United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, TRAVIS 

AIR FORCE BASE, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1041

Issued: December 27, 2017

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 April 13, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 7, 2016 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.

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether OWCP properly found an overpayment of $3,168.84 was 

created due to incorrect payment of travel reimbursements; and (2) whether it properly found 

appellant was at fault in creating the overpayment and was therefore not entitled to waiver of the 

overpayment.

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.

2

 The facts of the case as presented in the 

Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows. 

Appellant filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on July 31, 1992 

she sustained an emotional condition causally related to factors of her federal employment.

OWCP initially denied her claim on March 3, 1993 as she had not established a compensable

factor of employment. After several requests for reconsideration, following which OWCP 

denied modification, appellant filed an appeal with the Board. By decision dated April 3, 1997, 

the Board remanded the case to OWCP, finding that she had substantiated compensable work 

factors with respect to unwarranted sexually explicit comments made by a coworker. The Board 

found that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to require further development. 

On May 30, 1997 OWCP accepted the claim for dysthymic disorder. The record does not 

indicate whether appellant received wage-loss compensation. OWCP did pay for medical 

treatment related to the accepted condition. The record contains a bill pay history that shows 

payments to Dr. John Brandes, a psychologist.

In a memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110) dated February 25, 2016, OWCP 

indicated that appellant had requested reimbursement for travel to/from medical providers from 

2000 to 2014. It further indicated that she was advised that bills for travel must be submitted by 

December 31 of the year after the travel was incurred. Appellant was advised to submit Form 

957 with medical evidence confirming the dates of appointment.3 By letter dated March 21, 

2016, she wrote that she had done everything OWCP had asked and wanted to get paid for 

mileage. 

OWCP made part of the record a “Bill Pay History Report” which documented individual 

payments made to appellant for dates of service from January 1, 2000 through April 18, 2016. 

Duplicative payments on the same date of service were not noted.

The record also contains “bill status response” lists which indicate that OWCP denied 

“private transportation claims” for specific dates. By letter dated April 20, 2016, OWCP advised 

appellant that she was being reimbursed for medical travel after January 6, 2014. As to dates 

from March 2, 2001 to January 5, 2014, it found that further evidence was required.

On May 17, 2016 a fiscal document was made part of the record which substantiated the 

amount of travel reimbursement paid on dates from January 6, 2014 to June 1, 2015 for duplicate 

and triplicate units of travel. The total amount of the overpayment due to the duplicative 

payments was totaled to be $3,168.84.

By letter dated May 17, 2016, OWCP advised appellant of a preliminary determination 

that a $3,168.84 overpayment of compensation had been created. It included a list of duplicative 

 

2 Docket No. 95-0332 (issued April 3, 1997). 

3 The record does not contain forms requesting travel mileage reimbursement.
3

payments for travel made for 68 specific dates from January 6, 2014 to December 7, 2015. 

OWCP indicated that the proper distance between appellant’s home and Dr. Brandes was 19 

miles, or 38 miles round trip. The payments indicated that some of the duplicative payments had 

been for 77 miles, as appellant had improperly exaggerated the claimed mileage. As to fault, 

OWCP found that appellant was at fault in creating the overpayment. According to OWCP, the 

travel refund request form (Form 957) included a certification clause that the information 

provided was true to the best of the claimant’s knowledge. It found that appellant had accepted 

payments she knew were incorrect. 

Appellant submitted a letter dated May 25, 2016, asserting that she was mentally disabled 

and she needed additional information from OWCP. She requested information regarding the 

amount of money OWCP had paid for travel reimbursement, and the dates of the payments.

According to appellant, she did not receive an overpayment recovery questionnaire and she 

needed a 90-day extension to submit further information.

In a letter dated May 31, 2016, OWCP indicated that it was resending the overpayment 

recovery questionnaire (OWCP-20) form and appellant should respond within 14 days. 

Appellant responded in a June 2, 2016 letter that she wanted information as to the money she 

received from OWCP for travel in 2014 through 2016. A June 3, 2016 CA-110 OWCP

memorandum of telephone call indicated that appellant had asserted that she was confused, and it 

was explained to her why she was overpaid. By letter dated June 6, 2016, appellant asked for 

additional explanation regarding the standards for a finding of fault.

On June 23, 2016 appellant requested a prerecoupment hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative and submitted an OWCP-20 form. In a June 16, 2016 letter, she wrote that she 

was told by OWCP that she had to submit a “box of papers” with the dates she saw her 

psychologist. Appellant asserted that on the “second box” she made a mistake as to the distance 

and she alerted OWCP on October 15, 2015. 

