialogue between the department, the claimant and the physician in terms of 

the progress that is being made and when the individual will be 

ready to return to work and in what capacity they can return to 

work. 

So, again, I think we have a good program, and I think we have 

an opportunity to improve the interaction with the physicians. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Great. That is good to know because, as a physician, I can tell you the subjectivity involved in assessing a worker’s 

ongoing disability is very, very difficult. And I was in cardiovascular surgery, but if you are in a special that deals with back 

injuries, for example, like orthopedics or neurosurgery, it is very 
52 

difficult and partially subjective process, and I am glad to hear that 

you feel that the government has an adequate program to assess 

that. 

Ms. Carney, I am interested in just a—would you be opposed to 

a reduction in benefits or compensation that the DOL’s proposing 

in any circumstance? Because it seems like that with your testimony under whatever circumstance that might be in-place that 

would decrease any reimbursement for anyone, you would be opposed to. 

And, if not, I would like to know under which circumstances that 

you feel would be appropriate that might result in decreasing compensation even though that compensation would bring these folks 

in line with what is fair and—in regards to the rest of our federal 

workers who are not disabled. 

Ms. CARNEY. Well, first let me say, if something is fair and equitable, certainly receptive to embracing it. The problem I am having 

with these proposals isn’t I am being contrary for the sake of being 

contrary, it is because I don’t believe in my heart of hearts that it 

is fair and equitable. 

You know, when these employees—you are saying 70 percent—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Let me say, for example, the proposal that would 

bring in line where people who are disabled are—continue to get 

disability benefits after retirement age when those are clearly exceeding what if they were—if they had continued to work as a federal worker and then retired, their benefits would be slightly less 

than that. 

Ms. CARNEY. Okay, you are making the comparison with the 56 

percent of the—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Well, I mean, I am just trying to determine the 

circumstances which you have—which you feel like that a decrease 

in compensation would be—under their proposal—— 

Ms. CARNEY. It would be favorable if and when we could put 

something in place to substitute the fact that these folks have no 

means to contribute to their Thrift Savings Plan or receive matching funds. Now, I am not—you know, that is one way. We could 

create another type retirement fund but, again, you know, you got 

to remember under TSP, and the majority of these folks are actually FERS not CSRS. 

You know, it was put in place in, what, 1983 or 1984, so you are 

talking 27 or 28 years ago. So at this point, and if we are being 

prospective, we are going to be talking about FERS in place. 

And then we also have to keep in mind—because you brought up, 

like, wage loss compensation—that those folks aren’t getting their 

pay increases. I mean, so these things as they are currently—the 

75 percent—is comparable as far as the retirement. 

We would be amenable to, you know, but you have got to make 

up for the loss somehow, and the way it is just a reduction just because of your age—I don’t think it is a very fair and an equitable 

comparison. Fifty-six percent of somebody that actually got to go 

through the Postal Service for 30 years or the federal government 

for 30 years, and they get, you know, granted, you get the COLAs, 

the CPI COLAs, which have only averaged 2.1 percent over the last 

10 years, but what happened to their step increases and all the 
53 

other increases that they were supposed to be getting along the 

years. 

The annuitants have gotten that, and that is, that makes it a 

true high three, where the compensationers don’t. They haven’t 

gotten those pay increases. They don’t have a true high three. They 

are still down here. So 50 percent to 56 percent really isn’t even 

a equitable comparison, and that is a CSRS thing anyway, and we 

really should be looking at FERS at this point, because that is 

where we are at or going. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

And I recognize the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. Rokita? 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the witnesses as well. 

My first question is to Mr. Szymendera. Am I pronouncing that 

right? 

Mr. SZYMENDERA. Szymendera. 

Mr. ROKITA. Szymendera? 

Mr. SZYMENDERA. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. You are not Polish, are you? 

Mr. SZYMENDERA. I am. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. With a name like Rokita, I get to ask those 

kind of questions, okay? And anytime you see a ‘‘z’’ and a ‘‘y’’ together, you start wondering if you are a member of my tribe. So 

welcome. 

