United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, Garden Valley, ID, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1134

Issued: August 8, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 4, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 20, 2020 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,following the March 20, 2020 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.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether OWCP abused its discretion by denying appellant’s request for travel 

reimbursement for medical treatment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 27, 2018 appellant, then a 62-year-old forestry technician recreation, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on August 25, 2018 when picking up trash on 

employing establishment premises she was startled by a dog, stepped backward, tripped over a 

rock, and fell backwards landing on her wrists while in the performance of duty. She stopped work 

on that date. On September 5, 2018 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for displaced fracture of 

the left ulna styloid process, displaced fracture of the right ulna styloid process, and intraarticular 

fractures of the lower end of the left and right radius. On October 30, 2018 it authorized wageloss compensation beginning October 10, 2018.

Appellant’s attending physician, Dr. Steven B. Care, a Board-certifiedorthopedic surgeon,

performed bilateral open reduction and internal fixations of distal radius with closed treatment of 

bilateral ulnar styloid fractures on September 13, 2018.

On September 28, 2018 appellant notified OWCP that her address would change to 

Redding, California effective October 1, 2018. She began attending physical therapy in Redding, 

California on October 29, 2018.

In a November 15, 2018 memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110), appellant 

informed OWCP that she was unable to find a hand surgeon in Redding, California who was 

willing to take a federal workers’ compensation case, and that she planned to seek treatment from

Dr. Care in Idaho on December 12, 2018. In November 16, 2018 Form CA-110 notes, she asked 

if she could be compensated for travel to Idaho to see Dr. Care. Appellant again alleged that she 

could not find a physician in Redding, California that was willing to treat her. She planned to 

drive to the appointment with Dr. Care. OWCP agreed to pay for the appointment, but not the 

travel. It requested the names of the physicians that appellant had contacted.

In a November 16, 2018 letter, appellant asserted that she was unable to transfer her 

medical care to northern California and requested travel reimbursement for her appointment with

Dr. Care scheduled for December 12, 2018 in Boise, Idaho. She indicated that she had contacted

Dr. Stephen P. Ferraro, a Board-certified hand surgeon and orthopedic surgeon in Redding, 

California, who was not accepting any new workers’ compensation patients, and Hand Surgery 

Associates in Sacramento, California which had discontinued accepting federal workers’

compensation patients in 2018. Appellant asserted that Dr. Care was the appropriate physician to 

address her accepted conditions.

In a November 29, 2018 Form CA-110, OWCP advised that the trip to see Dr. Care was 

564 miles one way and that it would not pay travel expenses. In a January 4, 2019 Form CA-110, 

appellant informed OWCP that she was flying to see Dr. Care for an appointment on 

January 23, 2019. She requested financial assistance with the cost of the flight, overnight stay in 

a hotel, and car rental.
3

In a January 11, 2019 development letter, OWCP noted appellant’s request for travel 

reimbursement to see Dr. Care in Boise, Idaho. It noted that his office was located 565 miles from 

her residence in Redding, California or 1,130 miles roundtrip. OWCP informed appellant that 

generally a roundtrip distance of 100 miles was considered a reasonable distance to travel. It 

further noted that, if a roundtrip of more than 100 miles was contemplated, an employee must 

submit a written request describing the circumstances and necessity for travel expenses such as air 

transportation or overnight accommodations. OWCP further noted that it would approve travel 

requests which it found to be reasonable and necessary, including those resulting from referrals to 

specialists or those involving air transportation of an employee who lives in a remote geographical 

area with limited local medical services. It afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional 

argument or evidence in support of her request for travel reimbursement to Boise, Idaho.

Appellant responded to OWCP’s development letter on January 18, 2019 and asserted that 

she was unable to transfer her medical care to a hand/wrist surgeon in northern California and that 

she believed that it was important to continue her medical treatment with Dr. Care. She asserted 

that she had not recovered from her accepted employment injuries and required additional 

treatment from him. Appellant again noted that neither Dr. Ferraro nor Hand Surgery Associates 

were accepting new workers’ compensation patients. She alleged that she had been unable to find 

a hand/wrist surgeon within 100 miles to provide treatment. Appellant provided a summary of her 

anticipated travel expenses in the amount of $525.66.

On February 27, 2019 appellant again asserted that she was unable to transfer medical care 

from Dr. Care in Boise, Idaho, to a hand/wrist surgeon nearer her home in Redding, California. 

