United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION 

SERVICE, Athens, GA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-1871 

Issued: May 16, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Debra Hauser, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 6, 2013 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal from an 

April 19, 2013 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) 

denying his claim. 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 met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained an 

emotional condition in the performance of duty causally related to factors of his federal 

employment. 

On appeal, counsel contends that OWCP improperly denied the claim on the basis that 

appellant’s emotional condition was caused as a direct result of being required to perform two 

full-time jobs without any support, pass Office of Personnel (OPM) audits and maintain the 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

state’s delegated examining unit (DEU) certification without the proper training. Counsel further 

contends that appellant’s emotional condition was caused by harassment and discrimination on 

the part of his managers. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 7, 2013 appellant, then a 46-year-old human resources officer, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging an emotional condition due to factors of his 

federal employment. He alleged that, shortly after he started working for the employing 

establishment, he was required to perform two full-time jobs without any support or overtime 

due to changes in staffing. Appellant also indicated that he was required to pass OPM audits and 

maintain the state’s DEU certification without prior training or guidance. He stopped work on or 

about November 5, 2012.2

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an undated narrative statement and a 

November 28, 2012 report from Dr. Lisa Smith, a Board-certified internist, who diagnosed 

anxiety and depression. Dr. Smith indicated that appellant had a long-standing problem 

exacerbated by his work environment and excused him from work until he could get his anxiety 

under control. 

On December 27, 2012 Jonathan C. Robinson, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, diagnosed 

depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, gastrointestinal distress, headaches and 

major job trauma. He noted that appellant was given a “Does not meet expectations” 

performance evaluation by his supervisor. Appellant claimed racial discrimination, harassment 

and a hostile work environment. Dr. Robinson found that appellant was moody, irritable and 

depressed. He demonstrated high stress, ruminative worry and occasional panic symptoms. 

Physically, appellant’s sleep was diminished but his appetite was adequate. Concentration and 

memory dysfunction was evident and he demonstrated multiple gastrointestinal issues. 

Dr. Robinson opined that the shocking turn of circumstances at appellant’s employment had 

taken a severe emotional toll on him and that the stress of job uncertainty had generated 

ruminative worry with panic and anxiety. Appellant was highly depressed and there were 10 

subtests of the Multidimensional Depression Index (MDI) that were significantly elevated. 

Dr. Robinson stated that appellant took “his supervisors comments on his last evaluation as a 

personal attack.” Appellant demonstrated symptoms such as feeling self-conscious, fearful, 

targeted, never good enough and singled out. He was nervous and demonstrated excessive, 

ruminative worry about either the possibility of corrective measures within his current 

employment or his transition to subsequent employment. Appellant demonstrated significant 

suicidal ideation with occasional plan and intent. Dr. Robinson confronted appellant in this 

regard and confirmed a safety contract with him. 

In a January 4, 2013 report, Dr. Amy K. Heesacker, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, 

advised that appellant was depressed, overwhelmed and suicidal after an incident at work. 

Appellant received a negative performance evaluation from his supervisor at work and described 

 2

 Appellant filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) on November 28, 2012 alleging that he sustained an 

emotional condition as a result of harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment and adverse action in the 

performance of duty on October 31, 2012. 
3

a hostile work environment in which he felt that his job was in jeopardy despite strong 

evaluations in the past and no prior reports of unsatisfactory performance. As a result of a “Does 

not meet expectations” performance evaluation, appellant took a leave of absence from his 

workplace to pursue mental health treatment. Dr. Heesacker found appellant to be a man with 

“high average cognitive functioning and acute depressive and anxiety symptoms related to his 

current workplace situation.” She noted that he would likely benefit from continued Cognitive 

Behavioral Therapy and mediation management aimed at addressing his symptoms and 

improving his ability to cope with stress in the future. 

By letter dated January 22, 2013, OWCP requested additional factual and medical 

evidence. It afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence and respond to its 

inquiries. 

