Federal Focus
ECAB remanded a claim involving an alleged adverse reaction to a COVID‑19 vaccination after finding evidence that the agency may have sponsored or required vaccination. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.
Case
J.R. and Department of Transportation, No. 23-0141 (ECAB 01/08/26)
What Happened?
A motor carrier safety specialist filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that he experienced a burning pain, swelling, tingling in his right arm, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea as a reaction to his second COVID-19 vaccination that he received while in the performance of duty.
The agency challenged the claim as it had not sponsored or administered the vaccination. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs informed the specialist of the deficiencies of his claim, prompting the specialist to provide a doctor’s report on the specialist’s post-COVID-19 syndrome.
OWCP denied the claim without addressing medical causation, finding that the evidence did not establish that the vaccination was obtained in the performance of duty.
The specialist sought review from the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board.
Rule of Law
An employee seeking benefits under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act has the burden of proof to establish that a disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the employment injury.
ECAB has interpreted the phrase “sustained while in the performance of duty” to be the equivalent of the commonly found prerequisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising out of and in the course of employment.” The phrase “arising out of the employment” encompasses not only the work setting but also a causal concept with the requirement being that an employment factor caused the injury.
ECAB has also held that to occur in the course of employment, an inury must occur:
(1) At a time when the employee may reasonably be expected to be in connection with her employment
(2) At a place where she may reasonably be expected in connection with her employment
(3) While she was reasonably fulfilling the duties of her employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.
What ECAB Said
The ECAB found that the specialist did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccination in the performance of duty.
According to ECAB, the specialist did not submit evidence establishing that the agency provided or sponsored the vaccine; thus, he did not establish that he was in the performance of duty at the time he received the COVID-19 vaccination.
Workers’ Comp 101: On Sept. 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order mandating COVID-19 vaccination for most Federal employees. The order directed each agency to implement a program to require COVID-19 vaccination for all of its employees, with exceptions only as required by law. The following month, OWCP issued FECA Bulletin No. 22-01, which established that employees impacted by this mandate who received required COVID-19 vaccinations on or after the date of the executive order could be afforded coverage under FECA for adverse reactions to the vaccine and for injuries sustained while obtaining the vaccination.
However, the specialist submitted sufficient evidence to merit reconsideration from OWCP. Specifically, the ECAB noted that the specialist submitted a memorandum from the agency advising that employees would be granted up to four hours of excused absences to receive a COVID-19 vaccination and that later, the agency requested attestation that employees had been vaccinated for COVID-19.
“The Board finds that this evidence is relevant to the underlying issue of whether the employing establishment administered or sponsored the vaccination,” ECAB wrote. “Therefore, the Board finds that the submission of this evidence requires reopening of appellant’s claim for merit review.”
Verdict: ECAB remanded the case to OWCP for merit review to determine whether the vaccination was agency-sponsored or required.
Takeaway
In COVID‑19 vaccine injury claims under FECA, evidence that an agency encouraged, excused time for, or required vaccination may be sufficient to establish “performance of duty,” requiring OWCP to proceed to a full merit review even where the agency did not physically administer the vaccine.