In a letter dated June 30, 2016, appellant wrote that she disagreed that an overpayment 

occurred and disagreed with the amount. She argued that she was owed money by OWCP as 

they had not paid travel expenses for many years. Appellant also argued that she was not at

fault, as she had provided everything to OWCP. She wrote that she had explained why she had 

not timely submitted travel refund requests from 2000 to 2014. Appellant also submitted a 

December 3, 2015 report from Dr. Brandes. In the December 3, 2015 report, Dr. Brandes opined 

that appellant was psychologically unable to make the effort to bill for transportation to his 

office. 

A hearing was held on October 12, 2016. At the hearing appellant stated that her 

disability had caused her to be confused as to the mileage. After the hearing she submitted 

additional financial information.

By decision dated December 7, 2016, the hearing representative finalized the 

determination that an overpayment in the amount of $3,168.84 had been created. He also denied 

waiver, finding that appellant was at fault in creating the overpayment. According to the hearing 

representative, appellant should have known that she was being overpaid. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

Section 8103 of 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.4

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 a reasonable distance to travel is, 

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 taken 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.”

5

 

In interpreting this section, the Board has recognized that OWCP has broad discretion in 

approving services provided under FECA. The only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of 

reasonableness.6 An overpayment occurs if OWCP reimburses a claimant in excess of the actual 

mileage necessary for medical treatment.7 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision as to whether appellant 

received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $3,168.84 due to incorrect payment 

of travel reimbursements. 

OWCP paid appellant for travel to her psychologist based on the submission of OWCP

travel reimbursement forms (Form 957). 

In determining that an overpayment occurred and the amount of overpayment, OWCP 

indicated that 68 specific payments were made in error from January 6, 2014 to 

December 7, 2015 for appellant’s travel to Dr. Brandes’ office. It related that the overpayment 

occurred because appellant improperly submitted duplicative travel reimbursement requests and 

requested reimbursement for an incorrect mileage of 77 miles. 

 

4

5 U.S.C. § 8103.

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a).

6 A.O., Docket No. 08-0580 (issued January 28, 2009). 

7

See R.G., Docket No. 15-0144 (issued July 27, 2016).
5

The evidence of record however does not include the 957 forms appellant submitted to 

OWCP to request travel reimbursements. The Board, therefore, cannot verify that appellant 

submitted duplicate requests for reimbursement and that appellant requested that she be paid for 

incorrect mileage. 

It is particularly important to be able to review these forms because OWCP subsequently 

issued a decision finding that appellant received an overpayment of compensation for which she 

was at fault in creating. OWCP found that her signature on each OWCP-957 form certified that 

any information she provided was true and correct and that she could be subjected to civil 

penalties and/or criminal prosecution for knowingly making any false statement or 

misrepresentation to obtain reimbursement.8

The Board also notes that the bill pay history report which documents payments to 

appellant from January 1, 2000 through April 19, 2016 does not appear to document duplicate 

payments of the same date to appellant. As such, the Board finds that the documentation of 

record is insufficient to determine fact or amount of the overpayment appellant allegedly 

received during the period January 6, 2014 through December 7, 2015 for travel reimbursements. 

It is not clear when appellant submitted specific travel refund forms, what the forms 

provided, or other relevant information. If the erroneous payments were first issued on 

December 24, 2015, the record must establish that at that time she accepted payments she knew 

or should have known were incorrect.9 It is not clear from the record what specifically appellant 

had submitted and what information had been provided to her regarding travel reimbursement.

The Board finds, therefore, that OWCP has not established that the mileage 

reimbursement claimed by appellant was incorrect. The Board will set aside the December 17, 

2016 OWCP decision and remand the case to OWCP for reconstruction of the record, including 

obtaining the OWCP 957 forms completed and signed by appellant for the claimed 

reimbursement periods. Following reconstruction of the record, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision regarding the issues of fact and amount of overpayment.10

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. 

 

8

See C.S, Docket No. 14-1377 (issued June 23, 2015). 

9

20 C.F.R. § 10.320(b). 

10 In light of the Board’s disposition with regard to issue 1, issue 2 is premature.
6

ORDER

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

Compensation Programs dated December 7, 2016 is set aside and the case is remanded for 

further action consistent with this decision of the Board.11

Issued: December 27, 2017

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the original decision, but was no longer a member of the Board 

effective December 11, 2017.