United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Dayton, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0544 

Issued: June 15, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 2, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a 

November 25, 2015 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty on January 25, 2013. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 23, 2014 appellant, then a 50-year-old medical administration specialist, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that at 8:30 a.m. on January 25, 2013 he sustained 

injury due to a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on Interstate 71 approximately 25 miles 

east of Louisville, Kentucky. He did not stop work around the time of the claimed January 25, 

2013 work injury, but he stopped work on November 25, 2013. On the same form appellant’s 

immediate supervisor checked a box marked “No” indicating that the claimed January 25, 2013 

work injury did not occur in the performance of duty and noted, “The purpose of the trip was 

exclusively to explore employment opportunities, [appellant] was not on a work detail.” The 

supervisor indicated that appellant’s regular duty station was the employing establishment 

Medical Center and that his regular hours were 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

In a January 23, 2014 statement, appellant indicated that on January 25, 2013 he was on 

orders to proceed to a detailed assignment at the employing establishment’s Valley Coastal Bend 

Health Care System facilities in Harlingen and Corpus Christi, Texas. He noted that he was 

attaching a copy of his travel orders. Appellant advised that he was driving in an ice storm near 

Louisville on January 25, 2013, the first day of his trip, when at approximately 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. 

he was involved in a motor vehicle accident, which caused his vehicle to roll over four times.3

 

He indicated that his injuries, including pain/bruising in his neck and extremities, did not appear 

severe at the time of the January 25, 2013 accident, and that he continued his trip to the Valley 

Coastal Bend Health Care System facilities. Appellant noted that, when he returned to work in 

Dayton, Ohio, he reported the accident to his immediate supervisor and another employee, 

sought medical treatment from employing establishment physicians, and used annual and sick 

leave. He advised that it was not until December 2013 that he realized the full extent of his left 

hip and leg injuries due to the January 25, 2013 accident and he indicated that he suffered posttraumatic stress disorder due to the accident. Appellant asserted that his need for total hip 

replacement surgery was related to the January 25, 2013 accident. 

In a Report of Contact with a “Date of Contact” of February 6, 2014, it was indicated 

that, “[Appellant] requested approval to take a trip to Texas to interview for a potential job 

assignment(s) and early placement out of the Technical Career Field Program [(TCFP)].”4

 The 

document provided a text of appellant’s January 24, 2013 e-mail to several individuals, including 

his immediate supervisor, which was entitled, “Use of [TCFP] Funds for Final Placement Site 

Visit.” In this e-mail appellant indicated that he wanted to clarify the purpose of his trip after 

speaking with an individual in the Chief Business Office of the TCFP. He advised that he was 

 3

 Appellant submitted copies of photographs which presumably depict his vehicle after the January 25, 2013 

accident. 

4

 Appellant’s immediate supervisor signed the “Executed By” portion of the signature block for this employing 

establishment form. 
3

going to two locations in Texas, the primary location being in Harlingen, and the secondary 

location being in Corpus Christi, to engage in site visits for permanent placement to complete the 

TCFP. Appellant indicated that he had already undergone telephone interviews and that the 

positions in both locations met the final placement criteria for the TCFP. He reported that his 

program manager for the TCFP in Atlanta, Georgia, could verify that TCFP funds could be used 

for the visits. 

Appellant submitted the fourth page of a four-page document which lists the dates on 

which employees submitted expense reports. The document indicates that he submitted an 

expense report on February 21, 2013. An appointment list produced on January 23, 2014 shows 

medical clinic appointments made for appellant between March 4 and December 16, 2013. 

In a letter dated February 6, 2014, a workers’ compensation specialist for the employing 

establishment indicated that the employing establishment was challenging appellant’s claim for a 

January 25, 2013 injury. The specialist advised that he was not in the performance of duty when 

the alleged work-related injury occurred on January 25, 2013 and that the purpose of his trip to 

Texas was exclusively to explore employment opportunities. She noted that appellant was not 

on a work-detail status from the employing establishment Medical Center as alleged. The 

specialist indicated that a 120-Day Commitment Agreement for the TCFP, signed by appellant 

on December 21, 2012, provided that the employing establishment could not offer him a position 

at the end of the TCFP, and that he was responsible for finding suitable employment prior to the 

end of the term of the TCFP. 

