United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Fresno, CA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1044

Issued: December 10, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 11, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 8, 2019 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 Pursuant to the 

 

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 The record also contains January 18 and March 1 and 7, 2019 decisions denying appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation for intermittent periods of disability. Appellant has not appealed these decisions and thus they are not 

before the Board at this time. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3.
2

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.4

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to two 

hours of wage-loss compensation on May 22, 2018 to pick up prescribed medication.

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.5 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision and order are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On January 11, 2000 appellant, then a 35-year-old customer service representative, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained carpal tunnel syndrome 

causally related to factors of her federal employment. OWCP accepted the claim, assigned OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx348, for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and neck strain. Appellant underwent a 

right carpal tunnel release on July 26, 2000 and a left carpal tunnel release on October 11, 2000. 

She returned to modified employment on January 1, 2001.

OWCP subsequently accepted appellant’s October 6, 2016 occupational disease claim for 

a permanent aggravation of primary osteoarthritis of the bilateral hands. It assigned OWCP File 

No. xxxxxx608. 

Appellant continued to claim compensation for periods of disability from employment 

under OWCP File No. xxxxxx348. By decisions dated February 25 and October 30, 2002, 

January 13 and August 16, 2004, and September 9, 2005, OWCP found that she had failed to meet 

her burden of proof to establish a recurrence of disability in 2001 causally related to her accepted 

employment injury. By decision dated September 21, 2006, it denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration, finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. 

Appellant appealed to the Board. By order dated May 21, 2007, the Board set aside the 

September 21, 2006 decision, finding that her request for reconsideration was timely filed.6 The 

Board remanded the case for OWCP to consider appellant’s timely reconsideration request.

 

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 The Board notes that, following the March 8, 2019 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that 

was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board 

for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.

5 Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 07-0183 (issued May 21, 2007); Docket No. 08-0622 (issued 

October 22, 2008).

6

Id.
3

By decision dated September 28, 2007, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated October 22, 2008, the Board affirmed 

the September 28, 2007 decision.7 

On May 23, 2018 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for two hours of 

leave without pay (LWOP) that she used on May 22, 2018 to pick up a new prescription for her 

hands and fingers.8 

In a development letter dated June 19, 2018, OWCP notified appellant that it had not 

received any evidence supporting her claim for compensation on May 22, 2018 to obtain medical 

treatment.9 It advised her of the type of evidence required to establish that she had received 

treatment on that date due to her employment injury. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit 

the necessary evidence.

In a June 27, 2018 response, appellant related that she had to use two hours of LWOP to 

obtain a prescription for a topical gel for her hands that her physician believed might work better 

than her ibuprofen cream, which had run out. She advised that she had driven to work after 

obtaining her prescription at the pharmacy. 

By decision dated July 26, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for compensation for 

time lost on May 22, 2018. It found that she had not submitted any evidence establishing that she 

missed time from work on May 22, 2018 to obtain medical treatment causally related to her 

accepted employment injury.

On July 31, 2018 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

A telephonic hearing was held on January 10, 2019. During the hearing, appellant related 

that she had no more ibuprofen cream, and her physician had given her a new prescription for a 

 

7

Id.

8 On May 17, 2018, Dr. Sanjay J. Chauhan, a Board-certified neurologist, requested that OWCP authorize Voltaren 

gel, noting that appellant would use the gel instead of ibuprofen cream. 

9 By decision dated January 17, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss compensation beginning 

October 24, 2016; however, by decision dated September 12, 2017 an OWCP hearing representative vacated the 

decision and remanded the case for further adjudication after OWCP had combined the case files for OWCP 

File Nos. xxxxxx348 and xxxxxx608. By decision dated February 27, 2018, it denied her claim for intermittent wageloss compensation on September 11, 12, and 26 and October 2, 2017, and February 6, 2018 and continuing. By 

decision dated February 28, 2018, OWCP denied her claim for wage-loss compensation beginning October 24, 2016. 

By decision dated October 31, 2018, an OWCP hearing representative vacated the February 27 and 28, 2018 decisions, 

finding that OWCP should review a report from an impartial medical examiner provided under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx608 before adjudicating the disability claims. By decision dated January 18, 2019, OWCP denied 

appellant’s request for intermittent time lost to obtain medical care from September 26 through November 21, 2018. 

By decision dated March 1, 2019, it denied wage-loss compensation for intermittent periods in 2016 through 2018. 

By decision dated March 7, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for time lost to obtain medical care on 

November 28, 2018. 
4

Motrin gel. She took off work from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and went to a local pharmacy to fill the 

prescription. Appellant’s scheduled regular work hours were from 4:00 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. 

By decision dated March 8, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the July 26, 

2018 decision. She found that appellant was not entitled to compensation for time lost from work 

to pick up prescribed medication.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA10 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that any disability or specific condition for which 

compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.11

With respect to claimed disability for medical treatment, section 8103 of FECA provides 

for medical expenses, along with transportation and other expenses incidental to securing medical 

care, for injuries.12 A claimant is entitled to compensation for any time missed from work due to 

medical treatment for an employment-related condition. OWCP’s obligation to pay for medical 

expenses and expenses incidental to obtaining medical care, such as loss of wages, extends only 

to expenses incurred for treatment of the effects of any employment-related condition. Appellant 

has the burden of proof, which includes the necessity to submit supporting rationalized medical 

evidence.13

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

two hours of wage-loss compensation on May 22, 2018 to pick up prescribed medication.

Appellant claimed two hours of wage-loss compensation on May 22, 2018 to pick up a 

prescription for a new hand and finger cream at a pharmacy. OWCP’s procedures provide that an 

employee is entitled to wages lost while undergoing examination, testing, or treatment for an 

employment-related injury.14 The hours appellant claimed on May 22, 2018 were not for a medical 

examination or treatment, but rather to pick up medication. The medical evidence does not support 

that she received medical care on this date due to her accepted employment injury. The Board 

thus finds that appellant was not entitled to two hours of wage-loss compensation on May 22, 2018

to pick up prescribed medication.

15

 

10 Supra note 3.

11 V.B., Docket No. 18-1273 (issued March 4, 2019).

12 5 U.S.C. § 8103(a).

13 J.B., Docket No. 17-0655 (issued May 7, 2018); S.C., Docket No. 16-0284 (issued June 27, 2016).

14 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Compensation Claims, Chapter 2.901.19 (February 2013).

15 See S.M., Docket No. 17-1557 (issued September 4, 2018); D.B., Docket No. 12-0591 (issued October 11, 2012).
5

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

two hours of wage-loss compensation on May 22, 2018 to pick up prescribed medication.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 8, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 10, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board