United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.W., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Fort Sill, OK, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0668 

Issued: June 13, 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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 2, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 11, 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 this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether OWCP properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s 

requests for reimbursement of travel expenses exceeding 100 miles round trip. 

On appeal appellant asserts that, because OWCP had not notified him, he was unaware 

that reimbursement procedures had changed. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

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

evidence as its jurisdiction is limited to the evidence that was before OWCP at the time it issued its final decision. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); P.W., Docket No. 12-1262 (issued December 5, 2012). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 27, 1992 appellant, then a 50-year-old painter, injured his back when he fell 

from a ladder. OWCP adjudicated the case under File No. xxxxxx604 and accepted back 

contusion and lumbar strain. Appellant was placed on the periodic compensation rolls. He has 

additional claims for back injuries that were combined with the instant claim.3

 The accepted 

conditions were subsequently expanded to include aggravation of degeneration of lumbar 

intervertebral disc and venous thrombosis of veins, left. 

Appellant moved from Oklahoma to Indiana in December 1992. He was referred for 

vocational rehabilitation and trained in drafting technology. In January 1994 appellant 

underwent a lumbar laminectomy. He earned an associate’s degree in drafting in May 1996 and 

began private employment as a production assembler in September 1996. Appellant elected 

Civil Service Retirement benefits, effective September 23, 1996. Nonetheless, by decision dated 

December 18, 1996, OWCP determined that appellant’s actual earnings in private employment 

had fairly and reasonably represented his wage-earning capacity and reduced his compensation 

accordingly. 

Appellant relocated to The Villages, Florida and began employment as a maintenance 

man. He stopped work on November 1, 2002 and reverted his retirement benefits to FECA 

compensation benefits effective that date. Dr. Devin K. Datta, a Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, in Melbourne, Florida, 32901, began treating appellant in November 2002. On June 4, 

2003 he performed authorized anterior discectomy and fusion at L4-S1. Appellant had 

additional surgery in June 2009. He was placed on the periodic compensation rolls in June 2003, 

and continues to receive FECA compensation benefits. 

On November 9, 2016 appellant requested authorization for travel reimbursement of 255 

miles each for medical appointments on December 15, 2015, February 12, April 13, June 10, 

August 11, and October 17, 2016 for medical visits in Melbourne, Florida. 

OWCP informed appellant that it was unable to authorize the travel because, effective 

December 18, 2012, travel limitations had been reduced to 100 miles round trip. Treatment 

notes contained in the record indicate that appellant was seen by Dr. Syed Farhan Zaidi, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon and associate of Dr. Datta, on the dates listed. 

On December 1, 2016 appellant wrote OWCP requesting reconsideration of the 

November 14, 2015 denial of reimbursement for mileage. He maintained that none of the local 

doctors would treat him. The claims examiner telephoned appellant on January 5, 2017. She 

explained that, as he lived in an area with an abundance of physicians, OWCP could no longer 

continue paying travel expenses for 255 miles round trip. The claims examiner informed him 

that, if he wished to continue with his current physician, he would be reimbursed at the rate of 

 3

 A claim for an April 20, 1979 injury, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx742, was accepted by OWCP for low 

back strain and temporary aggravation of preexisting scoliosis. It also accepted a claim for an August 19, 1981 

injury, assigned OWCP File No. xxxxxx725, for lumbar strain and aggravation of preexisting herniated nucleus 

pulposus. 
3

100 miles round trip only. Appellant requested that OWCP send him a list of physicians in his 

area and a formal decision denying his request for travel reimbursement. 

On January 11, 2017 OWCP forwarded appellant an eight-page list of physician 

providers in appellant’s commuting area which included The Villages, Lady Lake, Fruitland 

Park, Leesburg, and Ocala, Florida. 

