Acts, As Affecting Recovery Against United States Under Federal Tort Claims Act, 135 A.L.R. Fed. 403, 1997 WL 260129 (1996). Mr. Tippetts also argues that the FECA does not apply to him because he was not performing any work duties during the time his emotional-distress claim accrued by virtue of the fact that he was on administrative leave. It is for the Secretary to determine whether an injury occurred during the employee’s performance of his duty. Tarver v. United States, 25 F.3d 900, 903 (10th Cir.1994). To the extent Mr. Tippetts claims his suffering and financial hardship after his employment was terminated are outside FECA coverage, we look to whether the claim arose from the employment context. Id.; cf. Lombardi v. Small Bus. Admin., 889 F.2d 959, 961 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Tippetts further maintains that because
holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the csra when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the csra provided plaintiffs with no remedy holding csra controlled plaintiffs claims which arose as result of employment relationship holding that plaintiffs claims were precluded by csra because actions complained of arose from federal employment relationship even though many of the alleged violations occurred after the employment relationship was terminated holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment holding that the csras exclusive and comprehensive remedial scheme precludes review under the apa of disputes that concern not only employment practices specifically prohibited under the csra but also employment practices that are so insignificant as not even to bear mention in the csra