You testified that under the Internal Revenue Code, workers’ 

compensation benefits are not subject to federal income tax. Is this 

true with state plans as well? 

Mr. SZYMENDERA. Yes. The federal income tax does not apply to 

any workers’ compensation benefits paid whether it is under a 

state plan, whether it is under FECA, or whether it is under the 

other federal workers’ compensation plan, which is Longshore and 

Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 

Mr. ROKITA. What is the rationale? 

Mr. SZYMENDERA. Workers’ compensation benefits have never 

been treated as earnings or income. And so if you go all the way 

back, as I said, this is—we are in the 100th year of workers’ compensation—there has always been a sense that workers’ compensation benefits are different than income, and because they are different, they are treated differently—not taxed, as I think Ms. Carney has said, for example, you know, not eligible for TSP and 

things like, things of that nature. 

Mr. ROKITA. Fair enough. Thank you, very much. 

Mr. Bertoni, your testimony stated that if FECA beneficiaries at 

retirement age are converted to the federal retirement system, an 

agency such as OPM would have to develop an expertise that it 

currently doesn’t have. Can you elaborate on that, and why is that 

such a hurdle? 

Mr. BERTONI. Just both FECA and OPM have done different 

things for many years. So if you start putting—melding two systems, I am not—not to say that it is not possible, but you are now 

asking an organization that, perhaps, has dealt with the retirement 
54 

and—and benefits side of retirement to become case managers and 

case workers involved in the rehabilitation of the recipient. 

So it is not impossible. It is just consideration when you meld the 

two systems together, they are going—who is going to do what and 

when? 

Mr. ROKITA. That doesn’t sound that difficult. 

Mr. BERTONI. It is not impossible. It is just—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. 

Mr. BERTONI [continuing]. Consideration as we throw that out 

there, there are simpler ways to do things and there are more complex ways to do things. And it is just—on the continuum, it is 

somewhere in the middle. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. 

And then, Ms. Carney, in your written testimony, you mentioned 

a number of factors that make it difficult for claimants to find and 

keep doctors. And you talked about the rule example and how 

you—that person might be limited to a physician’s assistant or 

nurse practitioner. 

Have you reviewed the administration’s proposal to allow for the 

limited utilization of physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners, 

and do you have a—— 

Ms. CARNEY. No objection there. We think it is long over due, especially because it is so difficult, you know, because of a lot of other 

reasons, but it is so difficult to find physicians that are willing to 

participate in the plan. 

It may look like a lot, you know, on paper, but if you are—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. 

Ms. CARNEY. To answer your question, no. No problem. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. Maybe I misunderstood your testimony. I just 

wanted to clear that up. 

Ms. CARNEY. Okay. 

Mr. ROKITA. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. 

And I think the panel for shedding on this subject. 

And before making closing remarks, I would turn to the ranking 

member, Ms. Woolsey, for closing remarks. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit 

two statements for the record. One is from the National Treasury 

Employees’ Union. The other is from the National Active and Retired Federal Employees’ Association. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, so ordered, and I believe 

we have copies already and additional ones now, thank you. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Now you have two. 

Chairman WALBERG. We always can use more, huh? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear that when 

I was supporting the Department of Labor’s—what I thought—effort in assisting in returning employees, I meant returning to their 

original or comparable to their original employment. I am not talking about sending them off to some school to give them start over 

employment after they have become experts in what they were 

doing for the federal government. 

I mean, there is a way to do this. It really does make a difference 

in employees feeling welcome back, getting back sooner, maybe restrictive duties—absolutely, but not punished for it. And I just 
55 

would like to see us work together it sounds like we have got a system that in the long run doesn’t work out so well. 

Thank you, witnesses. I think you have been very informative. 

There are many, many questions, I think, that still remain about 

the impacts to beneficiaries, whether employing agencies can do 

more to hire injured workers, whether there are opportunities to 

prevent accidents that cause workplace injuries in the first place. 