The specialist attached a copy of the 120-Day Commitment Agreement signed by 

appellant on December 21, 2012 in which it was noted that his two-year anniversary date as an 

intern in the TCFP was September 26, 2013. Appellant signed a certification block in which he 

affirmed that, since his work facility could not offer him a position at the end of the TCFP, he 

understood that it was his responsibility to find suitable placement prior to the two-year 

anniversary of the date he was hired into the TCFP. He further affirmed that he agreed to work 

with the National Career Field Program Manager to find placement and that he understood he 

had to accept or decline a placement offer at least 60 days prior to his two-year anniversary date. 

In a February 20, 2014 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical evidence and to complete an attached questionnaire in support of his claimed 

January 25, 2013 work injury. On the same date it requested additional information from the 

employing establishment and asked it to complete an attached questionnaire. 

Appellant submitted a March 10, 2014 statement in which he asserted that various 

documents he was submitting in connection with the statement showed that he was on “approved 

travel” when he was injured in the January 25, 2013 accident. He indicated that he was driving 

his private-owned vehicle because a government-owned vehicle was not available for use. 

Appellant asserted that the January 25, 2013 accident occurred on the most direct route between 

the employing establishment Medical Center and the Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System 

facilities.5

 He indicated that he reported the January 25, 2013 accident to an official at the 

 5

 Appellant submitted copies of a map which he indicated showed the most direct route between Dayton and 

Harlingen as derived from an internet map service. 
4

Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System facility in Harlingen when he arrived there after the 

accident. 

Appellant submitted a January 18, 2013 e-mail to a TCFP official in which he advised 

that he had been asked to travel the following week to Corpus Christi for a site visit. His e-mail 

was sent in response to a January 18, 2013 e-mail of the TCFP official indicating that a position 

opening might be announced. In a series of e-mails between appellant and an official with the 

Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System, dated on January 23 and 24, 2013, he indicated that 

his travel to the Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System facilities had been approved by his 

“chief” and that he would be using TCFP funds for the trip.6

 The official advised that the 

specialist would be able to meet with him on January 31, 2013 to discuss a position opening at 

the Harlingen facility. She indicated that she had no authority to discuss any position openings 

at the Corpus Christi facility. In a January 24, 2013 e-mail to appellant, which was copied to his 

immediate supervisor, a TCFP program manager in Atlanta advised that TCFP funds could “be 

used towards a site visit for permanent placement.” In a February 4, 2013 e-mail to his 

immediate supervisor in Dayton, appellant advised that he was home and that he had “an 

interesting run in with an ice storm ... which is why I am going to the [physician] today.” He 

indicated that he would submit a travel authorization request. 

A March 28, 2013 e-mail sent to appellant through an automated response system 

indicates, “You have an Expense Report which has been approved,” and lists his immediate 

supervisor as the “Final Approver.” A document lists expenses he incurred for lodging, meals, 

and mileage for the period January 25 to February 4, 2013 and contains the comments, “Site visit 

to south Texas for [TCFP] final placement. Shortened trip due to accident and business being 

done early.” The last page of the document indicates that appellant submitted an expense report 

on February 21, 2013.7

The records contains a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in March 2013 by 

appellant, officials of the Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System, and officials of the 

employing establishment Medical Center, including appellant’s immediate supervisor. The 

document concerns the prospective relocation of appellant’s job from the employing 

establishment Medical Center to the Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System effective 

September 26, 2013. Appellant would begin working as a supervisory medical administration 

specialist at the Harlingen facility.8

 An MOU with the heading “Final Placement,” indicates that 

on May 6, 2013 he would be transferred to the position of supervisory medical administration 

specialist at the Harlingen facility and that, effective September 26, 2013, he would be 

 6

 In a January 24, 2013 e-mail to the official, appellant indicated that “travel is approved” and that he would leave 

for his trip the next morning. In a January 23, 2013 e-mail, he requested a government car and indicated that his trip 

would last from January 25 to February 5, 2013. 

7

 Appellant previously submitted this last page of the document. 

8

 Appellant had previously submitted a job description for the position of supervisory medical administration 

specialist with the Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System. He also submitted a copy of the 120-Day Commitment 

Agreement he signed on December 21, 2012 with additional pages showing that his immediate supervisor signed the 

document on March 6, 2013. 
5

permanently placed in the position.9

 In a May 6, 2013 memorandum to the TCFP program 

manager in Atlanta, appellant indicated that he made a site visit to Harlingen in January 2013. 

E-mails from mid-May 2013 show that he made the transfer to the Harlingen facility on 

May 6, 2013. 

