United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.G., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cleveland Heights, OH, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1796 

Issued: January 16, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 12, 2014 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from a July 17, 

2014 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 met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

On appeal appellant’s attorney asserts that the July 17, 2014 decision is contrary to law 

and fact. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 13, 2013 appellant, then a 55-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that on September 10, 2013 she sustained stress and a panic attack when 

she was inappropriately called into a meeting by a supervisor and the union. She also noted that 

when she arrived at work the next day she became very upset and went to the emergency room. 

In an undated statement, appellant indicated that on September 10, 2013 she was called in for a 

predisciplinary meeting for being late after delivering mail. She stated that she had an accepted 

foot condition, and the meeting upset her, stating that she was constantly harassed. Appellant 

repeated that, when she returned to work on September 11, 2013, she became very upset 

regarding the “intention of giving a letter.” 

David Mast, a health and resource manager at the employing establishment, indicated in a 

September 18, 2013 letter that the claim was being challenged. He stated that on September 10, 

2013 appellant was called in for a predisciplinary discussion which he maintained was an 

administrative action. On September 19, 2013 Mr. Mast indicated that the alleged letter 

appellant referenced was a disciplinary action due to unsatisfactory job performance. 

Dr. Timothy D. Hartman, Board-certified in emergency medicine, noted on 

September 12, 2013 that appellant was excused from work through September 15, 2013.2

On September 24, 2013 appellant indicated that she made a mistake with the dates, 

stating that the meeting with Supervisor Charisma Johnson and Ernie Phillips, a union steward, 

occurred on September 11, 2013 and that she became upset and went to the hospital on 

September 12, 2013. 

In letters dated October 3, 2013, OWCP informed appellant of the type evidence needed 

to support her claim, including answers to specific questions and a narrative medical report 

supported by a medical explanation regarding the cause of a diagnosed emotional condition. The 

employing establishment was asked to provide a statement from a knowledgeable supervisor and 

information regarding accommodations for appellant’s feet. 

On October 28, 2013 Mr. Mast indicated that Ms. Johnson had conducted a 

predisciplinary interview with appellant on September 10, 2013 and when appellant reported to 

work on September 12, 2013 she reported that she was sick and an ambulance was called. He 

advised that Ms. Johnson was aware of a restriction that appellant could not stand for a long 

period of time and could only work eight hours. 

A hospital emergency department record dated October 12, 2013, signed by Bryan 

Harrell, a physician’s assistant, reported a history that appellant had become extremely upset and 

stressed due to being reprimanded at work the previous day. Mr. Harrell indicated that it was 

difficult to review her history due to persistent crying and stress reaction but that she was not in 

acute distress. He indicated that a psychiatry consultation was done. Mr. Harrell diagnosed 

acute anxiety stress reaction and depression. Lisa A. Courtot, a psychiatric nurse, performed a 

mental health evaluation. She noted appellant’s report that she was treated improperly at work, 

 2

 A partially completed virtually illegible Ohio workers’ compensation form was also submitted. 
3

planned to file a grievance and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claim, and 

was afraid to go to work. Ms. Courtot diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed depression and 

anxiety, work stressors, and chronic foot pain. Appellant was discharged to home in stable 

condition.3

In reports dated September 16, 2013, Dr. Anna K. Dendy, a psychologist, noted a history 

that appellant had a panic attack after a meeting at work. She diagnosed panic disorder and 

anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, noting that appellant experienced a very distressing 

interaction with her supervisor and then had a panic attack. Dr. Dendy recommended outpatient 

psychotherapy and advised that appellant could return to work on September 17, 2013. 

In an undated statement, appellant repeated that on September 11, 2013 she was called in 

to a predisciplinary interview by Ms. Johnson regarding being late coming back from delivering 

mail. She reminded Ms. Johnson that she had foot restrictions on file, advised that the following 

day she had a panic attack at work due to the meeting the previous day, and was taken to the 

hospital. Appellant indicated that she was under the care of a psychologist and had filed an 

EEOC claim. 

By decision dated November 7, 2013, OWCP denied the claim, finding that, as appellant 

had not established a compensable factor of employment, she failed to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. Appellant, through her attorney, timely requested a 

hearing. At the hearing held on May 12, 2014, appellant testified regarding the meeting and her 

reaction. She indicated that she had to wear orthotics to deliver mail because her feet hurt and 

that she was currently off work for a separate claim, accepted for frostbite. 

A grievance form dated April 28, 2014 indicated that the remedy requested from 

management would be to treat appellant with dignity and respect, and if her performance needed 

to be addressed, it should not be done on the workroom floor. In an attached statement, appellant 

noted that she had a foot condition and maintained that she was treated with disrespect by 

Ms. Johnson when she had appellant attend a predisciplinary meeting on September 11, 2013 for 

returning late from the street. She also generally asserted that Ms. Johnson harassed her. 

By decision dated July 17, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative found that the 

predisciplinary meeting occurred on or about September 10, 2013, but that the event would be 

considered an administrative function which, absent error and abuse, would not be compensable. 

