M.C. and Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Board decision, February 11, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board reversed OWCP’s denial of continuation of pay for the accepted knee injury. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A customs officer injured her left knee during a training scenario and promptly filed a traumatic injury claim. OWCP accepted the knee strain but denied continuation of pay based on a suitable-work issue. The Board found that she met the requirements for continuation of pay and that the separate suitable-work issue was not before it. It reversed the denial.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: Continuation-of-pay denial reversed.
• Key point: The claimant met the statutory timing and injury requirements for continuation of pay.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
M.C., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0235
)
Issued: February 11, 2025
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, )
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, )
El Paso, TX, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 16, 2025, appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 4, 2024 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 her burden of proof to establish entitlement to continuation of pay (COP).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 12, 2024, appellant, then a 32-year-old customs and border protection officer, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 11, 2024 she sustained a left knee injury

1
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. during a “use-of-force” training scenario in which her left knee “popped” while in the performance of duty. The case record indicates that appellant stopped work on July 12, 2024. On July 12, 2024, the employing establishment issued an authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA- 16). On July 16, 2024, OWCP accepted the claim for left knee strain.

In a work capacity evaluation for musculoskeletal conditions (Form OWCP-5c) and an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated July 16, 2024, Dr. Douglas Alorgbey, a Board- certified family practitioner, diagnosed left knee sprain and noted that it was due to training. He advised on the Form OWCP-5c that appellant was capable of performing desk duties only and recommended work restrictions of no walking, standing, twisting, bending/stooping, pushing, pulling, lifting, squatting, kneeling, or climbing. Dr. Alorgbey further indicated restrictions related to sitting, reaching, reaching above the shoulder, and repetitive movements.

In a letter dated July 31, 2024, the employing establishment controverted for the dates July 16 through August 13, 2024.

In a Form OWCP-5c dated September 11, 2024, Dr. Keith R. Johnson, a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon, released appellant to work without restrictions.

By decision dated December 4, 2024, OWCP denied entitlement to COP finding that appellant had refused an offer of suitable work. It noted that this decision concerned entitlement to COP only and did not affect her entitlement to other compensation benefits. OWCP further advised appellant that the denial of COP did not preclude her from filing a claim for wage-loss compensation causally related to the accepted July 11, 2024 employment injury.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8118(a) of FECA authorizes COP, not to exceed 45 days, to an employee who has filed a claim for a period of wage loss due to a traumatic injury with his or her immediate superior on a form approved by the Secretary of Labor within the time specified in section 8122(a)(2) of FECA.2 This latter section provides that written notice of injury shall be given within 30 days. 3 The context of section 8122 makes clear that this means within 30 days of the injury. 4

OWCP’s regulations provide, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for COP, an employee must: (1) have a traumatic injury which is job related and the cause of the disability and/or the cause of lost time due to the need for medical examination and treatment; (2) file Form CA-1 within 30 days of the date of the injury (if that form is not available, using another form would not

2
Id. at § 8118(a).
3
Id. at § 8122(a)(2).
4
E.M., Docket No. 20-0837 (issued January 27, 2021); J.S., Docket No. 18-1086 (issued January 17, 2019); Robert M. Kimzey, 40 ECAB 762, 763-64 (1989); Myra Lenburg, 36 ECAB 487, 489 (1985).

2 alone preclude receipt); and (3) begin losing time from work due to the traumatic injury within 45 days of the injury. 5

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to COP.

The record reflects that on July 12, 2024 appellant filed written notice of a traumatic injury on a Form CA-1, alleging that on July 11, 2024 she sustained a left knee injury during a “use-of- force” training scenario in which her left knee “popped” while in the performance of duty. The case record indicates that appellant stopped work on July 12, 2024.

By decision dated December 4, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s request for COP because she refused an offer of suitable work. However, it noted that this decision concerned entitlement to COP only and did not affect her entitlement to other compensation benefits. Therefore, the issue of refusal of suitable work is not presently before the Board. 6

As noted above, OWCP’s regulations provide, in pertinent part, that to be entitled to COP, an employee must: (1) have a traumatic injury which is job related and the cause of the disability and/or the cause of lost time due to the need for medical examination and treatment; (2) file Form CA-1 within 30 days of the date of the injury (if that form is not available, using another form would not alone preclude receipt); and (3) begin losing time from work due to the traumatic injury within 45 days of the injury. 7

As appellant has established that she filed her Form CA-1 on July 12, 2024, within 30 days of the July 11, 2024 date of injury, and that she stopped work within 45 days of the date of injury, the Board finds that she has met her burden of proof.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish entitlement to COP.

5
20 C.F.R. § 10.205(a)(1-3); see also T.S., Docket No. 19-1228 (issued December 9, 2019); J.M., Docket No. 09- 1563 (issued February 26, 2010). Dodge Osborne, 44 ECAB 849 (1993); William E. Ostertag, 33 ECAB 1925 (1982). 6 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3.
7
Id.

3
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 4, 2024 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. 8

Issued: February 11, 2025
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

8
The Board notes that the employing establishment executed a Form CA-16 on July 12, 2024. A completed Form CA-16 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. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 10.300(c); S.G., Docket No. 23-0552 (issued August 28, 2023); J.G., Docket No. 17-1062 (issued February 13, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003).

4