Appellant submitted performance evaluations dated June 25 to 29, 2012 with “Met,” 

“Partially Met” and “Not Met” assessments. He also submitted position descriptions, leave 

analysis reports, an endoscopy and colonoscopy reports dated September 9, 2011. 

In a February 20, 2013 letter, Sharon B. Gipson, appellant’s supervisor, noted that the 

human resources (HR) officer position was not perceived as being stressful and there were 

deadlines with short response times, however, they were extended if possible. She was unaware 

of any conflicts between herself and appellant, indicating that they frequently talked about work 

and family. Ms. Gipson was also unaware of any conflicts between appellant and his employees 

or coworkers. Appellant received assistance with HR work assignments from other state HR 

staff, national headquarters and herself. Training was provided to appellant and deadlines were 

adjusted as much as possible. Ms. Gipson mentioned that when appellant failed to meet a 

January 27, 2012 deadline, it was adjusted to August 3, 2012. On August 7, 2012 appellant 

submitted an e-mail to request another extension until August 31, 2012. On August 9, 2012 

Ms. Gipson granted the extension until August 20, 2012, noting that to date the case files were 

not completely closed. As appellant’s supervisor, she encouraged him to serve on two national 

headquarters teams; he agreed and was selected to serve on both the Telework and Cultural 

Transformation Teams. In January 2012, after evaluating the workload, product delivery and 

adjusting deadlines, Ms. Gipson requested that appellant provide a schedule of teleconferences 

and time spent on national assignments. She did not receive any response to the request and 

forwarded an e-mail on April 18, 2012 to remove appellant from both teams. Ms. Gipson 

removed appellant from both teams to help eliminate nonessential assignments and allow him 

more time to work on state assignments. Appellant was able to perform duties in accordance 

with expectations and was engaged in discussions on meeting work deadlines and following 

established office procedures prior to releasing final work products. 

In a letter dated September 18, 2012, the employing establishment thanked appellant for 

his assistance with an OPM audit. 

On November 7, 2012 Dr. Smith diagnosed hypertension probably related to anxiety and 

noted that appellant continued to have problems at work. She stated that appellant had a 

negative outlook, headaches, neck pain and an upset stomach all related to his hostile work 

environment, where he was doing two jobs for the last year. 
4

In a December 13, 2012 report, Dr. Heesacker opined that appellant was not capable of 

performing his regular duties due to his depression and anxiety. She advised that appellant 

expressed an interest in working from home in a less stressful environment. 

In reports dated January 7 through February 4, 2013, Dr. Robinson stated that appellant’s 

work-related trauma resulted in severe mental health symptoms and advised that he was not 

capable of returning to work. On February 4, 2013 appellant presented with symptoms of severe, 

acute depression and acute post-traumatic stress disorder following a performance evaluation 

from his superior, in which he received “Does not meet expectations.” Dr. Robinson stated that 

appellant’s performance evaluation was in contrast to his expectations in his perceived 

performance. Appellant was unable to return to work as his current emotional condition was 

caused in large part by the trauma experienced at work during his performance review process. 

In an undated statement, Ms. Gipson noted that appellant received assistance on 

completing his first quarterly state DEU certification. She disagreed with appellant’s allegation 

that he was not allowed to work overtime or on weekends or outside the normal scheduled hours. 

Ms. Gipson reported that appellant’s employee records reflected that he earned 3 hours of credit 

time in 2010, 50 hours of credit time in 2011, and 44 hours of credit time in 2012. 

By decision dated April 19, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s claim on the grounds that 

causal relationship was not established. It accepted the following factors of employment: 

(1) there were staffing shortages which affected appellant’s workload; (2) appellant worked on 

two different teams; and (3) his was overwhelmed with the responsibilities of the staff needs and 

the role of HR officer. OWCP further found that the following factors were not compensable as 

no error or abuse was shown in how the employing establishment handled these administrative 

disciplinary matters: (1) appellant’s requests to work overtime and on weekends were denied; 

