United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.F., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chattanooga, TN, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1841 

Issued: July 20, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 18, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from April 29 and August 8, 2014 

merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1

 Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2

 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s 

requests for travel reimbursement. 

On appeal, appellant asserts that OWCP was irrational and erroneous in denying his 

reasonable and necessary travel expenses including meal and hotel expenses from March 10 to 

12, 2014, for reasonable and necessary examination and surgery performed by Dr. Paul V. 

 1

 An oral argument scheduled for June 18, 2015 was cancelled at appellant’s request. 

2

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

Spiegl, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. He maintains that a physician was not available 

within 100 miles and that he was given verbal authorization by an OWCP claims examiner, 

Joe Bushnell, who is no longer affiliated with this case. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

This case has previously been before the Board.3 In an August 26, 2014 decision, under 

OWCP file number xxxxxx460, the Board found that OWCP met its burden of proof to terminate 

appellant’s wage-loss compensation on July 16, 2012 for a July 22, 2011 right ankle injury and 

that appellant did not establish continuing disability from July 16, 2012 to March 2013. The 

Board further found that a conflict in medical evidence has been created regarding OWCP’s 

termination of medical benefits.4 The law and facts of the previous Board decision are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

Under file number xxxxxx460, Dr. Paul L. Kingloff, an attending Board-certified 

orthopedic surgeon, referred appellant to Dr. Spiegl, a foot and ankle specialist, for treatment. 

While the above-mentioned case was on appeal to the Board, on April 9, 2013 appellant 

reinjured his right ankle when he stepped from his postal vehicle. He stopped work that day. 

This new injury was developed as OWCP file number xxxxxx308. The claim was accepted for 

right ankle sprain, right tibialis tendinitis, right exostosis, right bunion, resolving right idiopathic 

scoliosis, and acquired right equinovarus deformity. Appellant received compensation and was 

placed on the periodic compensation rolls. 

On April 17, 2013 Dr. Kingloff again referred appellant to Dr. Spiegl. In an April 30, 

2013 report, Dr. Spiegl reported that appellant had two work-related right ankle injuries, on 

July 22, 2011 and April 9, 2013. He provided physical examination findings, reviewed x-rays, 

and diagnosed tibialis tendinitis. Dr. Spiegl advised that appellant could only do sedentary work, 

and recommended a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan study. On July 8, 2013 he 

determined that appellant could only be on his feet for 15 minutes each hour, was unable to 

climb, and could not drive. Dr. Spiegl continued to see appellant, and on August 6, 2013 noted 

MRI scan findings including a tibialis tendon tear. He recommended reconstructive surgery. 

The surgery was authorized by OWCP on November 25, 2013. Dr. Spiegl continued to treat 

appellant, and on February 26, 2014 conducted a presurgery history and physical. 

Appellant submitted a medical travel refund request for February 26, 2014 for travel 

between his home in Cleveland, Tennessee, and Dr. Spiegl’s office in Atlanta, Georgia, for a 

total of 267 round-trip miles. By letter dated March 14, 2014, OWCP authorized 267 units of 

reimbursement. 

On March 11, 2014 Dr. Spiegl performed extensive reconstructive surgery on appellant’s 

right ankle and foot. He saw appellant in follow up on March 12, 2014. 

 3

 The instant claim was adjudicated under file number xxxxxx308. That case was combined with file number 

xxxxxx460 on November 4, 2014. 

4

 Docket No. 14-30 (issued August 26, 2014). 
3

On March 17, 2014 appellant submitted a travel refund request for March 10 to 12, 2014. 

This included 270 miles traveled between his home and Dr. Spiegl’s office, a total of $688.76 for 

two nights lodging, $109.35 for meals, and $16.00 for tolls/parking. On March 31, 2014 OWCP 

authorized a total of 270 units of reimbursement for March 10, 2014. 

Appellant submitted a travel refund request for March 20, 2014 for 270 miles traveled 

round trip, $45.22 for meals, and $6.00 for tolls/parking. He submitted another travel refund 

request for March 27 and 28, 2014 for 270 miles traveled between his home and Dr. Spiegl’s 

office, 12 miles traveled for two trips to a pharmacy, $36.09 for meals, and $6.00 for 

tolls/parking. On April 2, 2014 appellant claimed expenses for April 1 and 2, 2014 of 270 miles 

round-trip travel between his home and Dr. Spiegl’s office, 12 miles traveled for two trips to a 

pharmacy, $36.53 for meals, and $6.00 for tolls/parking. The record at that time confirmed that 

he had been seen by Dr. Spiegl on March 20 and April 1, 2014. 

