Federal Focus
When a Customs and Border Protection officer hurt himself while lifting weights at home during COVID, did his injury occur on or off the job? ECAB weighed in and asked OWCP to get more info.
Case
J.R. and Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 24-0161 (05/28/26)
What Happened?
A Customs and Border Protection Officer filed a traumatic injury claim, alleging that he sustained injuries to his right thumb, right wrist, and right shoulder when weights from a bench press became unstable and dropped on him while in the performance of duty.
According to the officer, he was performing physical fitness activities at home during weather and safety leave when the accident occurred. The officer’s supervisor contended that the officer was not injured in the performance of duty as he was on leave when conducting exercises at home.
In response to the Office of Workers’ Compensation Program’s request for information, the officer explained that management notified him that he was considered on-duty and eligible for benefits while on weather and safety leave. He also indicated that he was not required to participate in the agency’s physical fitness plan but that the agency encourage employees to take part in the program to benefit the overall health of employees.
Additionally, the officer reported that officers were required to maintain a high level of physical fitness and noted that he had an approved reasonable accommodation request from the agency that allowed him to participate in the PFP at his personal residence. The injury occurred during working hours, and, at the time of the injury, the agency’s gym was closed due to COVID. The accommodation allowed the officer to spend up to three hours per week to participate in the agency’s PFP.
OWCP denied the officer’s traumatic injury claim, finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish an employment incident. The officer sought review from the Employee Compensation Appeals Board.
Rule of Law
The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act provides for the payment of compensation for the disability of an employee resulting
from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty. The phrase “sustained while in the performance of duty” has been interpreted by ECAB to be the equivalent of the commonly found prerequisite in workers’ compensation law of “arising out of and in the course of employment.”
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 where he or she may reasonably be expected to be in connection with his employment; and 3) while he was reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.
The concomitant requirement of “arising out of employment” must be shown also, meaning that the employment must cause the injury.
Regarding recreational activities, ECAB has held that such activities arise in the course of employment when: 1) they occur on the premises during a lunch or recreational period as a regular incident of the employment; or 2) the employing establishment, by expressly or impliedly requiring participation or by making the activity part of the service of the employee, brings the activity within the orbit of employment; or 3) the employing establishment derives substantial benefit from the activity beyond the imaginable value of improvement in employee health and morale is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.
Employees enrolled in a PFP are in the performance of duty for FECA purposes while doing authorized PFP exercise, including off-duty exercises performed under the auspices of the fitness program. It further indicates that injuries and occupational diseases arising from participation in an employing agency’s PFP are compensable under FECA and that participation will not always occur during regular work hours, and not always on the employing establishment’s premises. Injuries that occur during the use of fitness and recreational facilities furnished by the employing establishment outside of official work hours, on or off the premises, are not compensable if the employee was not participating in a structured PFP.
What ECAB Said
ECAB found that the case was not in posture for decision because the information from the agency did not clarify how its PFP procedures applied specifically while employees were on weather and safety leave during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Furthermore, it did not provide a statement from [the officer]’s supervisor addressing [the officer]’s allegation that employees were given blanket approval for all PFP activities while on weather and safety leave during the COVID-19 pandemic,” ECAB wrote.
As a result, ECAB send the case back to OWCP to clarify the policy and procedures for approval of PFP activities specifically while employees were on weather and safety leave during the COVID-19 pandemic and to request a statement from the officer’s supervisor addressing the officer’s allegations regarding “blanket approval” for PFP activities.
Verdict: Remanded.
Takeaway
Under federal workers’ compensation law, recreational activities, such as participation in fitness programs, may arise out of and in the course employment, but the mere fact that an agency allows employees to use it facilities on their own time doesn’t create a sufficient connection to the agency to bring a resulting injury within FECA coverage.
