United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.C., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Spokane, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1216

Issued: February 8, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 29, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 1, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury on 

December 12, 2016 while in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 19, 2016 appellant, then a 34-year-old claims specialist, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that, on December 12, 2016, he injured his back when he 

slipped and fell while taking a break from teleworking. The injury occurred at 8:15 a.m. at the 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

front door of his residence when he stepped outside for some air. Appellant returned to telework, 

but then stopped telework at 5:30 p.m. and visited an urgent care center. He was ultimately 

diagnosed with two transverse process lumbar spine fractures at L2 and L3.

By decision dated February 9, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he had 

not sustained an injury in the performance of duty. It found that he was injured at home while on 

break from teleworking and was not engaged in work activity at the time of his injury.

On March 16, 2017 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative and submitted additional medical evidence.

A telephonic hearing was held on September 18, 2017. Appellant testified that he took a 

break from teleworking at approximately 8:15 a.m. As he stepped outside onto his porch, he 

slipped and fell. Appellant noted that he worked throughout the day but, by the end of the day, he 

was in excruciating pain. He sought medical treatment at the urgent care center that evening and 

was told that he had fractured his back in two areas. 

Appellant argued that since he was on break at the time of injury, his injury should be 

accepted. On the date of injury, he testified that he started teleworking at 7:00 a.m. and tried to 

take his break prior to client appointments, which started at 9:00 a.m. 

By decision dated December 1, 2017, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

February 9, 2017 decision. She found that, at the time of the fall, appellant was on a personal 

break unrelated to the actual performance of his job duties. Accordingly, appellant had not 

established that the injury occurred in the performance of his federal employment duties.

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.”

2

 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.”

3

 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 the employee may 

reasonably be expected to be in connection with the employment, and while he was reasonably 

fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.4 This 

alone is insufficient to establish entitlement to benefits for compensability. The concomitant 

requirement of an injury “arising out of the employment” must be shown, and this encompasses 

 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a).

3 See M.T., Docket No. 17-1695 (issued May 15, 2018); S.F., Docket No. 09-2172 (issued August 23, 2010); 

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

4 See M.T., id.; Mary Keszler, 38 ECAB 735, 739 (1987).
3

not only the work setting, but also a causal concept, the requirement being that the employment 

caused the injury.5

The personal comfort doctrine, evolved to provide coverage to employees while injured on 

the employing establishment’s premises when ministering to their personal comfort. An employer 

can exercise control of the work environment on the employing establishment premises and can 

maintain safety to reduce the likelihood of workplace injury. However, the environment of an 

employee’s home is not under the employer’s control and is, accordingly, treated differently from 

an injury that occurs on the premises of the employing establishment.6

As to telework or flexiplace arrangements, OWCP has exercised its discretion under FECA 

to exclude the personal comfort doctrine from situations in which an employee is performing work 

at home.7 The Board has therefore found that the personal comfort doctrine does not extend to the 

premises of the employee and therefore an employee is not covered when he or she uses the 

bathroom, gets coffee, or seeks fresh air.8

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury 

occurred on December 12, 2016 while in the performance of duty, as alleged.

It is undisputed that on December 12, 2016 appellant injured his back when he slipped and 

fell on his porch. He was teleworking on that date at his home, an alternate duty station. Appellant 

related that he was on break and had stepped outside onto his porch to get a breath of fresh air. He 

slipped and fell, causing injury to his back. 

Appellant contends that his injury is compensable because he was injured while on break 

at his residence, an alternative duty station. For employees performing official duties at home, 

which are generally off the premises of the employing establishment, OWCP has provided that 

employees must be directly engaged in the performance of their duties to be covered under FECA.9

Appellant, by his own admission, was on break from his official job duties and had walked 

outside onto his porch when the fall occurred. When he left his desk and walked onto his porch to 

take a break from his official job duties, he was no longer in the performance of duty. There is no 

evidence that at the time of the injury that appellant was in fact doing something for the employing 

establishment.10 Appellant’s action of walking outside to his porch during his break was for his 

 

5 See M.T., supra note 3; Eugene G. Chin, 39 ECAB 598, 602 (1988).

6 See S.F., supra note 3; Mona M. Tates, 55 ECAB 128 (2003);

7 FECA Bulletin No. 98-09 (issued June 5, 1998). See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, 

Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.5(f)(1) (August 1992).

8 S.F., supra note 3. 

9 See S.F., supra note 3; Mona M. Tates, supra note 6; Julietta M. Reynolds, 50 ECAB 529 (1999).

10 See M.T., supra note 3.
4

own personal comfort, which is not recognized as a doctrine applicable to an employee injured at 

his own residence under telework or flexiplace. At the time of the slip and fall, it cannot be said 

that he was engaged in an activity essential to his employment or reasonably incidental to the 

duties that he was hired to perform.11 The Board thus finds that the injury he sustained did not 

occur in the performance of his federal employment duties.

For these reasons, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish 

an injury on December 12, 2016 in the performance of duty, as alleged.

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 his burden of proof to establish an injury on 

December 12, 2016 in the performance of duty, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 1, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: February 8, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

11 See S.F., supra note 3.