Appellant telephoned OWCP on April 7, 2014 regarding his travel reimbursement and 

was informed that OWCP does not pay for lodging and meals. 

On April 9, 2014 OWCP authorized 276 units of reimbursement for March 27, 2014. 

In correspondence dated April 14, 2014 addressed to Mr. Bushnell, appellant maintained 

that he spoke on the telephone with Mr. Bushnell on December 19, 2013, and that Mr. Bushnell 

had given him authorization for lodging and meal expenses, to include the day before and day 

after surgery. 

On April 10, 2014 appellant claimed expenses for April 10, 2014 of 270 miles round-trip 

travel between his home and Dr. Spiegl’s office, 6 miles traveled for a trip to a pharmacy, $35.72 

for meals, and $6.00 for tolls/parking. 

Appellant continued to telephone and correspond with OWCP regarding his 

reimbursement requests. In an April 11, 2014 letter, OWCP noted his travel reimbursement 

requests and informed him of the provisions of 20 C.F.R. § 10.315 which gives OWCP the 

discretion to determine if requested reimbursements are reasonable and necessary. It further 

noted that, generally, a 100-mile round trip was considered to be a reasonable distance, and that 

there was no reimbursement for meals or lodging when travel was for fewer than 500 miles 

round trip, and that lodging must receive prior authorization. OWCP informed appellant that the 

mere fact that OWCP had previously authorized and paid for medical treatment did not establish 

that it would pay reimbursement for travel greater than 100 miles or for meals and lodging. 

Appellant was given 30 days to submit medical documentation explaining why he had to travel 

so far outside his commuting area for treatment for the accepted conditions. 

Appellant submitted treatment notes from Dr. Spiegl dated April 1, 2014. On April 14, 

2014 he requested that the Acting Director of OWCP intervene and see that his travel 

reimbursement requests were paid in full. Appellant again maintained that on December 19, 

2013 Mr. Bushnell had authorized expenses by telephone. He noted that the record did not 
4

contain documentation of the telephone call, as required by OWCP procedures.5

 On April 22, 

2014 Dr. Spiegl advised that it was medically necessary for appellant to return on March 12, 

2014, the day after his surgery, to assess the surgical incisions and to prevent infection. 

On April 24, 2014 OWCP authorized 276 units of reimbursement for April 10, 2014. 

Appellant continued to telephone and write OWCP, complaining that he was incorrectly 

reimbursed. 

By decision dated April 29, 2014, OWCP advised appellant that for him to be entitled for 

travel expenses from his home to Dr. Spiegl’s office, in excess of 100 miles round trip, the 

evidence must establish that such travel was reasonable and necessary for treatment of the 

accepted conditions. It concluded that the medical evidence did not meet this burden. Appellant 

was informed that continued treatment with Dr. Spiegel would be authorized, but that travel 

would only be reimbursed for 100 miles round trip. Reimbursement for lodging, meals, and 

supplies/appliances was denied. 

Appellant submitted a travel reimbursement request for treatment by Dr. Spiegl on 

May 6, 2014. 

On May 9, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of the April 29, 2014 decision. He 

asserted that, by allowing continued treatment by Dr. Spiegl, it was reasonable for OWCP to 

reimburse him for the entire 270-mile round trip. Appellant continued to assert that 

Mr. Bushnell had given prior authorization for overnight stays prior to and the evening of the 

March 11, 2014 surgery, and continued to dispute the denials of authorization. He submitted 

travel reimbursement requests for treatment by Dr. Spiegl on May 22, June 5 and 24 and July 11, 

2014 

In a merit decision dated August 8, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the prior 

decision. It reiterated that appellant could continue treatment with Dr. Spiegl, but that mileage in 

excess of 100 miles, lodging, and meals would not be reimbursed. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8103(a) of FECA provides for the furnishing of services, appliances, and supplies 

prescribed or recommended by a qualified physician which OWCP, under authority delegated by 

the Secretary, considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce the degree or the period of disability, or 

aid in lessening the amount of monthly compensation.6

 In interpreting section 8103(a), the 

Board has recognized that OWCP has broad discretion in approving services provided under 

FECA to ensure that an employee recovers from his or her injury to the fullest extent possible in 

 5

 There is no record in either case records reflecting that appellant called OWCP on December 19, 2013. There 

are telephone memoranda between appellant and Mr. Bushnell on December 19 and 20, 2013 that appear to be about 

prescriptions for foot inserts and orthotics. 

