United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, ND, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1782

Issued: February 5, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 16, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 4, 2017 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 the claim.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has established eligibility for continuation of pay.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 21, 2017 appellant, then a 43-year-old engineer equipment operator, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on February 6, 2017, she slipped and sprained 

her right knee while climbing up on a semi-truck trailer to unload cargo.2 The Form CA-1 was 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 The employing establishment did not indicate on the form if appellant stopped work.
2

signed by appellant on June 21, 2017 and she requested continuation of pay. Appellant’s 

supervisor indicated that appellant first reported the claimed injury on June 21, 2017. He 

controverted appellant’s claim for continuation of pay asserting that it was untimely filed within 

30 days of the claimed injury. The supervisor signed the Form CA-1 on June 22, 2017. 

Appellant’s supervisor provided a copy of appellant’s official position description and a 

January 8, 2017 notification of personnel action (Form SF-50) verifying that she held the 

position as of the date of injury. Appellant provided a February 14, 2017 report from a physician 

assistant.

In a June 27, 2017 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the type of factual 

and medical evidence needed to establish her claim.

The employing establishment provided a June 28, 2017 work status report indicating that 

appellant stopped work on February 6, 2017. It noted that she filed the Form CA-1 on June 21,

2017 when she was working full-time, full duty.

Appellant provided a July 2, 2017 statement, in which she contended that she attempted 

to file her claim electronically on February 17, 2017, but apparently “missed something” as she 

was not accustomed to using a computer.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted medical reports dated February 14 to 

March 8, 2017 diagnosing a right knee sprain related to the alleged February 6, 2017 incident.3 

These reports were signed by a physician assistant and countersigned by a physician. 

By decision dated August 4, 2017, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for a right knee 

sprain, but in a separate decision of the same date it denied her claim for continuation of pay 

because she had failed to submit a written claim within 30 days of her February 6, 2017

employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8118(a) of FECA4authorizes continuation of pay, not to exceed 45 days, to an 

employee who has filed a claim for a period of wage loss due to a traumatic injury with his or her 

immediate superior on a form approved by the Secretary of Labor within the time specified in 

section 8122(a)(2) of this title. This latter section provides that written notice of injury shall be 

given within 30 days.5 The context of section 8122 makes clear that this means within 30 days 

of the injury.6

 

3 February 14, 2017 right knee x-rays demonstrated old postoperative changes from an anterior cruciate ligament

reconstruction with fixation hardware, a moderate join effusion, and infrapatellar edema.

4 5 U.S.C. § 8118(a). 

5

Id. at § 8122(a)(2).

6 Robert M. Kimzey, 40 ECAB 762, 763-64 (1989); Myra Lenburg, 36 ECAB 487, 489 (1985).
3

OWCP regulations provide, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for continuation of pay, 

an employee must: (1) have a traumatic injury which is job related and the cause of the disability 

and/or the cause of lost time due to the need for medical examination and treatment; (2) file a 

Form CA-1 within 30 days of the date of the injury (but if that form is not available, using 

another form would not alone preclude receipt); and (3) begin losing time from work due to the 

traumatic injury within 45 days of the injury.7

The employee must provide a written report on a Form CA-1 to the employing 

establishment within 30 days of the injury.8 OWCP’s procedures provide that another OWCPapproved form, such as CA-2, CA-2a, or CA-7 forms, which contains words of claim, can be 

used to satisfy timely filing requirements.9

The Board has held that section 8122(d)(3) of FECA,10 which allows OWCP to excuse 

failure to comply with the time limitation provision for filing a claim for compensation because 

of exceptional circumstances, is not applicable to section 8118(a), which sets forth the filing 

requirements for continuation of pay. Thus, there is no provision in the law for excusing an 

employee’s failure to file a claim within 30 days of the employment injury.11

ANALYSIS

Appellant filed a written notice of a traumatic injury on June 21, 2017, more than 30 days 

after her injury on February 6, 2017. Because she filed the claim on June 21, 2017, the Board 

finds that it was not filed within 30 days of the February 6, 2017 injury, as specified in sections 

8118(a) and 8122(a)(2) of FECA.

On appeal, appellant argues that she attempted to file a timely electronic claim, but failed 

to complete the process as she was inexperienced in using a computer. There is no provision in 

FECA, however, for excusing a late filing when requesting continuation of pay.12 The Board 

finds that OWCP properly denied continuation of pay as appellant did not file her claim within 

the requisite 30 days from the date of injury.13

This decision of the Board applies only to continuation of pay. It does not preclude 

appellant from filing a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) if she missed time from 

work due to the accepted injury.

 

7 20 C.F.R. § 10.205(a)(1-3). See also J.M., Docket No. 09-1563 (issued February 26, 2010).

8

Id. at § 10.210(a).

9 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Continuation of Pay and Initial Payments, Chapter 2.807.5 

(June 2012).

10 5 U.S.C. § 8122(d)(3).

11 Dodge Osborne, 44 ECAB 849, 855 (1993).

12 Id.

13 Id.
4

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established eligibility for continuation of pay.

ORDER

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

Compensation Programs dated August 4, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: February 5, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board