By decision dated January 11, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for 255 miles travel 

reimbursement on December 15, 2015, February 12, April 13, June 10, August 11, and 

October 17, 2016. It found that the evidence of record did not establish that travel for medical 

treatment was warranted from The Villages, Florida, 32159 to Melbourne, Florida, 32901, 

because there was no compelling reason for travel outside his commuting area. OWCP noted 

that appellant’s commuting area included specialists who are qualified to treat his employmentrelated conditions. 

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.4 In interpreting section 8103(a), the 

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.5 OWCP has administrative discretion in choosing the means to 

achieve this goal and the only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of reasonableness.6 

OWCP regulations provide that the employee is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable 

and necessary expenses, including transportation needed to obtain authorized medical services, 

appliances, or supplies.7 To determine a reasonable distance, OWCP will consider the 

availability of services, the employee’s condition, and the means of transportation. Effective 

August 29, 2011, OWCP regulations provide that a round-trip distance of up to 100 miles is 

considered a reasonable distance to travel.8 If round-trip travel of more than 100 miles is 

contemplated, or air transportation or overnight accommodations will be needed, the employee 

must submit a written request to OWCP for prior authorization with information describing the 

circumstances and necessity for such travel expenses. OWCP will approve the request if it 

 4

 5 U.S.C. § 8103(a). 

5 Dale E. Jones, 48 ECAB 648 (1997). 

6 Daniel J. Perea, 42 ECAB 214 (1990) (Abuse of discretion by OWCP is generally shown through proof of 

manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of judgement, or administrative actions which are contrary to both 

logic and probable deductions from established facts). 

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a). 

8 Id. 
4

determines that the travel expenses are reasonable and necessary and are incidental to obtaining 

authorized medical services, appliances or supplies.9 

Pursuant to FECA Bulletin No. 14-02, issued January 29, 2014, when a claimant submits 

a travel reimbursement in excess of 100 miles for a single date of service, the bill will 

automatically be suspended and the Central Bill Processing provider will send notification to 

OWCP claims examiner.10 FECA Bulletin No. 14-02 notes that in some limited circumstances it 

may be necessary for a claimant to travel more than 100 miles on a regular basis, such as when 

the claimant lives in a remote area.11 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s requests 

for travel reimbursement. 

On November 9, 2016 appellant requested authorization for mileage reimbursement of 

255 miles each for medical appointments on December 15, 2015, February 12, April 13, June 10, 

August 11, and October 17, 2016. 

As noted above, OWCP regulations provide that generally a round trip of up to 100 miles 

is a reasonable distance to travel.12 There may be circumstances where travel reimbursement of 

more than 100 miles is appropriate. An example of those circumstances might be an appellant 

who lives in a remote area with limited medical services and physicians of an appropriate 

specialty. To establish that a travel reimbursement of more than 100 miles is warranted, OWCP 

regulations indicate that the claimant must provide information describing the circumstances and 

necessity for such travel expenses.13

In this case, there is no evidence that appellant lived in a remote area with limited access 

to medical services or providers. There is no indication that competent and appropriate medical 

care was not available within his commuting area. Although OWCP had authorized travel 

expenses to Dr. Datta and his associates in the past, this past practice does not establish a right to 

continuing authorization.14 As indicated in FECA Bulletin No. 14-02, any travel reimbursement 

request of more than 100 miles is to be reviewed by an OWCP claims examiner.15

 9 Id. at § 10.315(b). 

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

11 Id. 

12 20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a). 

13 Id. at § 10.315(b). 

14 See W.H., Docket No. 14-1662 (issued February 3, 2015). 

15 Supra note 10. 
5

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied the travel reimbursement request in this 

case. No probative evidence was presented with respect to the necessity of travel over the 100-

mile standard set forth in OWCP regulations. OWCP has administrative discretion with respect 

to authorization of travel reimbursement.16 The Board finds that OWCP did not abuse its 

discretion in denying appellant’s travel reimbursement requests.17

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 OWCP did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request 

for travel reimbursement. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 11, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 13, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 16 Supra note 6. 

17 See V.K., Docket No. 12-1103 (issued October 12, 2012).