, I was a human resources professional for 20 years, and I am 

telling you, anytime we worked with workers’ comp, brought them 

into the plant and they gave us ideas and suggestions, our workers’ 

comp claims went way down, because they knew what was going 

wrong. And I think that is something we ought to be thinking 

about and then training our managers and training the employees. 

Prevent workers’ comp claims in the first place. 

The testimony from the Government Accountability Office, Mr. 

Chairman, identified a list of questions that merit more consideration before we legislate any changes, I believe, to this very, very 

complex program. Because it impacts so many workers, and once 

we change something in our lifetime, it won’t get changed again. 

So I would like to suggest if we could that we would—and I 

would welcome the opportunity to work with you to gain assistance 

in securing more information from GAO in a valid way and assessing these administrative proposals and how it impacts—permanently impacts injured workers and have some case studies, maybe, 

involved. 

So thank you for today, and thank all of you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. 

And, again, thank you to the panel. This is a subject of great importance in a time of economic challenge in this country, in a time 

when there is a, in some sense, a general feeling that government 

employees don’t earn their pay, should be challenged and castigated. 

Ms. Carney, you are smiling, and I appreciate the fact when I 

talked to you earlier saying it would be terrible if nobody came to 

the party when we hosted one, and you said, there is only a party 

when I am here. And I appreciate your input today. 

But, you know, I think whether we be Democrat or Republican, 

we must admit that employees of federal government, when asked 

to do the job—a job that has been offered to them—do that job and 

deserve the respect, consideration as they perform that job, and the 

respect and consideration when unexpected and undesired injuries 

take place or other subsequent problems that bring on a need for 

compensation. 

And so, if we are going to have that in place—which we ought 

to—it ought to be a program that works for both sides and for the 

taxpayer. 

And so, Ms. Woolsey, I would tend to agree with you that probably one of the next steps in going further with the taste-testing 

this morning—the teaser on information, there is plenty more to 

come up with, and a GAO study may be the direction we need to 

go. 

I would encourage the Department of Labor to continue to be 

part of the solution here. I guess I was under a lack of under-
56 

standing in thinking that you had some proposals that you were 

going to be putting forward for legislation. 

I think it is something we ought to consider to make sure that 

it works. This subcommittee is certainly open and desirous of caring through that process. So we will be looking toward that and— 

in the coming days, and I think sooner rather than later. 

So thank you. We do want to applaud the work that is done by 

our federal employees. We want to not only suggest that we do all 

do consideration to make sure that they are provided for but the 

deficiencies that can be built on the whole system including this, 

that ultimately produces quality of care, is something that we must 

consider with due diligence. 

So having nothing more to present in this subcommittee hearing, 

I call the committee to adjournment. 

[Additional submissions of Ms. Woolsey follow:] 

Prepared Statement of Colleen M. Kelley, National President, 

National Treasury Employees Union 

Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Woolsey and Members of the Subcommittee 

on Workforce Protections, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) appreciates the opportunity to offer this statement to the Subcommittee as it considers 

the important matter of Workers’ Compensation in the federal sector. NTEU represents over 155,000 federal employees at 31 agencies. Our members perform every 

type of work for the American public from Customs and Border Protection Officers, 

to Transportation Security Officers, and Food and Drug Administration scientists 

working in laboratories at home or on assignment inspecting products in India and 

Mainland China. These public servants show up for work each day expecting to perform their important duties diligently and professionally in service to their country 

and then safely return home to their families. Nevertheless, some will suffer workplace injuries that make it impossible for them to return to work for short or long 

periods of time and, regrettably, in some cases to never be able to return to work 

at all due to permanent injury or even death. 

This year, the nation celebrates the centennial of Workers’ Compensation laws. 

One hundred years ago this month (May, 1911) the first Workers Compensation program was enacted into law by the state of Wisconsin, following on workplace injury 

insurance programs adopted in Germany and Great Britain. Nine other states followed this progressive initiative that same year and by 1948 all states had laws covering private and state workers. Workers’ Compensation insurance is a recognition 

of the responsibility of employers and society to take care of those injured in the 

workplace. It was our nation’s first social insurance program. Today, Workers’ Compensation stands as an important protection for the benefit of all Americans. Almost 

98% of the workforce is covered by workers’ compensation insurance. 