(2) appellant received a “Do Not Meet” performance evaluation; and (3) his loss of credibility 

with managers and supervisors. It found that the following alleged incidents did not occur: the 

supervisor did not allow subordinates to work outside and appellant was on his own. OWCP 

found that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish causal relationship because it did 

not address how the accepted employment factors caused the claimed emotional condition. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

In providing a compensation program for federal employees, Congress did not 

contemplate an insurance program against any and every injury, illness or mishap that might 

befall an employee contemporaneous or coincidental with his or her employment. Liability does 

not attach merely upon the existence of an employee-employer relation. Instead, Congress 

provided for the payment of compensation for disability or death of an employee resulting from 

personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.3 The phrase while in the 

performance of duty has been interpreted by the Board to be the equivalent of the commonly 

found prerequisite in workers’ compensation law of arising out of and in the course of 

employment. 

 3 See 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 
5

In Lillian Cutler,

4

 the Board noted that workers’ compensation law is not applicable to 

each and every injury or illness that is somehow related to an employee’s employment. There 

are situations when an injury or illness has some connection with the employment but 

nonetheless does not come within the coverage of workers’ compensation as they are found not 

to have arisen out of the employment. When an employee experiences emotional stress in 

carrying out her employment duties, or has fear and anxiety regarding her ability to carry out her 

duties, and the medical evidence establishes that the disability resulted from her emotional 

reaction to such situation, the disability is generally regarded as due to an injury arising out of 

and in the course of employment. This is true when the employee’s disability resulted from her 

emotional reaction to her day-to-day duties. The same result is reached when the emotional 

disability resulted from the employee’s emotional reaction to a special assignment or 

requirement imposed by the employing establishment or by the nature of the work.5

 

In contrast, a disabling condition resulting from an employee’s feelings of job insecurity 

per se is not sufficient to constitute a personal injury sustained in the performance of duty within 

the meaning of FECA. Thus, disability is not covered when it results from an employee’s fear of 

a reduction-in-force, unhappiness with doing inside work, desire for a different job, brooding 

over the failure to be given work she desires, or the employee’s frustration in not being permitted 

to work in a particular environment or to hold a particular position.6 Board case precedent 

demonstrates that the only requirements of employment which will bring a claim within the 

scope of coverage under FECA are those that relate to the duties the employee is hired to 

perform.7 

To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment by coworkers 

are established as occurring and arising from a claimant’s performance of his or her regular 

duties, these could constitute employment factors.8 However, for harassment to give rise to a 

compensable disability under FECA there must be evidence that harassment did, in fact, occur. 

Mere perceptions of harassment are not compensable under FECA.9 

Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee’s 

employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than the regular or specially 

assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA.10 However, the Board 

has held that where the evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing 

 4

 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

5 Id. at 130. 

6 See Lillian Cutler, supra note 4. 

7 See Anthony A. Zarcone, 44 ECAB 751 (1993). 

8 See David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991); Kathleen D. Walker, 42 ECAB 603, 608 (1991). 

9 See Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991). 

10 See Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 

ECAB 556 (1991). 
6

establishment in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded.11 

In determining whether the employing establishment has erred or acted abusively, the Board will 

examine the factual evidence of record to determine whether the employing establishment acted 

reasonably.12

A claimant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which he or she claims compensation was caused or 

adversely affected by employment factors.13 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions, which believes caused or adversely affected 

a condition for which compensation is claimed and a rationalized medical opinion relating the 

claimed condition to compensable employment factors.14

In cases involving emotional conditions, the Board has held that, when working 

conditions are alleged as factors in causing a condition or disability, OWCP, as part of its 

adjudicatory function, must make findings of fact regarding which working conditions are 

deemed compensable work factors of employment and are to be considered by a physician when 

providing an opinion on causal relationship and which working conditions are not deemed 

compensable factors of employment and may not be considered.15 If a claimant does implicate a 

factor of employment, OWCP should then consider whether the evidence of record substantiates 

that factor. As a rule, allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis 

for an emotional condition claim; the claim must be supported by probative evidence.16 Where 

the matter asserted is a compensable factor of employment and the evidence of record 

established the truth of the matter asserted, OWCP must base its decision on an analysis of the 

medical evidence.17

The Board has held that a variety of work factors are compensable under FECA. Among 

them, overwork is a compensable factor of employment if appellant submits sufficient evidence 

to substantiate this allegation.18 Also, in certain circumstances, working overtime is sufficiently 

related to regular or specially assigned duties to constitute a compensable employment factor.19 