She noted that Redding Occupational Medical Center was not accepting transfers of care for 

Federal workers’ compensation patients.

Appellant traveled to a medical appointment with Dr. Care in Boise, Idaho on 

March 20, 2019.

In a letter dated March 22, 2019, appellant requested a second opinion examination 

regarding her proposed left wrist surgery. She requested an appointment with Dr. Dustin Judd, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, in Meridian, Idaho.

By decision dated April 2, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for travel 

reimbursement. It found that she had not presented sufficient factual evidence to establish that it 

was reasonable and necessary for her to travel 1,130 miles roundtrip with an overnight hotel stay 

to obtain medical services. OWCP noted that there were several orthopedic surgeons in Redding, 

California where appellant resided. It further noted that additional orthopedic surgeons were 

located between 144 and 432 miles away, roundtrip. OWCP determined that appropriate 

specialists to provide treatment for appellant’s conditions included orthopedists, physiatrists, or a 

specialist in occupational medicine. 

On April 8, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review.
4

In a letter dated April 11, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for a second opinion 

evaluation with Dr. Judd. Appellant subsequently attended a medical examination with him in 

Meridian, Idaho on May 24, 2019.

On May 31, 2019 appellant notified OWCP of her change of address to Sunriver, Oregon. 

In a June 14, 2019 letter, she requested to change her primary treating physician to Dr. Judd, 

located in Meridian, Idaho. On June 28, 2019 OWCP approved this request.

On August 9, 2019 appellant testified at the oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative and asserted that she did not want to travel to San Francisco, California for medical 

treatment due to the traffic, the length of the trip which she testified was approximately five hours,

or 530 miles roundtrip, and the necessity for an overnight stay. She noted that she contacted three 

medical providers, all of whom refused to accept her as a patient. Appellant alleged that there 

were no hand specialists in her area who would accept her workers’ compensation claim and that 

a general orthopedist was not appropriate for her care. She noted that Drs. Care and Judd agreed 

that she needed a second left wrist surgery.

By decision dated October 18, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative denied appellant’s 

claim for travel expenses. The hearing representative further noted that travel over 100 miles was 

often approved when it resulted in referral to a specialist, or when an employee lived in a remote 

geographic area with limited local medical services. She found that there was no evidence that the 

accepted bilateral wrist fracture involved complicating factors that required treatment only by

Dr. Care. OWCP’s hearing representative found that appellant’s contentions that she could not 

find a closer provider were not plausible. She concluded that OWCP properly exercised its 

discretion to deny the request for reimbursement of travel expenses.

On October 22, 2019 appellant attended a medical appointment with Dr. Judd. On 

October 23, 2019 Dr. Judd performed a left distal radius hardware removal and manipulation under 

anesthesia of the left wrist.

On December 13, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s prior decisions. 

She alleged that her medical conditions involved complicating factors including that the radialsided fixation screw in the distal radius was causing a small area of mechanical erosion in the 

adjacent scaphoid bone. Appellant resubmitted her January 23 and March 20, 2019 left wrist xrays, physical therapy notes, and October 23, 2019 operative notes. She alleged that Dr. Care 

ignored the mechanical erosion demonstrated on x-ray and that during her March 20, 2019 

appointment he severely manipulated and compressed her left wrist which left it notably regressed 

in position, flexibility, and function. Appellant asserted that she lost confidence in Dr. Care and 

sought a second opinion from a hand surgeon and met with Dr. Judd, who was also located in

Idaho. She alleged that her condition required a hand surgeon not an orthopedist, physiatrist, or 

occupational medicine specialist. Appellant further alleged that there were extremely limited 

choices or no choices of appropriate practitioners within the federal workers’ compensation 

program.

By decision dated March 20, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. It 

found that the additional medical evidence did not reasonably justify traveling greater than 100 
5

miles roundtrip to receive medical treatment when there were several orthopedic specialists which 

required less travel distance.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

OWCP’s 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.3 To determine a reasonable travel distance, it will consider the availability 

of services, the employee’s condition, and the means of transportation. Effective August 29, 2011, 

the most recent regulations provide that a round-trip distance of up to 100 miles is considered a 

reasonable distance to travel.4 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 determines that the travel 

expenses are reasonable and necessary and are related to obtaining authorized medical services, 

appliances, or supplies.5

Pursuant to FECA Bulletin No. 14-02, 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’s claims examiner.6 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.7

In interpreting this section, the Board has recognized that OWCP has broad discretion in 

approving services provided under FECA.8 The only limitation on OWCP’s authority is that of 

reasonableness. OWCP may authorize medical treatment, but determine that the travel expense 

incurred for such authorized treatment was unreasonable or unnecessary. 9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that OWCP has not abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request 

for travel reimbursement for medical treatment in excess of 100 miles roundtrip. 

