Opinion ID: 2677978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 2010 FECA Proceedings

Text: On April 30, 2010, Cabrera was watching his radar screen in performing his job as an air traffic controller at the Miami Center. His area of control abutted airspace controlled by the Havana Air Control Center (“Havana Center”). Cabrera noticed two northbound airplanes in Havana Center’s airspace were approaching his control area. He perceived the trailing plane was moving faster on a collision course with the lead plane. Although Cabrera was not controlling the two planes, which had not entered his airspace, he separated them to prevent a collision. Cabrera was so disturbed by his involvement in the possible collision of the two planes that paramedics were called, and he was taken to a hospital for medical attention. Because of suffering emotional trauma from this incident, Cabrera was unable to return to work as an air traffic controller at the Miami Center and subsequently separated from his DOT employment. Consequently, he 4 Case: 12-16536 Date Filed: 06/11/2014 Page: 5 of 13 submitted a claim for total disability from anxiety and panic disorders to the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”), operated under the United States Department of Labor. In the June 18, 2010, OWCP decision, the Claims Examiner reviewed the five prerequisites for a FECA claim. It must be (1) timely filed, (2) by a federal civil employee, (3) who establishes the injury factually and medically (4) that occurred in the performance of duty, and (5) medical evidence shows a causal relationship between the work event and the injury. While Cabrera had met four of the five requirements, the Claims Examiner determined he had failed to show he was performing his duties, when the precipitating event occurred. That conclusion was based on DOT’s representations that Cabrera “was not responsible for the separation of the aircraft involved at the time of this incident,” because the planes had not entered the Miami Center airspace and were still under the separation control of the Havana Center, which “was providing the separation in their airspace.” OWCP Dec. at 2 (June 18, 2010). DOT further had stated that “[t]here was no indication whatsoever that the aircraft could have or would have collided,” because the planes were separated by 15 miles, when Cabrera acted. Id. The Claims Examiner decided: “Specifically, your case is denied because the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the injury and/or medical condition arose during the course of 5 Case: 12-16536 Date Filed: 06/11/2014 Page: 6 of 13 employment and within the scope of compensable work factors.” Id. (emphasis added). Based on this determination, the Claims Examiner concluded: “Medical treatment is not authorized and prior authorization, if any, is terminated.” Id. at 3. Following this decision, Cabrera requested an OWCP hearing, which occurred on November 8, 2010. In affirming the June 18, 2010, OWCP decision on June 1, 2011, the OWCP hearing representative concluded the evidence did not show that Cabrera had operational responsibility for the two planes, which failed to establish a compensable work incident. On August 11, 2011, Cabrera requested reconsideration and submitted a June 9, 2011, reprimand letter, concerning a similar occurrence of potential collision between two incoming planes on November 21, 2009. On that occasion, Cabrera did not act to separate the planes, because he had advised one of them to return to Havana Center’s frequency. The reprimand stated: “Havana should have provided positive separation between these two aircraft, however, when that separation was not assured you had an obligation to resolve that conflict.” Reprimand Letter (June 9, 2011) at 2-3 (emphasis added). On September 30, 2011, OWCP denied Cabrera’s request for reconsideration of its June 18, 2010, decision. Cabrera again requested reconsideration on January 24, 2012, and attached the coordination agreement 6 Case: 12-16536 Date Filed: 06/11/2014 Page: 7 of 13 regarding airspace between the Havana Center and the Miami Center. On February 22, 2012, OWCP denied modification of its June 18, 2010, decision. It concluded the evidence failed to establish the two planes were in Cabrera’s assigned airspace or that there was a separation loss between the two planes that required emergency action. Cabrera then appealed the final OWCP decision to the United States Department of Labor Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board (“ECAB”). On December 28, 2012, the ECAB reversed the OWCP, granted Cabrera relief, and remanded the case for the OWCP to consider Cabrera’s medical evidence. 3 For an injury to occur in the course of employment, the ECAB noted that three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the employee must be reasonably engaged in his master’s business (2) in a place where he is reasonably expected to be for his employment, and (3) he is reasonably fulfilling his duties or something incidental thereto. ECAB Dec. (Dec. 28, 2012) at 3-4 (citing Carmen B. Gutierrez, 7 ECAB 58 (1954)). The ECAB judges specifically noted “where disability results from an employee’s emotional reaction to his regular or specially assigned work duties or to a requirement imposed by the employment, the 3 Although the December 28, 2012, ECAB decision resolved the issue of whether Cabrera was acting within his air-traffic-control responsibilities on April 30, 2010, when the incident in question occurred, it was not part of the record on appeal at oral argument on January 14, 2014. When the issuance of the ECAB decision was revealed by counsel at oral argument, the panel requested counsel to supplement the record with it and to provide the court with letter briefs discussing its relevance and effect on this case. 7 Case: 12-16536 Date Filed: 06/11/2014 Page: 8 of 13 disability comes within the coverage of FECA.” Id. at 3 (citing Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976)) (emphasis added). The ECAB concluded Cabrera “was performing his regular duties as an air traffic controller under Cutler when the potential collision arose, a situation he took effort to remedy.” Id. at 4. The significance of the December 28, 2012, ECAB decision is that it resolves Cabrera’s eligibility for FECA benefits. 4