United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

JOHN COCHRAN VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

St. Louis, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0108

Issued: September 1, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 1, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from an August 24, 

2021 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board 

has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

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

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

an injury in the performance of duty on February 14, 2019, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 20, 2019 appellant, then a 52-year-old nurse, filed a traumatic injury claim

(Form CA-1) alleging that at 4:30 p.m. on February 14, 2019 she sustained injury to her hands and 

knees when she fell to the floor at the employing establishment while in the performance of duty. 

She asserted that she was speaking with J.L., an employing establishment human resource official,

and then pushed a heavy door open, tripped over a metal door jamb, and fell forward such that she 

landed on her hands and knees. Appellant stopped work on the date of the claimed injury and later 

returned to limited-duty work. On the reverse side of the form S.B., appellant’s immediate 

supervisor, checked a “No” box indicating that appellant was not injured in the performance of 

duty. She added the notation, “She was out on [leave without pay (LWOP)] due to nonworkrelated condition.”

In support of her claim, appellant submitted documents and medical reports from her visit 

to the emergency room on February 14, 2019. In a report from that visit, Chanrachna Ladin, a 

nurse practitioner, noted that appellant reported a February 14, 2019 fall and diagnosed right knee 

sprain and nondisplaced left patella fracture.

In a letter received by OWCPon February 21, 2019, E.D., a human resource specialist from

the employing establishment, advised that the employing establishment was challenging 

appellant’s claim. She indicated that appellant was placed off work on February 8, 2019 after a 

meeting with her supervisors and she was not working due to nonwork-related “issues that were 

permanent.” E.D. noted that appellant refused to sign documentation presented to her by 

management, and she was placed on LWOP status. She maintained that appellant did not have an 

appointment with J.L. on February 14, 2019, and she went to the Jefferson Barracks location of 

the employing establishment “on her own and on her own time.”

In a March 20, 2019 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. It advised her of the type of evidence needed and afforded her 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence.

Appellant submitted additional documents from healthcare providers in support of her 

claim, including reports from Kathleen Berry, a nurse practitioner, and Dr. Matthew Bradley, a 

Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. She also submitted a journal entry from E.L., a coworker, in 

which she described appellant’s refusal of medical attention after her February 14, 2019 fall.

By decision dated April 30, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a February 14, 2019

employment injury, finding that she failed to establish that she sustained injury while in the 

performance of duty. It noted that, at the time of claimed injury, appellant was in LWOP status 

for a nonwork-related condition, and was not on the premises due to a scheduled appointment or 

due to any purpose incidental to work. OWCP indicated, “[a]n employee’s presence on the 

premises does not of itself afford the protection of the FECA. At the time of an injury, the 
3

employee must be on the premises for a work-related purpose; otherwise, the employee is not 

covered by the premises rule.”

On October 31, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the April 30, 

2019 decision. In an accompanying letter, counsel asserted that J.C., a management official, 

advised appellant on February 8, 2019 to “go home as we have no work assignment for you.” He 

indicated that, during the following week, appellant left numerous voice messages and sent 

numerous e-mails to human resources officials at the employing establishment in an attempt to 

gain clarification of her work and pay status. Counsel noted that appellant’s pay stopped on 

February 8, 2019 and that, after receiving no responses to her communications, she visited the 

human resources office at Jefferson Barracks. He asserted that appellant’s February 14, 2019 

accident was covered because it occurred when she was on the premises of the employing 

establishment “with permission (expressed or implied)” engaging in an act incidental to her work, 

i.e., attempting to determine her pay and work status.

By decision dated January 23, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its April 30, 2019 

decision.

On March 20, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the 

January 23, 2020 decision. In a statement dated March 19, 2020, she asserted that on February 8, 

2019 the associate chief nurse told her, “[w]e have no work for you, go home, you have no 

assignment.” Appellantindicated that she went home without knowing her work status or expected 

return date. She asserted that she visited the employing establishment on February 14, 2019

because she did not receive a response to her e-mail and telephone inquiries regarding her work 

status. In a March 11, 2020 “affidavit,” appellantfurther discussed her work history and the events 

of February 14, 2019. She submitted additional medical evidence in support of her claim.

By decision dated May 29, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its January 23, 2020 

decision. 