The record reflects that appellant moved from Garden Valley, Idaho to Redding, California 

and notified OWCP of her move on September 28, 2018. In Idaho, appellant had been treated by

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a).

4

Id.

5

Id. at 10.315(b).

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

7

Id.

8

S.M., Docket No. 19-0989 (issued May 12, 2020); G.C., Docket No. 19-0298 (issued June 24, 2019).

9

Id.
6

Dr. Care, her authorized treating physician. After returning to California, appellant alleged that 

she was unable to find a physician that she deemed appropriate and requested to continue her care 

with Dr. Care, traveling approximately 1,130 miles roundtrip for appointments on December 12, 

2018, January 23, and March 20, 2019. She then requested to change her attending physician to

Dr. Judd and traveled to Meridian, Idaho for additional medical treatment on May 24 and 

October 22, 2019.

On November 29, 2018 OWCP informed appellant that she would not be reimbursed for 

travel expenses in excess of 100 miles roundtrip in accordance with its procedures. In a 

development letter dated January 11, 2019, it advised her that she needed to provide a detailed 

statement as to why it was reasonable and necessary for her to travel approximately 1,130 miles 

roundtrip for medical treatment.

OWCP’s regulations provide that, generally, a round trip of up to 100 miles is a reasonable 

distance to travel.10 There may be circumstances where reimbursement for travel 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.11 To 

establish that a travel reimbursement of more than 100 miles is warranted, OWCP’s regulations 

indicate that the claimant must provide information describing the circumstances and necessity for 

such travel expenses. Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to explain the necessity of 

traveling 1,130 miles each way to Idaho to seek care or why such travel was reasonable. 12 

Although she maintained that she could not obtain medical treatment closer than in Idaho, her

residence in Redding, California was in an urban area of approximately 90,000 people. 13 

Furthermore, appellant has provided no evidence to establish a lack of available services closer to 

her home or a specific need for the distances for which she was requesting authorization for 

reimbursement.14 Although OWCP had authorized her to see Drs. Care and Judd, issues of 

authorization for medical treatment and reimbursement of travel expenses for medical treatment 

are separate and distinct. It may authorize medical treatment, but determine that the travel expense 

incurred for such authorized treatment was unreasonable or unnecessary. 15

OWCP has broad discretion in considering whether to reimburse or authorize travel 

expenses.16 As the only limitation on its authority is reasonableness, abuse of discretion is 

generally shown through proof of manifest error, clearly unreasonable exercise of judgment, or 

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.315(a).

11 Id. at § 10.315(b).

12 G.C., supra note 8; D.C., Docket No. 18-0080 (issued May 22, 2018); M.B., Docket No. 17-1072 (issued 

August 16, 2017); M.M.,Docket No. 15-1724 (issued February 16, 2016).

13 See D.C., Docket No. 18-0080 (issued May 22, 2018)(finding that a large urban center was within the 100-mile 

roundtrip limit and thus OWCP’s denial of travel expenses was not an abuse of discretion).

14 Id.; M.M., supra note 12.

15 Supra note 12.

16 Id.
7

actions taken which are contrary to both logic and probable deduction from known facts. 17 The 

Board thus finds that OWCP has not abused its discretion by denying appellant’s travel 

reimbursement requestsfor trips over 100 miles roundtrip.

18

 No probative evidence was presented 

with respect to the necessity of travel over the 100-mile roundtrip standard set forth in OWCP 

regulations.19 OWCP has administrative discretion with respect to authorization of travel 

reimbursement.20 Therefore, the expenses appellant incurred for travel between her home in 

California and her treating physicians in Idaho beyond the 100-mile roundtrip limit must be 

considered personal to her.21

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 has not abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request 

for travel reimbursement for medical treatment.

17 Id.

18 J.J., Docket No. 10-1908 (issued June 16, 2011).

19 Supra note 13.

20 Supra note 12.

21 D.C., supra note13;W.J., Docket No. 10-1944 (issued June 1, 2011).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 20, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 8, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board