6

 5 U.S.C. § 8103(a). 
5

the shortest amount of time.7

 OWCP has administrative discretion in choosing the means to 

achieve this goal and the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of reasonableness.8

 

OWCP regulations provide that the employee is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable 

and necessary expenses, including transportation needed to obtain authorized medical services, 

appliances, or supplies.9

 To determine a reasonable distance, it will consider the availability of 

services, the employee’s condition, and the means of transportation. Effective August 29, 2011, 

OWCP regulations provide that a round-trip distance of up to 100 miles is considered a 

reasonable distance to travel.10 If round-trip travel of more than 100 miles is contemplated, or air 

transportation or overnight accommodations will be needed, the employee must submit a written 

request to OWCP for prior authorization with information describing the circumstances and 

necessity for such travel expenses. OWCP will approve the request if it determines that the 

travel expenses are reasonable and necessary and are incident to obtaining authorized medical 

services, appliances or supplies.11 

Pursuant to FECA Bulletin No. 14-02, issued January 29, 2014, when a claimant submits 

a travel reimbursement in excess of 100 miles for a single date of service, the bill will 

automatically be suspended and the Central Bill Processing provider will send notification to 

OWCP claims examiner.12 FECA Bulletin No. 14-02 notes that in some limited circumstances it 

may be necessary for a claimant to travel more than 100 miles on a regular basis, such as when 

the claimant lives in a remote area.13 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s requests 

for travel reimbursement. 

On March 17, 2014 appellant submitted a travel refund request for March 10 to 12, 2014. 

This included 270 miles traveled between his home and Dr. Spiegl’s office, $688.76 for two 

nights lodging, $109.35 for meals, and $16.00 for tolls/parking. On March 31, 2014 OWCP 

authorized a total of 270 units of service for March 10, 2014. It did not authorize reimbursement 

for lodging, meals, or tolls/parking. Appellant submitted additional requests for travel expenses 

including mileage and meal reimbursement. 

 7 Dale E. Jones, 48 ECAB 648 (1997). 

8 Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214 (1990) (Abuse of discretion by OWCP is generally shown through proof of 

manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of judgement, or administrative actions which are contrary to both 

logic and probable deductions from established facts). 

9

 20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a). 

10 Id. 

11 Id. at § 10.315(b). 

12 FECA Bulletin No. 14-02 (issued January 29, 2014). 

13 Id. 
6

As noted above, OWCP regulations provide that, generally, a round trip of up to 100 

miles is a reasonable distance to travel.14 There may be circumstances where travel 

reimbursement of more than 100 miles is appropriate. An example of those circumstances might 

be an appellant who lives in a remote area with limited medical services and physicians of an 

appropriate specialty. To establish that a travel reimbursement of more than 100 miles is 

warranted, OWCP regulations indicate that the claimant must provide information describing the 

circumstances and necessity for such travel expenses. 

In this case, there is no evidence that appellant lived in a remote area with limited access 

to medical services or providers. He lives in Cleveland, Tennessee, which is near Chattanooga, 

Tennessee. There is no indication that competent and appropriate medical care was not available 

within a commuting area of Cleveland, Tennessee. Although OWCP had authorized travel 

expenses to Dr. Spiegl in the past, this past practice does not establish a right to continuing 

authorization.15 As indicated in FECA Bulletin No. 14-02, any travel reimbursement request of 

more than 100 miles was to be reviewed by an OWCP claims examiner.16

As to appellant’s claims for reimbursement of lodging and meal expenses, although he 

asserts that he was given authorization over the telephone by an OWCP claims examiner, this is 

not found in the record.17 More importantly, as noted above, a written request for prior 

authorization must be submitted to OWCP describing the circumstances and necessity for such 

travel expenses.18 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied the travel reimbursement requests in this 

case. No probative evidence was presented with respect to the necessity of travel over the 100-

mile standard set forth in OWCP regulations or that OWCP abused its discretion in denying 

reimbursement for lodging and meals. OWCP has administrative discretion with respect to 

authorization of travel reimbursement.19 The Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion 

in denying appellant’s travel reimbursement requests.20

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request 

for travel reimbursement. 

 14 20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a). 

15 See W.H., Docket No. 14-1662 (issued February 3, 2015). 

16 FECA Bulletin No. 14-02, supra note 12. 

17 Supra note 5. 

18 20 C.F.R. § 10.315(b). 

19 Daniel J. Perea, supra note 8. 

20 See V.K., Docket No. 12-1103 (issued October 12, 2012). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decisions of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated August 8 and April 29, 2014 are affirmed. 

Issued: July 20, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board