She noted that there was no probative evidence to establish that the employing establishment 

committed error or abuse in handling this disciplinary matter and affirmed the November 7, 2013 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To establish her claim that she sustained an emotional condition in the performance of 

duty, appellant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing that she has an 

emotional or stress-related disorder; (2) factual evidence identifying employment factors or 

 3

 Mr. Harrell indicated that he was signing the report for Dr. Hartman and reported that appellant was also 

evaluated by Dr. Hartman who managed her care. 
4

incidents alleged to have caused or contributed to her condition; and (3) rationalized medical 

opinion evidence establishing that the identified compensable employment factors are causally 

related to her stress-related condition.4 If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, 

OWCP should then determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor.5

 When 

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

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

evidence.6

Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is 

somehow related to an employee’s employment. In the case of Lillian Cutler,

7

 the Board 

explained that there are distinctions as to the type of employment situations giving rise to a 

compensable emotional condition arising under FECA. There are situations where an injury or 

illness has some connection with the employment but nevertheless does not come within 

coverage under FECA.8

 When an employee experiences emotional stress in carrying out his or 

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

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 

results from his or her emotional reaction to a special assignment or other requirement imposed 

by the employing establishment or by the nature of the work.9 Allegations alone by a claimant 

are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an emotional condition claim.10 Where the 

claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, he or she must substantiate such 

allegations with probative and reliable evidence.11 Personal perceptions alone are insufficient to 

establish an employment-related emotional condition.12

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.13 Where the evidence 

demonstrates that the employing establishment either erred or acted abusively in discharging its 

 4 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000). 

5 Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001). 

6 Id.

7

 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

8 See Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999). 

9 Lillian Cutler, supra note 7. 

10 J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2008). 

11 M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007). 

12 Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 

13 Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258 (2004). 
5

administrative or personnel responsibilities, such action will be considered a compensable 

employment factor.14

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability, there must be 

evidence introduced which establishes that the acts alleged or implicated by the employee did, in 

fact, occur. Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not determinative of 

whether such harassment or discrimination occurred. A claimant must establish a factual basis 

for his or her allegations that the harassment occurred with probative and reliable evidence.15 

With regard to emotional claims arising under FECA, the term “harassment” as applied by the 

Board is not the equivalent of “harassment” as defined or implemented by other agencies, such 

as the EEOC, which is charged with statutory authority to investigate and evaluate such matters 

in the workplace. Rather, in evaluating claims for workers’ compensation under FECA, the term 

“harassment” is synonymous, as generally defined, with a persistent disturbance, torment or 

persecution, i.e., mistreatment by co-employees or workers. Mere perceptions and feelings of 

harassment will not support an award of compensation.16

ANALYSIS 

Appellant has not alleged that her emotional condition was due to any of her employment 

duties. She alleged that a predisciplinary interview meeting held on either September 10 or 11, 

2013 caused a panic attack and stress reaction on September 12, 2013 when she was taken to an 

emergency room. Appellant indicated that at the meeting Ms. Johnson counseled her because 

she had been returning late from delivering her route. She noted that she had an accepted foot 

condition, which was ignored. 

The Board finds that the predisciplinary meeting pertains to an administrative action of 

the employer and, generally, such actions in administrative or personnel matters, unrelated to the 

employee’s regular or specially assigned work duties, do not fall within coverage of FECA.17 

Absent evidence establishing error or abuse, a claimant’s disagreement or dislike of such a 

managerial action is not a compensable factor of employment.18 Appellant’s allegation that she 

was treated with disrespect at this meeting that should not have been held pertains to 

administrative functions. While she submitted a copy of a grievance she had filed dated 

April 28, 2014, this merely indicated that she had requested as relief that management would 

treat her with dignity and respect, and if her performance needed to be addressed, it should not 

be done on the workroom floor. Appellant submitted nothing to reflect the disposition of this 

grievance. Thus, there is nothing in the record to substantiate error or abuse regarding the 

predisciplinary meeting. As such, it is not compensable factors of employment. 

 14 Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001). 

15 James E. Norris, 52 ECAB 93 (2000). 

16 Beverly R. Jones, 55 ECAB 411 (2004). 

17 J.C., 58 ECAB 594 (2007). 

18 Donney T. Drennon-Gala, 56 ECAB 469 (2005). 
6

Appellant also alleged that Ms. Johnson treated her disrespectfully. Generally, 

complaints about the manner in which a supervisor performs his or her duties or the manner in 

which a supervisor exercises his or her discretion fall, as a rule, outside the scope of coverage 

provided by FECA. This principle recognizes that a supervisor or manager in general must be 

allowed to perform his or her duties and employees will, at times, dislike the actions taken. Mere 

disagreement or dislike of a supervisory or managerial action will not be compensable, absent 

evidence of error or abuse.19 Here again, as the record contains no evidence that Ms. Johnson or 

any employing establishment supervisor or manager committed error or abuse in discharging 

management duties, this allegation is not compensable.20

Regarding appellant’s general contention that she was subjected to harassment, 

particularly by Ms. Johnson, mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not 

compensable under FECA,21 and unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are 

not determinative of whether such harassment or discrimination occurred. A claimant must 

establish a factual basis for his or her allegations with probative and reliable evidence.22 As 

noted above, the grievance resolution submitted did not indicate that the employing 

establishment erred.23 Appellant submitted nothing to show a persistent disturbance, torment or 

persecution, i.e., mistreatment by employing establishment management.24 She therefore did not 

establish a factual basis for her claim of harassment by probative and reliable evidence.25

Finally, as appellant failed to establish a compensable employment factor, the Board need 

not address the medical evidence of record.26

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. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish an emotional condition in the 

performance of duty. 

 19 Id. 

20 See David C. Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 263 (2005). 

21 James E. Norris, supra note 15. 

22 Id. 

23 See W.B., Docket No. 12-1369 (issued May 1, 2013). 

24 Beverly R. Jones, supra note 16. 

25 See Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006). 

26 Katherine A. Berg, 54 ECAB 262 (2002). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 17, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 16, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board