Appellant submitted an undated Kentucky Uniform Police Traffic Collision Report 

describing the January 25, 2013 motor vehicle accident. The police investigator, who arrived at 

the accident scene at 10:00 a.m., noted that appellant reported that he was driving north on 

Interstate 71 in his light truck when he lost control on icy roads, ran off the right shoulder, and 

overturned his vehicle to an upright position. The investigator reported that it was a “single 

vehicle” accident and that appellant was driving 70 miles per hour which was deemed “too fast 

for conditions.”10 Appellant submitted photographs of his injuries caused by the January 25, 

2013 accident as well as photographs of his vehicle before and after the January 25, 2013 

accident. 

Appellant also submitted medical evidence in support of his claim, including a 

December 4, 2013 report in which Dr. Jarvis Earl, an attending Board-certified orthopedic 

surgeon, indicated that appellant had been seen for bilateral hip pain with pain radiating to his 

anterior thigh areas, left greater than right. He reported that the initial onset of pain was 30 years 

prior on the left due to an explosion in the military which dislocated the left hip and 5 years prior 

on the right. Dr. Earl diagnosed osteoarthritis of hip and hip pain, and he recommended total left 

hip arthroplasty and on a December 31, 2013 report, he performed a left total hip arthroplasty. 

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated February 26, 2014, Dr. Earl 

indicated that appellant was totally disabled from December 4, 2013 to February 28, 2014 and 

partially disabled from March 1 to 21, 2014. He noted that appellant would be able to perform 

his regular work beginning March 22, 2014. On March 6, 2014 Dr. Scott L. Shelby, an attending 

chiropractor, diagnosed degenerative joint disease of his left hip. 

In a March 21, 2014 letter, the workers’ compensation specialist for the employing 

establishment, who had produced the February 6, 2014 letter submitted earlier, responded to 

OWCP’s February 20, 2014 request for additional information. The specialist advised that 

appellant was not on an official temporary-duty (TDY) assignment at the time of his January 25, 

2013 accident. She indicated that he traveled to Texas for a job interview, as expressed through 

a January 24, 2013 e-mail in which he noted that he would use TCFP funds for such travel. The 

specialist advised that, prior to the January 25, 2013 accident, appellant last performed his 

official duties on January 22, 2013 at his regular duty station, i.e., the employing establishment 

Medical Center. She indicated that he was expected to perform his next official duty on 

February 4, 2013 at his regular duty station in Dayton. The specialist advised that appellant was 

not riding in or driving a government-owned car on January 25, 2013. 

 9

 Another MOU indicates that appellant would receive relocation benefits after a signed MOU for final placement 

was received. 

10 In an undated Automobile Accident Questionnaire completed for an attending physician, appellant indicated 

that the accident occurred at 9:30 a.m. on January 25, 2013 and noted, “Car accident on ice, rolled four times.” 
6

In a February 5, 2013 report of contact, appellant’s immediate supervisor noted that 

appellant informed her that he had returned to the Dayton Veterans Affairs Medical Center 

following a trip to Texas to interview for a job as a part of his attempt to obtain early placement 

out of the TCFP. The supervisor noted that appellant advised her that he had been involved in a 

motor vehicle accident on January 25, 2013 while driving to Texas. Appellant further informed 

her that he had suffered some bruising without serious injury and that he continued with his trip 

plans following the accident. The supervisor noted, “[Appellant] was not in a detail status, but 

rather in a travel status.” 

On March 29, 2014 appellant responded to the employing establishment’s March 21, 

2014 letter. He again asserted that he had supplied a copy of an approved travel order to go to 

Texas for a site visit. Appellant indicated that on January 25, 2013 his appointed place of duty 

was to travel to Texas for a site visit and possible job placement there since the employing 

establishment Medical Center did not have a permanent position for him as indicated by the 120-

Day Commitment Agreement. He asserted that he was required by the TCFP to travel to another 

site for placement and that this fact was supported by the MOU in the record. Appellant 

indicated that a May 6, 2013 memorandum to the TCFP program manager in Atlanta confirmed 

that he had made a site visit to Harlingen in January 2013. He noted that in a January 24, 2013 

e-mail sent to him, which was copied to his immediate supervisor, a TCFP program manager in 

Atlanta advised that TCFP funds could be used towards a site visit for permanent placement. 