 11 See William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998). 

12 See Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994). 

13 See Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838, 841 (1987). 

14 See Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470, 473-74 (1993). 

15 See Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001). 

16 See Charles E. McAndrews, 55 ECAB 711 (2004). 

17 See Jeral R. Gray, 57 ECAB 611 (2006). 

18 See Bobbie D. Daly, 53 ECAB 691 (2002). 

19 See Ezra D. Long, 46 ECAB 791 (1995). 
7

Additionally, conditions related to stress resulting from situations in which an employee is trying 

to meet his or her position requirements are compensable.20

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he sustained an emotional condition with consequential 

gastrointestinal and hypertension conditions due to being overworked, as well as a pattern of 

reprisals and criticism by his supervisors, creating a hostile work environment. OWCP denied 

his claim finding three employment factors under Cutler. Therefore, the Board must review 

whether the alleged incidents are covered employment factors under FECA.21

OWCP found that the following alleged incidents did not occur: the supervisor did not 

allow subordinates to work outside and appellant was on his own. The Board finds that appellant 

did not submit sufficient evidence to establish these allegations as factual. As these incidents 

have not been established as factual, they are not compensable factors of employment. 

Appellant attributed his emotional conditions to the denial of his requests to work 

overtime and on weekends. This pertains to an administrative matter. Under McEuen the 

evidence of record must establish error or abuse by his supervisor.22 Ms. Gipson disagreed with 

appellant’s allegations that he was not allowed to work overtime or on weekends or outside the 

normal scheduled hours. She reported that appellant’s employee records reflected that he earned 

3 hours of credit time in 2010, 50 hours of credit time in 2011 and 44 hours of credit time in 

2012. There is no evidence that gives rise to abuse in the denial of appellant’s request to work 

overtime or on weekends. Thus, the Board finds that appellant has not established a 

compensable work factor. 

Appellant further attributed his emotional conditions to his performance appraisals and 

the loss of credibility with managers and supervisors. However, performance appraisals are 

administrative and are not compensable unless error or abuse is shown.23 The Board has 

characterized supervisory discussions or evaluations of job performance as administrative or 

personnel matters of the employing establishment, which are covered only when a showing of 

error or abuse is made.24 In determining whether the employing establishment erred or acted 

abusively, the Board has examined whether the employing establishment acted reasonably.25 To 

support a claim, a claimant must establish a factual basis by providing probative and reliable 

evidence.26 Appellant submitted performance evaluations dated June 25 to 29, 2012 with “Met,” 

 20 See Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001). 

21 See P.E., Docket No. 14-102 (issued April 1, 2014). 

22 See McEuen, supra note 10. 

23 See Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004). 

24 See Roger W. Robinson, 54 ECAB 846 (2003). 

25 See supra note 12. 

26 See Barbara J. Nicholson, 45 ECAB 843 (1994). 
8

“Partially Met” and “Not Met” assessments. In her February 20, 2013 statement, Ms. Gipson 

disputed appellant’s allegations and indicated that appellant was able to perform duties in 

accordance with expectations and was engaged in discussions on meeting work deadlines and 

following established office procedures prior to releasing final work products. She advised that 

appellant received assistance with HR work assignments from other state HR staff, national 

headquarters and herself. Training was provided to appellant and deadlines were adjusted as 

much as possible. Ms. Gipson provided an example of when appellant failed to meet a 

January 27, 2012 deadline and it was adjusted to August 3, 2012. On August 7, 2012 appellant 

submitted an e-mail to request another extension until August 31, 2012. On August 9, 2012 

Ms. Gipson granted an extension to August 20, 2012, noting that to date the case files were not 

completely closed. She was unaware of any conflicts between herself and appellant, indicating 

that they frequently talked about work and family. Ms. Gipson was also unaware of any conflict 

between appellant and his other employees or coworkers. The Board finds that appellant has not 

submitted sufficient evidence to support that his supervisors acted erroneously or abusively 

regarding his performance appraisals or his loss of credibility with managers and supervisors. 

