United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Federal Way, WA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-150 

Issued: May 12, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

On October 28, 2013 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 3, 2013 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying her claim for reimbursement 

of travel expenses and an October 17, 2013 nonmerit decision denying her request for 

reconsideration. 

In September 2011, appellant began treatment with Dr. Kurt Anderson, a Board-certified 

hand surgeon and orthopedic surgeon. She resided in Walla Walla, Washington and 

Dr. Anderson’s practice was located in Spokane, Washington. The distance between appellant’s 

home and Dr. Anderson’s office round-trip was approximately 320 miles. Dr. Anderson 

performed various surgical procedures pertaining to appellant’s accepted employment-related 

conditions which were approved by OWCP. OWCP paid appellant’s expenses in the course of 

securing medical services or supplies from Dr. Anderson, including mileage for travel 

reimbursement. Appellant continued seeking treatment with Dr. Anderson over the course of the 

next two years. 

In a June 26, 2013 transportation and travel request, appellant notified OWCP that 

Dr. Anderson moved his practice to Olympia, Washington. She noted that she had an upcoming 

appointment on July 9, 2013 and requested reimbursement of mileage in the amount of 646 miles 

for round-trip travel during the dates of July 8 to 9, 2013. 
2

By decision dated July 3, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reimbursement of 

646 miles of travel for her physician appointment for the period of July 8 to 9, 2013. It noted 

that the procedure manual states that generally, 25 miles from the place of injury, the work site 

or residence, is considered a reasonable distance to travel. 

On July 15, 2013 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s decision. By decision 

dated October 17, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration finding that she 

neither raised substantive legal questions nor included new and relevant evidence. 

Section 8103 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides that the 

United States shall furnish to an employee who is injured while in the performance of duty, the 

services, appliances and supplies prescribed or recommended by a qualified physician, which 

OWCP considers likely to cure, give relief, reduce the degree of the period of disability or aid in 

lessening the amount of monthly compensation.1

 

With respect to travel expenses for medical treatment, the regulations provide: 

“(a) The employee is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable and necessary 

expenses, including transportation needed to obtain authorized medical services, 

appliances or supplies. To determine what is a reasonable distance to travel, 

OWCP will consider the availability of services, the employee’s condition and the 

means of transportation. Generally, a round[-]trip distance of up to 100 miles is 

considered a reasonable distance to travel. Travel should be undertaken by the 

shortest route, and if practical, by public conveyance. If the medical evidence 

shows that the employee is unable to use these means of transportation, OWCP 

may authorize travel by taxi or special conveyance.”2

 

The July 3, 2013 OWCP decision denying appellant’s request for travel reimbursement 

noted that the procedure manual provides that a reasonable distance to travel is generally 

considered to be 25 miles from the place of injury, the work site or the employee’s home. The 

Board notes, however, that effective August 29, 2011, the regulations changed and currently a 

round-trip of up to 100 miles is considered reasonable.3

 Thus, OWCP improperly utilized the 

old regulations when denying appellant’s request for travel reimbursement. Further, the July 3, 

2013 decision provided no explanation for denying the claim other than generally stating that 25 

miles from appellant’s work site, residence or place of injury is considered a reasonable distance 

to and from medical appointments. The decision failed to consider factors such as the 

availability of services and the employee’s condition as noted in the regulations.4

 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8103. 

2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a) (2012). 

3 Id. See also FECA Bulletin No. 14-02-03 (issued January 29, 2014). 

4 Supra note 2. 
3

The case will be remanded to OWCP for proper adjudication of the issue using the 

current regulations.5

 After such further development as is deemed necessary, OWCP should 

issue a merit decision.6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 17 and July 3, 2013 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside. The case is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion of the Board. 

Issued: May 12, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 5 Id.

6

 Given the disposition of the first issue as this case is not in posture for decision, the second nonmerit issue is 

moot.