Five years after Wisconsin led the nation on this, Congress moved to insure the 

federal government’s own employees as well as railway, longshoremen and other 

harbor workers. The Kern-McGillicudy Act developed the program we now know as 

the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). 

FECA is one of the most important programs for federal workers. This program 

provides federal employees with workers’ compensation coverage for injuries and 

diseases sustained while performing their duties. The program seeks to provide adequate benefits to injured federal workers while at the same time limiting the government’s liability strictly to workers compensation payments. Payments are to be 

prompt and predetermined to relieve employees and agencies from uncertainty over 

the outcome of court cases and to eliminate wasteful litigation. Efficient government 

is advanced by a civil service that is expected to have the highest levels of professionalism and competency and in turn is fairly compensated and treated with dignity and respect. There is no greater disrespect to human dignity than to have to 

suffer injury from an unsafe workplace or from employer negligence. 

NTEU welcomes a review of the FECA program, while always keeping in mind 

this is an issue of human dignity. We believe such a review should be broad and 

comprehensive. By that, we mean that it should never start or be rigidly limited 

to benefit payments. Instead the first principle should be making the federal workplace safe by actions to move us towards the goal where no worker need come to 

work with the possibility it will be his last day on the job because of a workplace 
57 

injury. NTEU has worked with Republican and Democratic administrations on this 

goal and we are ready to continue those efforts. 

However, I want to state our strong opposition to insurance benefit cuts, particularly for those employees who came to work one day ready to serve their country 

but suffered a workplace injury that resulted in them never being able to return. 

We are most concerned about proposals for a forced retirement provision. An employee who is injured on the job and unable to work receives FECA payments equal 

to 67% of wages at the time of injury (a slightly higher amount if he has family 

obligations). This reduction in income makes it impossible for an injured employee 

to fund a retirement plan. Once workplace injured workers are on FECA, they receive no further retirement credits or contribution matches, nor are they able to 

make elective contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan. This holds true for Social 

Security as well as the federal retirement programs. Forcing a worker at retirement 

age to give up regular FECA benefits and live on the income from retirement savings put aside up until his or her worklife was interrupted by an on the job injury 

would cause grave economic hardship to many disabled employees. 

NTEU would also oppose elimination of the family benefit that is now a feature 

of FECA. Because FECA benefits are not taxed, the family allowance does little 

more than create some equity between the after tax income a worker with dependents and one without would have if not injured. 

Let me close by stating that NTEU very much wants to work with this subcommittee or any other policymaker to find ways to reduce the costs of the FECA 

program. As I have said, our belief is the best way to do so is not by reducing benefits or denying claims but by preventing the occurrence of injuries. NTEU is committed to a safe and healthy federal workplace where employees are less likely to 

ever suffer the injuries that lead to FECA claims. Our union has also been one of 

the strongest forces for innovation in the federal workplace, often working with 

management on bold new programs and sometimes dragging management forward 

over their reluctance. We have received reports from our members about management resistance or disinterest in light duty assignments, alternative worksites, disability accommodations and other actions that could allow FECA recipients to return to work. A change in management practices and culture is needed. I don’t expect this is something Congress can legislate, but the first step is to end the myth 

that able bodied workers are receiving FECA payments and accept the fact that 

many injured workers would like to return to work and could do so with opened 

minded and innovative agency practices. Further, NTEU is willing to work with policymakers to improve program integrity methods. For example, the Office of Worker 

Compensation Programs (OWCP) currently matches FECA claimants with Social Security Administration (SSA) data to determine if claimants have died. However, 

they do not match with SSA data to see if they are receiving wages that would make 

them ineligible for FECA benefits. We strongly believe these are the types of reforms that should be explored before Congress moves to cut these social insurance 

benefits to injured federal workers. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present NTEU’s views. 
58 

PERIODIC ROLL BREAKDOWN BY WEEKLY SALARY AND AGE (a) 

[Based upon 4/9/2011 check cycle; excludes fatal cases; including only cases with DOI in calendar year 2008 in order to get current weekly wage data] 

