United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL AIR 

MARSHAL SERVICE, Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0893

Issued: December 9, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 May 29, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 21, 2022 merit decision and 

an April 26, 2022 nonmerit 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 April 26, 2022 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP.

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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a traumatic 

injury in the performance of duty on December 20, 2021, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP

properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 23, 2021 appellant, then a 51-year-old federal air marshal, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 20, 2021 at 6:30 a.m. she sustained injury 

when she fell in the shower at her hotel while on travel status in Paris, France, in the performance 

of duty. She indicated that her left leg was behind her rear when she fell on the slick shower floor

and that, due to the fall, her left knee became swollen and could not bear her weight when she 

walked. Appellant did not stop work. On the reverse side of the claim form, appellant’s immediate 

supervisor acknowledged that appellant was injured in the performance of duty.

Appellant submitted a January 6, 2022 report from Dr. George M. Ballantyne, a Boardcertified orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that appellant presented for evaluation of left knee 

pain, which began on December 20, 2021, when she slipped and fell in the shower while on a 

business trip to Paris. Dr. Ballantyne advised that, upon physical examination, appellant exhibited 

tenderness to palpation in the medial joint line of the left knee. Appellant had pain upon extension 

and valgus motions of the left knee, the valgus test was positive, and the extension and flexion 

motions of the left knee were abnormal. Dr. Ballantyne diagnosed instability of the left knee joint 

and injury of the left knee, initial encounter. 

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated February 1, 2022, Dr. Ballantyne 

listed the history of the December 20, 2021 injury as “slip [and] fall in shower while on business 

in Paris” and diagnosed low-grade injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) of the left knee

per magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

3

 He checked a box marked “Yes” to indicate that 

the diagnosed condition was causally related to the reported employment activity. Dr. Ballantyne 

indicated that appellant was able to resume light-duty work on February 1, 2022. 

On February 1, 2022 Dr. Ballantyne completed a form report, which delineated appellant’s 

work restrictions. He also completed a work status report of even date which indicated that 

appellant could perform sedentary work with limitations on squatting, kneeling, climbing stairs, 

and working on ladders, scaffolds or at heights.

In a February 16, 2022 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and afforded her 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence.

3 The case record contains a January 19, 2022 MRI scan of the left knee, which contains an impression of lowgrade ACL injury.
3

In response, appellant submitted a February 17, 2022 report from Hyoyoung Jang, a 

physical therapist, who described her therapy session on that date.

By decision dated March 21, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a December 20, 

2021 traumatic injury. It determined that she had established that the December 20, 2021 fall

occurred as alleged, and that a medical condition had been diagnosed in connection with the 

accepted incident, but further found that the element of performance of duty had not been met. 

OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

On April 22, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of the March 21, 2022 decision. She 

submitted an unsigned document from her December 20, 2021 visit to a hospital in Paris. In a 

December 30, 2021 report, Dr. Ballantyne indicated that appellant could return to work for eight 

hours per day using a computer and answering telephone calls while in a seated position. Appellant

also submitted March 1, 9, and 21, 2022 reports from Ms. Jang who described appellant’s therapy 

sessions on those dates.

Appellant submitted an unsigned authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form 

CA-16) dated January 6, 2022, which listed a diagnosis of left knee muscle sprain.

Appellant submitted a time and attendance form, which contains an entry showing that on 

December 20, 2021 she worked from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. A timecard document shows that she

received pay for eight hours on December 29, 2021.

By decision dated April 26, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

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

essential elements of his or her claim, including that an injury was sustained in the performance of 

duty as alleged, and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is 

causally related to the employment injury.4 These are the essential elements of each and every 

compensation claim, regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an 

occupational disease.5 

To determine if an employee has sustained a traumatic injury in the performance of duty, 

OWCP begins with an analysis of whether fact of injury has been established. Fact of injury 

consists of two components that must be considered in conjunction with one another. The first 

component is whether the employee actually experienced the employment incident that allegedly 

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
4

occurred at the time and place, and in the manner alleged.

6

 The second component is whether the 

employment incident caused a personal injury.7 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required 

to establish causal relationship.8 

The general rule regarding coverage of employees on travel duty status or on temporary 

duty assignments is that an employee whose work entails travel away from the employer’s 

premises is generally considered to be within the course of his or her employment continuously 

during the trip, except when there is a distinct departure on a personal errand. Thus, injuries 

flowing from sleeping in hotels or eating in restaurants away from home are usually compensable.9

The Board has similarly recognized that FECA covers an employee 24 hours a day when 

the employee is on travel duty status and engaged in activities essential or incidental to such 

duties.10 When the employee, however, deviates from the normal incidents of her trip and engages 

in activities, personal or otherwise, which are not reasonably incidental to the duties of the 

temporary assignment contemplated by the employer, the employee ceases to be under the 

protection of FECA and any injury occurring during these deviations is not compensable. 11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established a traumatic incident in the performance of 

duty on December 20, 2021, as alleged.

As noted above, FECA covers an employee 24 hours a day when the employee is on travel 

duty status and engaged in activities essential or incidental to such duties, unless the employee 

deviates from the normal incidents of his or her trip and engages in activities, personal or 

otherwise, which are not reasonably incidental to the duties of the temporary assignment 

contemplated by the employer.12 In the present case, appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that 

appellant was on travel-duty status and therefore in the performance of duty on December 20, 2021 

when she fell in the shower at her hotel in Paris. As appellant’s showering at her hotel on 

December 20, 2021 was reasonably incidental to the duties of the temporary assignment 

contemplated by the employer, the Board finds that appellant was in the performance of duty. 

Therefore, the case shall be remanded to OWCP for further development, to determine whether 

she sustained an injury causally related to the accepted December 20, 2021 employment incident. 

6 B.P., Docket No. 16-1549 (issued January 18, 2017); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143 (1989).

7 M.H., Docket No. 18-1737 (issued March 13, 2019); John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). 

8

S.S.,Docket No. 18-1488 (issued March 11, 2019). 

9

. S.T., Docket No. 16-1710 (issued September 27, 2017); B.B., Docket No. 14-2000 (issued July 9, 2015).

10 See K.R., Docket No. 21-0308 (issued May 16, 2022); S.B., Docket No. 10-842 (issued December 9, 2010). See 

also A.W., 59 ECAB 593 (2008).

11 See T.C., Docket No. 16-1070 (issued January 24, 2017); AnnP. Drennan, 47 ECAB 750 (1996).

12 See id.
5

After this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision.13

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has established a traumatic incident in the performance of 

duty on December 20, 2021, as alleged. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 21, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. The case is remanded to OWCP for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

14

Issued: December 9, 2022

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

13 In light of the Board’s disposition of the first issue, the second issue is rendered moot.

14 A properly completed Form CA-16 form authorization may constitute a contract for payment of medical expenses 

to a medical facility or physician, when properly executed. The form creates a contractual obligation, which does not 

involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the examination or treatment regardless of the action taken on the 

claim. The period for which treatment is authorized by a Form CA-16 is limited to 60 days from the date of issuance, 

unless terminated earlier by OWCP. 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); P.R., Docket No. 18-0737 (issued November 2, 2018); 

N.M., Docket No. 17-1655 (issued January 24, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).