Thus, appellant has not established a compensable work factor.27

On appeal, appellant’s attorney contends that OWCP improperly denied the claim on the 

basis that appellant’s emotional conditions were caused as a direct result of being required to 

perform two full-time jobs without any support, pass OPM audits and maintain the state’s DEU 

certification without the proper training. The Board finds that these allegations are related to 

administrative or personnel matters unrelated to appellant’s regular or specially assigned work 

duties and do not fall within coverage of FECA absent evidence showing error or abuse on the 

part of the employing establishment.28 Ms. Gipson indicated that appellant received assistance 

on completing his first quarterly state DEU certification. In a September 18, 2012 letter, 

appellant was thanked for his assistance with an OPM audit. In a February 20, 2013 letter, 

appellant’s supervisor, stated that appellant received assistance with HR work assignments, 

training was provided to appellant and deadlines were adjusted as much as possible. She 

encouraged him to serve on two national headquarters teams to which he agreed. In 

January 2012, after evaluating workload, product delivery and adjusting deadlines, Ms. Gipson 

requested that appellant provide a schedule of teleconferences and time being spent on national 

assignments. She did not receive a response to the request and forwarded an e-mail on April 18, 

2012 to remove appellant from both teams. Ms. Gipson removed appellant from both teams to 

help eliminate nonessential assignments and allow him more time to work on state assignments. 

She stated that appellant was able to perform duties in accordance with expectations and was 

engaged in discussions on meeting work deadlines and following established office procedures 

prior to releasing final work products. The Board finds that appellant has not submitted 

sufficient evidence to establish that his supervisor acted erroneously or abusively regarding his 

job support and training. Thus, appellant has not established a compensable work factor.29 

 27 See Janice I. Moore, 53 ECAB 777 (2002). 

28 See Judy L. Kahn, 53 ECAB 321 (2002) (matters involving the use of leave are generally not considered 

compensable factors of employment as they are administrative functions of the employer and not duties of the 

employee). 

29 See supra note 27. 
9

Counsel further contends on appeal that appellant’s emotional conditions were caused by 

harassment and/or discrimination on the part of his managers. For harassment or discrimination 

to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, there must be probative and reliable 

evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur.30 Mere perceptions of harassment, 

retaliation or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.31 Appellant did not submit 

probative evidence, such as witness statements, corroborating his allegations of retaliation, 

discrimination and harassment. The absence of such documentation diminishes the validity of 

appellant’s contentions in this case, where there is no evidence to document that he was 

discriminated or retaliated against.32 Additionally, Ms. Gipson’s February 20, 2013 statement 

refutes appellant’s allegations. As he has not established these incidents as factual, appellant has 

not established a compensable employment factor under FECA with respect to the claimed 

reprisals.33 

OWCP accepted the following factors of employment: (1) there were staffing shortages 

which affected appellant’s workload; (2) appellant worked on two different teams; and 

(3) appellant was overwhelmed with the responsibilities of the staff needs and the role of HR 

officer. It denied the claim finding that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish causal 

relationship. 