WEEKLY SALARY 

Under $500 $500 to $999.99 $1000 to $1499.99 $1500 to $1999.99 $2000 to $2499.99 $2500 to $2999.99 $3000 to $3499.99 $3500 to $3999.99 $4000 to $4499.99 

ANNUAL SALARY 

up to 

$25,999 

$26,000 to 

$51,999 

$52,000 to 

$77,999 

$78,000 to 

$103,999 

$104,000 to 

$129,999 

$130,000 to 

$155,999 

$156,000 to 

$181,999 

$182,000 to 

$207,999 

$208,000 to 

$233,999 

Age group: All 

0-20 ................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 0 

21-25 .............................................................................. 2 4 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 6 26-30 .............................................................................. 11 20 2 2 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 35 31-35 .............................................................................. 15 61 10 3 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 89 36-40 .............................................................................. 14 81 34 2 1 .................... .................... .................... .................... 132 41-45 .............................................................................. 25 87 62 5 2 4 .................... .................... .................... 185 46-50 .............................................................................. 30 128 145 12 5 4 1 1 .................... 326 51-55 .............................................................................. 30 132 174 15 5 .................... 1 2 .................... 359 56-60 .............................................................................. 25 96 134 10 7 5 .................... .................... .................... 277 61-65 .............................................................................. 14 65 92 12 1 1 .................... 1 .................... 186 66-70 .............................................................................. 4 15 20 3 4 .................... .................... .................... .................... 46 71-75 .............................................................................. 3 4 7 1 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 15 76+ ................................................................................. 2 2 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 4 

Totals .......................................................................... 175 695 680 65 25 14 2 4 0 1660 

Note: Although the weekly salaries listed include income over $182,000, the 1966 amendments to the FECA provide that compensation can not exceed 75% of the monthly salary of a GS-15, step 10. Proposed Average Schedule Award Rate = $53,639 (GS11/3 in FY11). Approx. number of people with annual salaries BELOW the new SA rate: 870. Approx. number of people with annual salaries ABOVE the new SA rate: 790. Source: U.S. DOL. 
59 

PERIODIC ROLL BREAKDOWN BY WEEKLY SALARY AND AGE (b) 

[Based upon 4/9/2011 check cycle; excludes fatal cases] 

Age group 

Case status 

OP PN PR PS PW All 

0-20 .............................................................................................. 0 0 6 0 0 6 

21-25 ............................................................................................ 0 2 47 3 5 57 

26-30 ............................................................................................ 1 3 153 16 32 205 

31-35 ............................................................................................ 5 9 387 41 91 533 

36-40 ............................................................................................ 10 55 854 69 237 1225 

41-45 ............................................................................................ 28 98 1546 125 457 2254 

46-50 ............................................................................................ 67 309 3127 224 1018 4745 

51-55 ............................................................................................ 79 641 4304 388 1586 6998 

56-60 ............................................................................................ 102 1026 4382 464 2001 7975 

61-65 ............................................................................................ 115 1561 3581 434 1825 7516 

66-70 ............................................................................................ 118 1339 1813 149 1131 4550 

71-75 ............................................................................................ 61 1528 1005 49 788 3431 

76+ ............................................................................................... 52 4332 964 41 1264 6653 

Totals: ............................................................................. 638 10903 22169 2003 10435 46148 

PR: Entitled to payment on periodic roll. 

PN: Entitled to payment on periodic roll; determined to have no wage earning-capacity or re-employment potential for indefinite future. PW: Entitled to payment on periodic roll at a reduced rate, reflecting a partial wage-earning capacity or actual earnings. 

PS: Entitled to payment for schedule award. 

