United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Sayre, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1990 

Issued: January 27, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 15, 2014 appellant, through her attorney, filed a timely appeal from an 

April 18, 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 has established an emotional condition causally related to 

compensable work factors. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 12, 2012 appellant, then a 56-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained depression and anxiety as a result of her federal 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

employment. The reverse of the claim form indicated that she had stopped working on 

May 9, 2012. 

In a May 9, 2012 statement accompanying her claim form, appellant reported that, since 

her last “recurrence” in 2009, she had continued to seek psychiatric treatment.2

 She stated that 

she was moved to the Binghamton, NY worksite for three months, and it was nerve racking to 

wait without knowing what would happen next as to the location of her work. According to 

appellant, she was moved to the Sayre, PA facility as a carrier in October 2011, but was only 

given training on driving an employing establishment vehicle, as upper management denied her 

carrier academy training. She stated it was stressful to not “know the job” as well as she should 

due to the lack of training, and it was not her choice to be placed as a carrier after spending 23 

years as a postal clerk. Appellant reported that on May 8, 2012 she was treated in the emergency 

room with complaints of a severe headache. She also indicated that she had been diagnosed with 

a bone spur. 

In a report dated May 9, 2012, Dr. Matthew D’Ortona, a psychologist, stated that 

appellant had a recurrence of depression and anxiety due to job stress. In a May 17, 2012, he 

opined that she was disabled for work. 

In a letter dated August 16, 2012, an employing establishment human resources manager 

controverted appellant’s allegations. He noted that she had filed numerous compensation claims 

and indicated that she was a 24-year career employee who understood the programs and 

procedures of the employing establishment. The manager stated that appellant was not required 

to do more than her eight hours of work in a normal day. The employing establishment provided 

a January 3, 2012 letter of warning issued to her which advised that on December 30, 2011 she 

had failed to deliver express mail in a timely manner. It also submitted a union/employing 

establishment “agreement” indicating that a meeting was held on February 2, 2012 regarding the 

letter of warning, and the letter of warning would be expunged in six months. 

On August 27, 2012 appellant stated that in April 2009 her office began downsizing and 

this created problems in processing the mail. She reported it was stressful “not knowing what, 

went [sic] or where I would be working” and “then the poor scheduling of the supervisors. 

Pushing us to work as three people. Because they didn’t have enough people to cover the jobs.” 

Appellant stated that she was sent to Binghamton, NY in February 2010, which was 59 miles 

from her house. Then she was sent back to Elmira, NY where she did not know what jobs or 

hours she would be working. Appellant indicated that she was given a job at the Sayre, PA 

facility as a letter carrier in November 2011. She again stated that she did not receive classroom 

training, noting that a part-time carrier accompanied her on the route the first two days. 

According to appellant, there was a grievance filed as to the lack of proper training, but she had 

no idea as to the outcome. 

By decision dated January 7, 2013, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found 

that appellant had not established a compensable work factor. 

 2

 Appellant identified a prior OWCP claim number, and the record indicates that appellant had previously filed a 

claim for an emotional condition. 
3

Appellant requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative, which was held 

on January 9, 2014. By letter dated February 12, 2014, an employing establishment health and 

resource manager stated that appellant had worked very little in 2011 and 2012, with several 

claims for compensation filed. 

By decision dated April 18, 2014, the hearing representative affirmed the January 7, 2013 

OWCP decision. He found that appellant had not established compensable work factors. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Appellant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

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

affected by factors of her federal employment.3

 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions which she believes caused or adversely 

affected the condition or conditions for which compensation is claimed.4

 A claimant must also 

submit rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing a causal relationship between the 

claimed condition and the established, compensable work factors.5

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment. There are situations where an injury or illness has 

some connection with the employment but nevertheless does not come within the coverage of 

workers’ compensation. These injuries occur in the course of the employment and have some kind 

of causal connection with employment but nevertheless are not covered because they are found not 

to have arisen out of employment. Disability is not covered where it results from an employee’s 

frustration over not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a particular 

position, or secure a promotion. On the other hand, where disability results from an employee’s 

emotional reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned work duties or to a requirement 

imposed by the employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.6

A reaction to an administrative or personnel matter is generally not covered as it is not 

related to the performance of regular or specially assigned duties.7 Nevertheless, if the evidence 

demonstrates that the employing establishment erred, acted abusively, or unreasonably in the 

administration of a personnel matter, any physical or emotional condition arising in reaction to 

such error or abuse may be covered.8

 3 Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838 (1987). 

4 Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001); Anna C. Leanza, 48 ECAB 115 (1996). 

5 See Bonnie Goodman, 50 ECAB 139, 141 (1998). 

6 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

7 See Brian H. Derrick, 51 ECAB 417, 421 (2000). 

8 Margreate Lublin, 44 ECAB 945, 956 (1993). 
4

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has filed a claim for compensation alleging that she 

sustained an emotional condition as a result of her federal employment. As noted above, before 

a claim for an emotional condition can be established, the record must establish that the 

condition arose from a compensable work factor. The performance of regular or specially 

assigned duties is a compensable work factor. In this case, however, appellant does not allege 

the actual performance of her job duties caused an emotional condition. 

The primary allegation is that appellant did not receive proper training as a letter carrier 

after she was assigned to the Sayre, PA facility in November 2011. An allegation of inadequate 

training is considered an administrative or personnel matter.9

 It therefore is not considered a 

compensable work factor, unless there is factual evidence establishing error by the employing 

establishment in failing to provide adequate training. Although appellant referred to a grievance 

filed regarding the allegation of inadequate training, no evidence was presented on the issue. 

She did indicate that she received initial training from a part-time carrier. The Board finds that 

there simply is no probative evidence of record establishing error by the employing 

establishment with respect to carrier training. 

Appellant also briefly raised an allegation with respect to workload, stating there were 

not enough people to cover the required jobs. To the extent she alleges overwork as a work 

factor, she must provide a sufficient factual basis for the allegation.10 In this case, appellant 

provided little detail as to the allegation and the employing establishment did not support the 

allegation. The record does not contain probative evidence with respect to an allegation of 

overwork. 

Another allegation of stress discussed by appellant was a general frustration at not 

knowing what job or location she might have in the future, as there was much uncertainty in this 

regard at the employing establishment. The Board has held that a reaction to uncertainty of 

future employment is not a compensable work factor.11 This is a self-generated reaction that is 

not related to the performance of regular or specially assigned duties.12 

The remainder of appellant’s allegations, such as a disciplinary action, work scheduling, 

or transfers are administrative or personnel matters.13 Again, there must be probative evidence 

of error or abuse before a compensable work factor can be established. There is no evidence of 

error or abuse in this case. 

 9 See supra note 7 (providing training is an administrative function of the employing establishment); see also T.S., 

Docket No. 10-1501 (issued May 25, 2011). 

10 Loraine E. Schroeder, 44 ECAB 323 (1992). 

11 Robert E. Whitney, Docket No. 97-1599 (issued February 25, 1999). 

12 Id. 

13 See R.K., Docket No. 11-343 (issued September 30, 2011). 
5

The Board accordingly finds that appellant has not alleged and substantiated a 

compensable work factor. Since appellant has not established a compensable work factor, the 

Board will not address the medical evidence.14 

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 causally related to 

compensable work factors. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated April 18, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: January 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 14 See Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496 (1992).