In a May 6, 2014 decision, OWCP found that appellant had not met his burden of proof 

to establish an injury in the performance of duty on January 25, 2013. It determined that the 

evidence failed to support that the claimed injury occurred in the performance of duty as it did 

not occur in “the course of employment and within the scope of compensable work factors as 

defined by ... FECA.” OWCP explained that appellant’s January 25, 2013 accident did not 

occur while he was on official duty status, but rather occurred while he was engaged in the 

personal mission of traveling to Texas for a job interview.11

In a letter dated February 26, 2015, appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration 

of OWCP’s May 6, 2014 decision. He submitted a January 23, 2015 medical report of Dr. Earl. 

In a decision dated March 5, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s request for further review 

of the merits of his claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). It found that the evidence and 

argument he submitted in support of his reconsideration request was irrelevant because his claim 

was denied on a factual basis, i.e., failure to establish an injury in the performance of duty, rather 

than a medical basis. 

In a letter dated April 21, 2015, appellant, through counsel, again requested 

reconsideration of OWCP’s May 6, 2014 decision. 

Appellant submitted copies of e-mails that were exchanged between him and a TCFP 

national program manager. In an April 8, 2015 e-mail to the coordinator, he referred to himself 

 11 OWCP also found that, even if appellant had established the factual aspect of his case, he did not submit 

medical evidence establishing that a medical condition was causally related “to the work injury or event of 

[January 25, 2013] as alleged.” 
7

as a TCFP intern in the class of 2011. Appellant advised that in January 2013 he was traveling to 

Texas for a site visit on a short detail and that, while he was in Texas, he was also going to 

interview for a permanent placement position with the Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System. 

He asked the coordinator to provide an opinion regarding whether he was in the line of duty 

while traveling to Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System facilities for a site visit. In an 

April 9, 2015 e-mail, the coordinator replied, “As long as you were on official travel orders for a 

site visit as part of your two-year training program, I would consider that on duty as for another 

other [sic] official trip you would take for [Valley Coastal Bend].” 

By decision dated November 25, 2015, OWCP denied modification of its May 6, 2014 

decision finding that appellant had not established an injury in the performance of duty on 

January 25, 2013. It found that his activities on January 25, 2013 did not occur in the course of 

his employment or arising out of his employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides for the payment of compensation for “the disability or death of an 

employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.”12 The 

phrase “sustained while in the performance of duty” has been interpreted by the Board to be the 

equivalent of the commonly found prerequisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising out of 

and in the course of employment.”13 The phrase “in the course of employment” is recognized as 

relating to the work situation, and more particularly, relating to elements of time, place, and 

circumstance. To arise in the course of employment, an injury must occur at a time when the 

employee may reasonably be stated to be engaged in the master’s business, at a place where he 

or she may reasonably be expected to be in connection with the employment, and while he or she 

is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his or her employment or engaged in doing something 

incidental thereto.14 This alone is not sufficient to establish entitlement to benefits for 

compensability. The concomitant requirement of an injury “arising out of the employment” must 

be shown, and this encompasses not only the work setting, but also a causal concept, the 

requirement being that the employment caused the injury.15 

The Board has held that, where an employee is on travel status or a TDY assignment, he 

or she is covered by FECA 24 hours a day with respect to any injury that results from activities 

essential or incidental to his or her temporary assignment.16

 12 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

13 Charles Crawford, 40 ECAB 474, 476-77 (1989). 

14 Mary Keszler, 38 ECAB 735, 739 (1987). 

15 Eugene G. Chin, 39 ECAB 598, 602 (1988). 

16 D.R., Docket No. 16-1395 (issued February 2, 2017); T.C., Docket No. 16-1070 (issued January 24, 2017). 
8

ANALYSIS 

On January 23, 2014 appellant filed a Form CA-1 claiming that on January 25, 2013 he 

sustained injury due to a motor vehicle accident that occurred near Louisville, Kentucky, on the 

first day of a work-related trip. He claimed that on January 25, 2013 he was on orders to proceed 

to a detailed assignment at the employing establishment’s Valley Coastal Bend Health Care 

System facilities in Harlingen and Corpus Christi, Texas. Appellant noted that he participated in 

a training program known as the TCFP, which required him to find a new job prior to the twoyear anniversary of his first participation in the program, with his two-year anniversary being 

September 26, 2013. He asserted that on January 25, 2013 his appointed place of duty was to 

travel to Texas for a site visit and possible job placement there since his current employment site, 

the employing establishment Medical Center, did not have a permanent position for him as 

indicated by the 120-Day Commitment Agreement he signed in connection with his participation 

in the TCFP. Appellant asserted that he was required by the TCFP to travel to another site for 

job placement. The employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim and advised that he 

was not performing his work duties or anything incidental to such duties on January 25, 2013. 