OP: On the Periodic Roll, but an overpayment exists and is being deducted from compensation 

Source: U.S. DOL 

Appropriated Fund Agencies in FECA Which 

Do Not Reimburse for Administrative Costs 

Department of Labor 

Department of Health & Human Services 

Department of State 

Department of Housing & Urban Development 

Department of Defense Agencies 

Department of the Army 

Department of the Air Force 

Department of the Navy 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Education 

Department of the Interior 

Executive Office of the President 

Social Security Administration 

Smithsonian Institution 

Federal Judiciary 

Peace Corps 

Corporation for National & Community Service 

American Battle Monuments Commission 

African Development Foundation 

Inter-American Foundation 

Architect of the Capitol 

U.S. Commission of Fine Arts 

Presidio Trust 

Federal Communications Commission 

Farm Credit Administration 

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission 

Federal Trade Commission 

Government Accountability Office 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service 

Library of Congress 

Federal Labor Relations Authority 

Institute of Museum & Library Services 

Office of Special Counsel 

National Archives & Records Administration 

National Capital Planning Commission 

National Labor Relations Board 
60 

National Mediation Board 

National Science Foundation 

Railroad Retirement Board 

Office of Government Ethics 

Securities & Exchange Commission 

Selective Service System 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Personnel Management 

Broadcasting Board of Governors 

International Trade Commission 

Panama Canal Commission 

Commission on Civil Rights 

U.S. House of Representatives 

U.S. Senate 

Int’l Boundary & Water Commission/US & Mexico 

Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

U.S. Tax Court 

Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

National Endowment for the Arts 

National Endowment for the Humanities 

Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission 

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Congressional Budget Office 

Federal Election Commission 

U.S. Institute of Peace 

U.S. Botanic Garden 

Federal Maritime Commission 

U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

U.S. Agency for International Development 

Legal Services Corporation 

U.S. Court of Veterans’ Appeals 

U.S. Capitol Police 

General Services Administration 

National Aeronautics & Space Administration 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Government Printing Office 

Central Intelligence Agency 

William Howard Taft Memorial Site 

Valles Caldera Trust 

State Justice Institute 

Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

Marine Mammal Commission 

Morris K. Udall Foundation 

Millennium Challenge Corporation 

Interagency Council on Homelessness 

Institute of American Indian Arts 

Defense Nuclear Safety Facility Board 

US Election Assistance Commission 

Denali Commission 

US Chemical Safety Hazard Investigation Board 

Committee for Purchase/Blind or Severely Disabled 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

Administrative Conference of the United States 

US Access Board 

Court Services & Offender Supervision Agency 

Source: U.S.DOL. 
61 

1 According to OPM, the average federal employee retiring optionally on an immediate annuity 

under CSRS will receive about 60% of their ‘‘high-three’’ average salary. 

‘‘Fair Share’’ Agencies Which Reimburse DOL for 

Administrative Costs Under FECA 

United States Postal Service 

Export-Import Bank 

Federal Home Loan Bank Board 

Small Business Administration 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

Board of Governors/Federal Reserve System 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board 

National Credit Union Administration 

Resolution Trust Corporation 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Mixed ‘‘Fair Share’’ and Appropriated Fund Agencies 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Energy 

Department of Transportation 

Department of Treasury 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Department of Justice 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

Source: US DOL. 

Prepared Statement of Joseph A. Beaudoin, President, 

National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Joseph A. Beaudoin, President of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE). 

NARFE, one of America’s oldest and largest associations, was founded in 1921 with 

the mission of protecting the earned rights and benefits of America’s active and retired federal workers. The largest federal employee/retiree organization, NARFE 

represents the retirement interests of approximately 4.6 million current and future 

federal annuitants, spouses, and survivors. 

I am submitting testimony today, for the record, on behalf of those 4.6 million federal workers and annuitants. I appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns 

about legislative proposals that would reduce Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

(FECA) benefits for retirement age recipients. 

FECA reforms should focus on saving money by improving the workers’ compensation process and structure and not by reducing benefits available to employees injured or made ill by their jobs. There have been numerous proposals to reform 

FECA by improving the number of employees rehabilitated who can return to work 

to changing the structure of payments for schedule awards to establishing waiting 

periods and more, none of which reduce the basic compensation paid to FECA recipients. 

