United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GENERAL MAIL 

FACILITY, Phoenix, AZ, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0049 

Issued: January 29, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On October 15, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 21, 2015 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP abused its discretion by denying reimbursement for travel 

expenses to a pharmacy. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

The case was before the Board on prior appeals.2

 OWCP accepted that appellant 

sustained a left shoulder subscapular muscle strain on March 17, 1989 while throwing sacks of 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 Docket No. 03-1614 (issued December 16, 2003). 
2

mail into a hamper. On November 11, 1997 appellant alleged that he sustained a left shoulder 

injury while lifting a tray of mail from a u-cart to a hamper. The claim was accepted for left 

shoulder strain. OWCP also accepted that appellant sustained a left shoulder strain while 

reaching for and lifting a bundle of coins on June 1, 1999. The claims were combined into the 

present master file, No. xxxxxx837. 

By letter dated March 6, 2014, OWCP indicated that appellant had claimed travel 

reimbursement for a trip to his pharmacy on multiple dates. It reported that he had requested 

reimbursement for 80 miles roundtrip from his home, although the actual distance was 60 miles. 

Appellant responded in a March 10, 2014 letter that he was using a Walgreen’s pharmacy in 

Tempe, Arizona because it was a 24-hour pharmacy and more accessible when he needed 

prescriptions filled. He reported that the route he was taking was actually 82.4 miles roundtrip 

from his home, as another route had delays due to construction. Appellant attached maps and 

printed directions. 

OWCP advised appellant in an April 17, 2014 letter that it had reviewed Walgreen’s 

pharmacy locations and there was a 24-hour pharmacy approximately nine miles from his house, 

and provided an address for the pharmacy. In addition, it indicated there was a Walgreen’s 

pharmacy within one mile of his house, with closing hours of 10:00 p.m. during the week and 

6:00 p.m. on weekends. OWCP advised appellant there was no reason to travel 80 miles 

roundtrip to fill his prescriptions. 

By decision dated October 8, 2014, OWCP denied travel reimbursement for claimed 

travel to Walgreen’s pharmacy of 80 miles roundtrip. It noted the locations of the pharmacies 

discussed in its April 17, 2014 letter. 

In a March 22, 2014 letter, appellant indicated that he had claimed travel reimbursement 

for nine pharmacy roundtrip visits at 80 miles per visit from January 28 to February 27, 2014. 

For the period February 28 to April 20, 2014, he indicated that he requested travel 

reimbursement at 60 miles for a roundtrip visit. 

Appellant requested a review of the written record by an OWCP hearing representative 

on October 27, 2014. He argued that he had been using the Tempe pharmacy location for over 

20 years and OWCP had previously paid his travel reimbursement. 

By decision dated May 21, 2015, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the October 8, 

2014 decision. She found OWCP had not abused its discretion in denying the claimed travel 

reimbursement. 

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.3 In interpreting section 8103(a), the 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8103(a). 
3

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 

the shortest amount of time.4

 OWCP has administrative discretion in choosing the means to 

achieve this goal and the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of reasonableness.5

With respect to transportation, OWCP regulation provides that the employee is entitled to 

reimbursement of necessary expenses, including transportation needed to obtain authorized 

medical services, appliances, or supplies.6

 To determine what is a reasonable distance, OWCP 

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

transportation. Generally, a distance of up to 100 miles roundtrip is considered a reasonable 

distance to travel, and travel should be undertaken by the shortest route and by public 

conveyance if practical.7

FECA Bulletin No. 14-02 provides in relevant part: “A claimant may claim mileage for 

pharmacy pick up to his or her local pharmacy; reimbursement is generally limited to the closest 

pharmacy by the shortest route.”8

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has claimed reimbursement for travel from his home to a 

pharmacy to pick up medical prescriptions. He indicated that he went to a Walgreen’s pharmacy 

in Tempe, Arizona, which was either 80 miles or 60 miles from his home, depending on the route 

taken. 

Although the regulations noted above refer to a 100-mile roundtrip, in the present case 

appellant is not travelling for medical treatment. As FECA Bulletin No. 14-02 indicates, while 

pharmacy transportation may be reimbursable, it is generally limited to the closest pharmacy by 

the closest route. In considering the “availability of services” under OWCP regulations at 20 

C.F.R. § 10.315(a) noted above, OWCP made a finding that there was a Walgreen’s pharmacy 

one mile from appellant’s home and another with 24-hour service approximately nine miles from 

his house. Appellant did not contest these particular findings of fact and no contrary evidence 

was presented. 

The reason appellant provided for filling his prescriptions in Tempe was that he had been 

going there for 20 years and it was a 24-hour pharmacy. A prior reimbursement for 

transportation or other services under 5 U.S.C. § 8103(a) does not establish a continuing 

 4 Dale E. Jones, 48 ECAB 648, 649 (1997). 

5 Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214, 221 (1990) (holding that abuse of discretion by OWCP is generally shown 

through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or administrative actions which are 

contrary to both logic and probable deductions from established facts). 

6

 20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a). 

7 Id. See also D.F., Docket No. 14-1841 (issued July 20, 2015).

8

 FECA Bulletin No. 14-02 (issued January 29, 2014). 
4

entitlement to reimbursement.9 Appellant did not adequately explain why a 24-hour pharmacy 

was required, and in any case OWCP found a 24-hour Walgreen’s pharmacy much closer to his 

home. OWCP made a reasonable conclusion that he could have his prescriptions filled without 

travelling 60 or 80 miles roundtrip. This finding is consistent with “the closest pharmacy by the 

shortest route” provision of FECA Bulletin No. 14-02. 

OWCP has, as discussed above, discretion in approving travel reimbursement consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. § 8103. The denial of the requested travel reimbursements was reasonable under 

the circumstances of this case. Therefore, no abuse of discretion has been established in this 

case. 

On appeal, appellant argues that he had complied with OWCP’s request for evidence 

regarding his travel to the Tempe pharmacy and asserts that OWCP implied that he could 

continue to use this pharmacy if he provided the requested information. As noted, a prior 

reimbursement does not establish that OWCP must continue the same reimbursement to 

appellant. OWCP has discretion to authorize mileage for prescription purchases, and for the 

reasons discussed OWCP did not abuse its discretion in this case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds OWCP did not abuse its discretion by denying reimbursement for travel 

expenses to a pharmacy. 

 9 See W.H., Docket No. 14-1662 (issued February 3. 2015). See also J.M., Docket No. 07-1075 (issued 

May 21, 2008). 
5

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated May 21, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: January 29, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board