United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LAX 

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE CENTER, 

Los Angeles, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1049

Issued: October 21, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 10, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 21, 2019 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

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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. 
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to wageloss compensation on October 29 and December 11, 2018, and January 3, 2019 due to attendance 

at medical appointments.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 21, 2018 appellant, then a 60-year-old clerk, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed a bilateral knee condition due to factors of her 

federal employment including prolonged standing and walking. She first became aware of her 

condition and its relationship to her federal employment on December 6, 2017. Appellant did not 

stop work. OWCP accepted the claim for bilateral knee strain and bilateral knee osteoarthritis. 

On November 2, 2018 appellant filed a claim for wage-loss compensation (Form CA-7) 

for disability on October 29, 2018. On the back of the form, the employing establishment noted 

her work hours as 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. In a time analysis form (Form CA-7a) appellant claimed 

four hours for a medical appointment on October 29, 2018. 

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an appointment confirmation for October 29, 

2018 with Dr. Christopher P. DeCarlo, a physiatrist and sports medicine physician, and an 

October 30, 2018 request or notification of absence requesting four hours of leave for a medical 

appointment due to her accepted employment condition on October 29, 2018. The notification 

form noted a scheduled reporting time of 11:00 p.m. The appointment confirmation noted a time 

in of 2:10 p.m. and time out of 2:30 p.m. 

On December 13, 2018 OWCP received an appointment confirmation form noting that 

appellant was scheduled to receive acupuncture for both knees on December 11, 2018 with 

Johannes Schothorst, Lac. Ph.d. The time in for the appointment was 8:00 a.m. and time out was 

9:00 a.m. 

On December 20, 2018 appellant filed a wage-loss compensation claim (Form CA-7) for 

the period October 29 to December 11, 2018. On the back of the form the employing 

establishment noted there was no need for appellant to leave work at 2:55 a.m. for her medical 

appointments. In a Form CA-7a, appellant claimed four hours of OWCP leave for medical 

appointments on October 29 and December 11, 2018. The employing establishment indicated that 

appellant came to work at 2:55 a.m. on October 29, 2018 when her medical appointment was 

scheduled for 2:00 p.m. that day and on December 11, 2018 she left work at 2:55 a.m. for a medical 

appointment scheduled for 8:00 a.m.

Appellant, on January 10, 2019, filed a wage-loss compensation claim (Form CA-7) for 

January 3, 2019. On the back of the form, the employing establishment noted appellant’s work 

shift was from 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. On a time analysis form (Form CA-7a), appellant claimed 

3.92 hours of OWCP leave for a January 3, 2019 medical appointment. On both forms, the 

employing establishment wrote that appellant clocked out at 3:00 a.m. for an appointment 

scheduled for 9:00 a.m. and there was no need to clock out as her work shift ended at 7:30 a.m. 
3

In a development letter dated January 14, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence of record failed to establish that her time loss from work was due to her attending medical 

appointments for her accepted conditions. It requested clarification and evidence to establish wage 

loss for the dates and hours claimed due to attending medical appointments for the accepted 

conditions. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to provide the requested information.3 No response 

was received.

By decision dated March 21, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for wage-loss 

compensation due to time lost from work to attend medical appointments on October 29 and

December 11, 2018 and January 3, 2019. It noted that her shift started at 11:00 p.m. and ended at 

7:30 a.m. OWCP found appellant was not entitled to wage-loss compensation as her medical 

appointments were outside her regular work schedule and had not resulted in time lost from work. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

OWCP procedures provide that wages lost for compensable medical examinations or 

treatment may be reimbursed.4 A claimant who has returned to work following an accepted injury 

or illness may need to undergo examination or treatment and such employee may be paid 

compensation for wage loss while obtaining medical services and for a reasonable time spent 

traveling to and from the medical provider’s location.5 Wage loss is payable only if the 

examination, testing, or treatment is provided on a day which is a scheduled workday and during 

a scheduled tour of duty. Wage-loss compensation for medical treatment received during off-duty 

hours is not reimbursable.

6

 The evidence should establish that a claimant attended an examination 

or treatment for the accepted work injury on the dates claimed in order for compensation to be 

payable.7 For a routine medical appointment, a maximum of four hours of compensation may be 

allowed. However, longer periods of time may be allowed when required by the nature of the 

medical procedure and/or the need to travel a substantial distance to obtain the medical care. The 

claims for wage loss should be considered on a case-by-case basis.8

ANALYSIS

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

wage-loss compensation on October 29 and December 11, 2018 and January 3, 2019 due to 

attendance at medical appointments. 

 

3 Subsequent to OWCP’s request, it received medical evidence covering the period December 11, 2018 through 

March 7, 2019. None of the medical evidence identified the time of any medical appointment. 

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Wages Lost for Medical Examination or Treatment, Chapter 

2.901.19 (February 2013).

5

Id. at Chapter 2.901.19(a); see T.S., Docket No. 19-0347 (issued July 9, 2019); E.W., Docket No. 17-1988 (issued 

January 28, 2019).

6

Id. at Chapter 2.901.19(a)(2). 

7

Id. at Chapter 2.901.19(a)(3).

8

Id. at Chapter 2.901.19(c).
4

Appellant filed claims for wage-loss compensation for alleging that she was owed 

compensation for times she was attending medical appointments. The employing establishment 

contested her claims because appellant’s work shift was from 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m., while her

medical appointments were scheduled for times outside of her regular work shift. As noted above, 

wage-loss compensation is not payable for medical treatment received during off-duty work 

hours.9 The evidence of record establishes that appellant’s medical treatment occurred during offduty work hours. Thus, appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that she is entitled 

to wage-loss compensation for the dates claimed.

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 appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to 

wage-loss compensation on October 29 and December 11, 2018 and January 3, 2019 for 

attendance at medical appointments.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 21, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 21, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

9

Supra note 6.