Unfortunately, both the Administration and Senator Susan Collins have made 

specific proposals which would reduce benefits paid to FECA recipients at retirement age. These proposals do not adequately take into account the disadvantages 

faced by those employees unfortunate enough to suffer a debilitating injury or illness as a result of their public service. 

Administration Proposal 

The Administration proposes to reduce FECA recipients’ basic compensation benefit to 50 percent of their gross salary at the date of injury, still tax-free, when they 

reach full Social Security retirement age. While this proposal provides a retirement 

level income much closer to that of current retirees,1 it still does not fully account 

for disadvantages faced by FECA recipients. Notably, FECA recipients (1) lose the 

ability to increase their salary through raises and promotions, (2) they have a reduced ability to save because (a) they are not receiving a full replacement of income 

pre-retirement, and (b) FERS-covered employees are not able to contribute to the 
62 

2 Under CSRS, a disability retirement annuitant, someone unable to perform their job due to 

a injury or illness that is not necessarily work related, is guaranteed a minimum benefit that 

equals the lesser of 40 percent of the high-three average salary or the regular annuity obtained 

after increasing years of service for the time between the disability and age 60. Thus, credit 

for years of service actually acts to reduce the minimum annuity under CSRS. Under FERS, 

disability retirement annuitants receive credit for years of service for the years between the injury or illness and age 62. 

Thrift Savings Plan and receive matching contributions, and (3) they may have a 

reduced Social Security benefit because FERS employees covered by Social Security 

are unable to earn credit for and increase monthly earnings used to calculate those 

benefit payments. 

While the framework of the Administration’s proposal offers more economic security than S. 261’s, it still short-changes FECA recipients. 

S. 261, Federal Employees’ Compensation Reform Act 

Senator Collins’ bill would move FECA recipients to the retirement system at full 

Social Security retirement age (between 65 and 67, depending on year of birth). Instead of receiving 66.67 percent of monthly pay (or 75% for recipients with dependents) tax-free, former FECA recipients would receive a taxable annuity computed by 

multiplying the average of their highest three years of salary times years of service 

times an accrual rate (1 or 1.1% for FERS-covered employees or 1.5 to 2% for CSRScovered employees). This presents multiple issues. 

First, there is no provision to adjust upwards the average highest three years of 

salary to account for wage inflation. FECA recipients will also have lost the ability 

to increase their salary through raises and promotions. At the very least, they 

should receive an adjustment based on the Employment Cost Index or other wage 

inflation indicator to the average highest three years of salary for purposes of computing their annuity. 

Second, unless the FECA recipient is covered by FERS and applied for a disability 

retirement annuity within 12 months of their injury or illness, s/he likely would not 

receive credit for years of service for the time between when s/he became injured 

or ill and when s/he turns 62 years of age.2

Third, FERS-covered FECA recipients lose the ability to invest a portion of their 

payments into the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) and receive matching contributions 

from their agencies. 

Finally, FERS-covered employees may have a reduced Social Security benefit because they are unable to earn credit for and increase monthly earnings used to calculate those benefit payments. 

The net effect of the transition to the retirement system would be a substantial 

and unfair reduction in benefits for many FECA recipients. However, Senator Collins has consulted NARFE on S. 261 and we are working with her to improve the 

legislation. 

Conclusion 

Other FECA reform proposals save money by helping bring FECA recipients back 

into the work force, eliminating inefficiencies in the process, allowing for full reimbursement from liable third parties, or reducing improper payments and fraud. But 

unlike those proposals, reductions in retirement age benefits will take money away 

from individuals who are irrefutably unable to work because they were injured or 

became ill as a result of their service for the federal government. If they had the 

choice, they would be healthy and working and preparing for a retirement of choice 

rather than necessity. 

Thus, I urge you to seriously consider the significant financial implications that 

proposed reductions to FECA benefits could have on disabled public servants who 

have lost the ability to earn income to adjust their financial situation to new circumstances. These federal employees include FBI agents who have been shot in the 

line of duty, or federal firefighters injured while saving someone’s life. We need to 

treat these public servants with respect and gratitude, not indifference. 

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I urge you to do so, and thank you 

for receiving this testimony. 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