On May 26, 2021 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the May 29, 

2020 decision. She submitted several letters, e-mails, and administrative forms, dated July 11,

2018 through April 10, 2021, regarding her request for work accommodation and her return to 

work in April 2019. Appellant submitted an undated statement and a May 12, 2021 statement 

further describing her attempts to contact the human resources office. In a May 14, 2021

statement, B.C., a coworker, asserted that it was necessary for appellant to visit the employing 

establishment on February 14, 2019, because she did not receive a response to her e-mails and 

telephone calls. She maintained that appellant was given a memorandum and follow-up instant 

message “directing her to go home, that she had no work assignment, and she was not on paid 

administrative leave.” In a May 12, 2021 statement, J.M., a union official, indicated that appellant 

was told on February 8, 2019 to go home because there was no work assignment for her. Appellant 

also submitted additional medical evidence in support of her claim.

By decision dated August 24, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its May 29, 2020 

decision.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,4that 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.5 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.6

The phrase “sustained while in the performance of duty” has been interpreted by the Board 

to be the equivalent of the commonly founded prerequisite in workers’ compensation law of 

“arising out of and in the course of employment.”

7

 To arise in the course of employment, in 

general, an injury must occur: (1) at a time when the employee may reasonably be stated to be 

engaged in the master’s business; (2) at a place when he or she may reasonably be expected to be 

in connection with his or her employment; and (3) while he or she was reasonably fulfilling the 

duties of his or her employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.8 In deciding 

whether an injury is covered by FECA, the test is whether, under all the circumstances, a causal 

relationship exists between the employment itself, or the conditions under which it is required to 

be performed, and the resultant injury.9

ANALYSIS

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

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on February 14, 2019, as alleged.

Appellant claimed that she sustained a work-related injury on February 14, 2019 when she 

tripped on a metal door jamb at the employing establishment premises and fell to the floor. She 

asserted that, at the time of her accident, she had just spoken with a J.L., an employing 

establishment human resource official, regarding her work status. Appellant acknowledged that 

she was not on official time on February 14, 2019, but asserted that she only visited the employing 

3

Supra note 2.

4

S.S., Docket No. 19-1815 (issued June26, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); JoeD. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

5 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June 17, 2020); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 

312 (1988).

6

S.A., Docket No. 19-1221 (issued June 9, 2020); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); DeloresC. 

Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 C.L., Docket No. 19-1985 (issued May 12, 2020); S.F., Docket No. 09-2172 (issued August 23, 2010); Valerie C. 

Boward, 50 ECAB 126 (1998).

8

S.V., Docket No. 18-1299 (issued November 5, 2019); RomaA. Mortenson-Kindschi, 57 ECAB 418 (2006); Mary 

Keszler, 38 ECAB 735, 739 (1987).

9 Mark Love, 52 ECAB 490 (2001).
5

establishment after her attempts to communicate with the human resources office and confirm her 

work status had failed.

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof because she was not in the 

course of her employment at the time of her claimed February 14, 2019 injury and, therefore, was 

not in the performance of duty.

In a letter received by OWCP on February 21, 2019, E.D., a human resource specialist from 

the employing establishment, advised that the employing establishment was challenging 

appellant’s claim. She indicated that appellant was placed off work on February 8, 2019 after a 

meeting with her supervisors and she was not working due to nonwork-related “issues that were 

permanent.” E.D. indicated that appellant refused to sign documentation presented to her by 

management, and she was placed on LWOP status. She asserted that appellant did not have an 

appointment with J.L. on February 14, 2019, and she went to the Jefferson Barracks location of 

the employing establishment “on her own and on her own time.”

The Board finds that the above-described information from the employing establishment 

demonstrates that appellant’s February 14, 2019 fall did not occur at a time when she may 

reasonably be said to have been engaged in the master’s business, at a place where she may 

reasonably have been expected to be in connection with the employment, and while she was 

reasonably fulfilling the duties of her employment or engaged in doing something incidental 

thereto.10

At the time of the February 14, 2019 fall, appellant was not engaged in the master’s 

business, fulfilling the duties of her employment, or engaged in doing something incidental 

thereto.11 Rather, she was engaged in an activity not directly related to her work duties, i.e., 

pursuing a personnel matter pertaining to her leave and work status. Although she was on the 

premises of the employing establishment at the time of the February 14, 2019 fall, appellant was 

not on official work duty at the time. Nor was she directed to visit the employing establishment 

premises by any person in a position of authority. Management had advised appellant that she was 

on leave status, commencing February 8, 2019 and continuing, and there was no legitimate work 

purpose for her to visit the workplace on February 14, 2019. Therefore, at the time of the fall, 

appellant was not at a place where she may reasonably have been expected to be in connection 

with the employment. 

For these reasons, appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

an injury in the performance of duty on February 14, 2019.

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.

10 See supra note 8.

11 See id.
6

CONCLUSION

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

sustained an injury in the performance of duty on February 14, 2019.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 24, 2021 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 1, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board