Dr. Robinson, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, diagnosed depression, post-traumatic stress 

disorder, insomnia, gastrointestinal distress, headaches and major job trauma. He opined that 

appellant’s work-related trauma resulted in severe mental health symptoms and advised that he 

was not capable of returning to work. On December 27, 2012 Dr. Robinson indicated that 

appellant was given a “Does not meet expectations” by his supervisor on his performance 

evaluation. He found that appellant was moody, irritable and depressed. Appellant 

demonstrated high stress, ruminative worry and occasional panic symptoms. Physically, his 

sleep was diminished but his appetite was adequate. Concentration and memory dysfunction was 

evident and appellant demonstrated multiple gastrointestinal issues. Dr. Robinson opined that 

the “shocking turn of circumstances at [appellant’s employment had] taken a severe emotional 

toll on him” and “the stress of job uncertainty ha[d] generated ruminative worry and a panic and 

anxiety.” Appellant was highly depressed and there were 10 subtests of the MDI that were 

significantly elevated. Dr. Robinson stated that appellant took “his supervisors comments on his 

last evaluation as a personal attack.” He demonstrated such anxious symptoms as feeling selfconscious, fearful, targeted, never good enough and singled out. Dr. Robinson was nervous and 

demonstrated excessive, ruminative worry about either the possibility of corrective measures 

within his current employment or his transition to subsequent employment. Appellant 

demonstrated significant suicidal ideation with occasional plan and intent. Dr. Robinson 

confronted appellant in this regard and confirmed a safety contract with him. The Board finds 

that Dr. Robinson’s reports do not adequately address the mechanism of how the accepted 

 30 See Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003). 

31 See Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001). 

32 See supra note 21. 

33 Id. 
10

factors of overwork caused appellant’s emotional conditions. He did not explain how or why 

staffing shortages, working on two different teams and being overwhelmed with his work 

responsibilities caused appellant’s depression. Lacking thorough medical rationale on the issue 

of causal relationship, Dr. Robinson’s reports are of limited probative value and insufficient to 

establish that appellant sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty. 

In a January 4, 2013 report, Dr. Heesacker, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, indicated that 

appellant was depressed, overwhelmed and suicidal after an incident at work. Appellant reported 

that he had received a negative evaluation from his supervisor at work and described a hostile 

work environment in which he felt that his job was in jeopardy despite strong evaluations in the 

past and no prior reports of unsatisfactory performance. As a result of a “Does not meet 

expectations” performance evaluation which he believed was unjustified and left him feeling 

despondent, he subsequently took a leave of absence from his workplace to pursue mental health 

treatment. Dr. Heesacker found appellant to be a man with “high average cognitive functioning 

and acute depressive and anxiety symptoms related to his current workplace situation.” On 

December 13, 2012 she opined that he was not capable of performing his regular duties due to 

his depression and anxiety. Dr. Heesacker did not explain how the compensable work factor of 

overwork caused appellant’s depression and anxiety. The Board finds that such generalized 

statements do not establish causal relationship because they merely repeat appellant’s allegations 

and are unsupported by adequate medical rationale explaining how his physical activity at work 

actually caused or aggravated the diagnosed conditions.34 Thus, the Board finds that the reports 

from Dr. Heesacker are insufficient to establish that appellant sustained an emotional condition 

in the performance of duty. 

On November 7, 2012 Dr. Smith diagnosed hypertension probably related to anxiety and 

indicated that appellant continued to have problems at work. She stated that appellant had a 

negative outlook, headaches, neck pain and an upset stomach all related to his hostile work 

environment, where he was doing two jobs for the last year. On November 28, 2012 Dr. Smith 

diagnosed anxiety and depression and indicated that appellant had a long-standing problem 

exacerbated by his work environment and excused him from work until he could get his anxiety 

under control. Dr. Smith’s reports fail to establish causal relationship between appellant’s 

emotional conditions and a compensable factor of his employment. The fact that work activities 

produced pain or discomfort revelatory of an underlying condition does not raise an inference of 

an employment relation.35 Dr. Smith did not explain the mechanism of how the accepted work 

factor of overwork, specifically working on two different teams, caused or aggravated the 

diagnosed conditions. The Board therefore finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof 

in establishing that he sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty.36 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

 34 See K.W., Docket No. 10-98 (issued September 10, 2010). 

35 See Wilbur D. Starks, 23 ECAB 85 (1971). 

36 See P.S., Docket No. 13-1957 (issued March 20, 2014). 
11

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty causally related to factors of his 

federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 19, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 16, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board