The Board notes that there is conflicting evidence in the record as to whether appellant’s 

January 25, 2013 accident occurred while he was on an employment-related site visit or whether 

he was on a personal job hunting trip. As noted above, a claimed injury must arise in the course 

of employment to be deemed a compensable injury in the performance of duty and, to arise in the 

course of employment, the injury must occur at a time when the employee may reasonably be 

stated to be engaged in the master’s business, at a place where he or she may reasonably be 

expected to be in connection with the employment, and while he or she is reasonably fulfilling 

the duties of his or her employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.17 The 

contradictory evidence in the case record regarding the nature and purpose of appellant’s trip to 

Texas in January 2013 means that the Board is currently unable to make a determination, under 

the relevant standards, regarding whether he sustained an injury in the performance of duty on 

January 25, 2013. 

A workers’ compensation specialist for the employing establishment indicated that 

appellant was not on a work-detail status from the employing establishment Medical Center as 

alleged and that he was not on an official TDY or travel assignment at the time of his January 25, 

2013 accident. However, although appellant’s immediate supervisor noted that on January 25, 

2013 appellant was “not in a detail status,” she also made the contradictory statement that he was 

“in a travel status.” 

In addition, a TCFP national program manager provided evidence regarding the nature 

and purpose of appellant’s January 2013 trip to Texas which contradicts evidence from 

appellant’s immediate supervisor and the workers’ compensation specialist for the employing 

establishment.18 In an April 8, 2015 e-mail to the TCFP national program manager, appellant 

advised that in January 2013 he was traveling to Texas for a site visit on a short detail and that, 

 17 See supra note 14. See also C.R., Docket No. 17-0065 (issued March 28, 2017). 

18 Appellant’s immediate supervisor and the workers’ compensation specialist for the employing establishment 

provided opinions that appellant was not in the performance of duty at the time of the January 25, 2013 accident. 
9

while he was in Texas, he was also going to interview for a permanent placement position with 

the Valley Coastal Bend Health Care System. He asked the TCFP national program manager to 

provide an opinion regarding whether he was in the line of duty while traveling to the Valley 

Coastal Bend Health Care System facilities for a site visit. In an April 9, 2015 e-mail, she 

replied, “As long as you were on official travel orders for a site visit as part of your two-year 

training program, I would consider that on duty as for another other [sic] official trip you would 

take for [Valley Coastal Bend].”19

Further uncertainty regarding the relationship of appellant’s trip to his employment is 

created by the fact that expenses for his trip were reimbursed by the employing establishment.20 

The record reflects that a TCFP official in Atlanta advised him on January 24, 2013 that he could 

use TCFP funds for his trip to Texas, and that his request for reimbursement of expenses for the 

period January 25 to February 5, 2013 was later approved by his immediate supervisor.21 

Given the above-noted conflicting evidence in the case record, the Board finds that the 

case must be remanded to OWCP for further development of the question of whether appellant 

established an injury in the performance of duty on January 25, 2013. After carrying out this 

development, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on this matter. 

CONCLUSION 

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

met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the performance of duty on January 25, 2013. 

The case is remanded to OWCP for further development. 

 19 Appellant argued that the fact that TCFP required him to find a new job prior to his two-year anniversary in the 

program meant that his job search activities would be considered part of his official duties. The Board notes that 

there is evidence that, a day prior to the start of the trip on January 25, 2013, appellant’s immediate supervisor was 

aware of appellant’s trip to conduct interviews for a potential new job at facilities in Texas. The record does not 

contain a clear statement from an employing establishment official regarding whether the ostensible requirement 

that appellant had to find employment outside the TCFP rendered the January 2013 trip to Texas related to his 

employment. 

20 The evidence of record indicates that appellant was driving his personal vehicle at the time of the January 25, 

2013 accident, but he was reimbursed for mileage placed on the vehicle. 

21 A March 28, 2013 e-mail sent to appellant through an automated response system indicates, “You have an 

Expense Report which has been approved,” and lists his immediate supervisor as the “Final Approver.” 
10

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 25, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: June 15, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board