United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.D., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MILITARY 

SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, EASTERN 

OREGON UNIVERSITY, La Grange, OR, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1413 

Issued: October 28, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 6, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 20, 2014 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) that denied his claim. Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act1

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

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a traumatic injury in 

the performance of duty on June 17, 2013. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2

 The Board notes that appellant submitted evidence with his appeal to the Board. The Board cannot consider this 

evidence as its review of the case is limited to the evidence of record that was before OWCP at the time it rendered 

its final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Appellant may submit the evidence to OWCP with a valid request for 

reconsideration, as noted above. 
2

On appeal, appellant asserts that he was on duty attending training on June 17, 2013 

when he was bitten by bats. He indicated that thereafter he underwent a number of prophylactic 

injections. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 8, 2013 appellant, then a 21-year-old Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

(ROTC) cadet filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that on June 17, 2013 he sustained bat bites 

on his left great toe and right small toe. He indicated that the claim was for medical treatment 

only. Lieutenant Alan K. Kerr signed the claim form as a witness and stated that appellant 

returned from South America with bites on both feet and submitted documentation of medical 

treatment. Richard McKim, a supervisor, signed the claim form. In an attached statement, 

appellant indicated that during a 48-hour jungle training exercise with the Guyana Defense Force 

in South America, he was bitten by bats while in his shelter. He indicated that he briefly visited 

a local medical facility but no vaccinations were administered. An unsigned “statement of 

medical examination and duty status” indicated that appellant was treated at the Ireland 

Community Army Hospital at Fort Knox, Kentucky on July 31, 2013 by Paul Estes for an 

accident that occurred during a 48-hour training exercise when he had two simultaneous bat 

bites. 

By letter dated February 7, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence received 

was insufficient to support his claim because it had not received a “line of duty” determination 

from the Military Science Officer of his ROTC program. A copy of the letter was sent to the 

Eastern Oregon University ROTC unit. Appellant was given 30 days to furnish the requested 

documentation. 

In an August 9, 2013 treatment note, Dr. Gregory Hoskins, Board-certified in emergency 

medicine, described the history of injury and indicated that appellant had received one injection 

of Rabavert at Fort Knox. He prescribed additional rabies vaccinations and appellant was 

administered rabies vaccines that day and additional vaccines on August 13 and 29 and 

September 25, 2013. 

By decision dated March 20, 2014, OWCP denied the claim on the grounds that appellant 

had not provided a “line of duty” certification. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8140 of FECA has extended federal workers’ compensation benefits coverage to 

members of the ROTC. Section 8140 provides as follows: 

“(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, this subchapter applies to a member 

of or applicant for membership in, ROTC of the Army, Navy or Air Force who, 

suffers an injury, disability or death incurred or an illness contracted in line of 

duty -- 

(1) while engaged in a flight or flight instruction under [C]hapter 103 of 

[T]itle 10; or 

(2) during the period of the member’s attendance at training or a practice 

cruise under [C]hapter 103 of [T]itle 10, United States Code, beginning 

when the authorized travel to the training or practice cruise begins and 

ending when authorized travel from the training or practice cruise ends. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an injury is incurred in the line of duty only if 

it is the proximate result of the performance of military training by the member 

concerned or of his travel to or from that training, during the periods specified by 

subsection (a)(2) of this section.”3

Section 4.600.6(b)(3) of OWCP procedures provide that, for injuries that occur on or 

after October 1, 1988, “[t]he Secretary of the military department (or his or her designee) 

determines whether or not an injury was incurred in the line of duty, subject to review by 

OWCP.”4

 The section then refers to section 4.600.5(b)(5) for further explanation.5 Section 

4.600.5 indicates that matters pertaining to time, fact of injury and causal relationship will be 

determined as in other claims under FECA.6 It states that: 

“The military department concerned is responsible for making a ‘line of duty’ 

determination, subject to review by OWCP and should provide the appropriate 

statutory citation in support of that determination. ‘Line of duty’ determinations 

made by the military should be accorded great weight. It should be noted that the 

term, ‘line of duty,’ should be interpreted in the military context and is not 

synonymous with the term ‘performance of duty’ as usually interpreted under the 

FECA. There are many circumstances in which a member of the military would 

be considered to be in the ‘line of duty,’ while a civilian federal employee would 

not be considered in the ‘performance of duty.’ One example of this difference 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8140. 

4

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 4 -- Special Case Procedures, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, 

Chapter 4.600.6(b)(3) (May 1996). 

5 Id. 

6 Id. at Chapter 4.600.6(a); see Scott B. Schlegel, Docket No. 05-277 (issued April 5, 2005). 
4

would be in the instance of an ROTC cadet who was authorized to take leave 

from a training exercise for purposes of personal travel and was injured when 

returning to the military base. The military would interpret this injury as having 

occurred in the ‘line of duty,’ since the travel was authorized and took place while 

travelling to training. A civilian employee under similar circumstances would not 

be considered to be in the ‘performance of duty’.”7

 Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish a 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.8

 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable 

medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by 

the employee.9 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

of employment nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.10

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish an injury in the performance of duty 

because he did not furnish the required “line of duty” verification requested. While 

Lieutenant Kerr signed the claim form as a witness to the injury and Mr. McKim signed the form 

as appellant’s supervisor, neither has been identified as “the secretary of military department or 

his or her designee,” who, under OWCP procedures, is responsible for determining whether an 

ROTC claimant was in the line of duty when injured.11 

As appellant did not establish that he was in the line of duty when he sustained the bat 

bites, he did not establish a required element of his claim. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish that he sustained an injury in the line of 

duty on June 17, 2013. 

 7 Id. at Chapter 4.600.5(b)(5). 

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

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

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

11 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, supra notes 3-5; compare Dustin E. Marlett, 54 ECAB 602 (2003). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 20, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 28, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board