United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Slate Hill, NY, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1099 

Issued: October 22, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Katherine Smith, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On April 16, 2014 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 7, 2014 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying her claim for 

an emotional condition. 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 established that she sustained an emotional condition in 

the performance of duty. 

On appeal, appellant’s counsel contends that the medical report by appellant’s physician 

was sufficient to establish that her emotional condition was causally related to the accepted 

factor of her federal employment. Further, OWCP failed to properly develop the medical 

evidence and appellant sustained other compensable factors of employment, including the fact 

that she developed anxiety from having to work in multiple unfamiliar settings. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 3, 2010 appellant, then a 59-year-old sales service and distribution 

associate, filed an occupational disease claim alleging a nervous breakdown due to the duties of 

her federal employment. She stated that she broke down due to the stress of never knowing 

where she was going to work, the time she was going to work or how she was going to get to 

work. Appellant alleged that, after 23 years, there was nothing solid anymore in her career. The 

employing establishment noted that she was employed as a part-time flexible clerk. Appellant 

stopped work on November 19, 2010 and had not yet returned to work. In support of her claim, 

she submitted a disability certificate from Dr. Raymond C. Hui, Board-certified in family 

practice, who noted that she was totally incapacitated from November 19 to December 13, 2010. 

Dr. Hui advised that appellant was able to return to her regular work duties on 

December 14, 2010. 

By letter dated December 22, 2010, OWCP advised appellant that the information 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It requested additional information, including 

factual and medical evidence. 

Appellant responded that since June 2010 she has been assigned to work at different 

offices of the employing establishment every day. After two hours in one office, she was told to 

report to a different office and some days she worked in two or three offices without prior notice. 

Appellant stated that the worst thing was when the employing establishment directed her to go 

close an office as she had never been trained how to close and was told to do the best she can. 

She stated that her postmaster did not know how to process her requests for travel pay. 

Appellant found being sent to different offices was overwhelming and resulted in a nervous 

breakdown. 

In a February 3, 2011 letter, Jean Breyer, a manager, noted that all job duties within the 

postal service had been changing due to decreases in mail volumes and automation. As the 

workforce diminished, employees were tasked to meet the needs of the service. Ms. Breyer 

noted that appellant was a part-time flexible employee and, as such, was assigned where needed. 

She noted that training for close out procedures could be provided to appellant and that she 

would look into her travel pay. 

In a January 26, 2011 hand written note, Dr. Manouchehr Lavian, a psychiatrist, stated 

that appellant had been under his care since December 17, 2010. Appellant reported that she had 

a nervous breakdown at work, manifested by feeling depressed, crying and that the employing 

establishment was trying to get rid of her. Dr. Lavian diagnosed an adjustment disorder with 

anxiety and depressed mood. 

By decision dated June 2, 2011, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that she failed 

to establish a compensable factor of employment. 

On June 14, 2011 appellant requested reconsideration. She reiterated that she was a 

part-time flexible employee who had been assigned to the same office for 23 years, but had 

recently been directed to report to different offices. Appellant reiterated that she was told to 

close offices but had not received training. She alleged poor management and harassment, which 
3

resulted in a nervous breakdown. Appellant noted that social security had deemed her disabled 

and that she would receive a disability retirement. 

By decision dated September 16, 2011, OWCP denied modification of the June 2, 2011 

decision. 

On December 6, 2011 appellant again requested reconsideration. She contended that 

OWCP misunderstood her previous letters. It was not just the travel involved but when sent to 

different offices appellant did not know where she would be working or the employees and 

customers. She feared for her life as she did not know who was capable of “going postal.” At 

her own office, appellant knew everyone and had no fear of anyone. She also stated that being 

responsible for a drawer of money at each location was nerve wracking. 

By decision dated March 16, 2012, the hearing representative found that appellant had 

established a factor of employment in that she had to perform closing procedures at various 

stations and had not received any training. OWCP denied her claim as she had not submitted 

sufficient medical evidence to establish that this factor caused her emotional condition. 

On March 13, 2013 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. Counsel 

contended that appellant suffered from fear and anxiety regarding her ability to perform the dayto-day duties of her job. She contended that, when the employing establishment started moving 

appellant around, her day-to-day duties caused her to become sick. Appellant noted that the 

additional requirement that she be responsible for closing without any training aggravated her 

condition and caused total disability. Counsel also contended that the claim be reopened for 

development of the medical evidence. 

In a July 25, 2012 note, Dr. Lavian stated that appellant had been under his care since 

December 17, 2010 and diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed depression and 

anxiety. Appellant was easily overwhelmed and anxious and cannot remain focused. It was 

Dr. Lavian professional opinion that she could not return to work. In a December 21, 2012 note, 

he reiterated his opinion that the aggravation appellant faced in the workplace had a causal 

relationship with her inability to work and perform her job. 

By decision dated May 29, 2013, OWCP denied modification of its March 16, 2012 

decision. 

By letter dated October 31, 2013, appellant’s counsel requested reconsideration. She 

submitted a March 27, 2013 note from Dr. Lavian, who stated that it was his professional 

opinion that the job requirement that appellant perform closing procedures without adequate 

training aggravated her underlying condition and contributed to her current disability. 

By decision dated March 7, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the May 29, 2013 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To establish a claim that he or she sustained an emotional condition in the performance of 

duty, an employee must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing that he or she 

has an emotional or psychiatric disorder; (2) factual evidence identifying employment factors or 
4

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

medical opinion evidence establishing that the identified compensable employment factors are 

causally related to his or her emotional condition. 

An occupational disease or illness means a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift.2

 Workers’ compensation law does not apply 

to each and every injury or illness that is somehow related to an employee’s employment.3

 

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

nevertheless does not come within the concept or coverage of workers’ compensation.4

 Where 

the disability results from an employee’s emotional reaction to his or her regular or specially 

assigned duties or to a requirement imposed by the employment, the disability comes within the 

coverage of FECA.5

 

The Board has held that the manner in which a supervisor exercises his or her discretion 

falls outside the coverage of FECA. Mere disagreement with or dislike of actions taken by a 

supervisor or manager will not be compensable absent evidence establishing error or abuse.6

 

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.7

 However, the Board 

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

establishment in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded.8

 

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.9

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

evidence which establishes that the facts alleged or implicated by the employee did, in fact, 

occur.10 Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.11 

A claimant must substantiate allegations of harassment or discrimination with probative and 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

3 L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007). 

4 A.K., 58 ECAB 119 (2006). 

5 See supra note 1. Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

6 See also H.C., Docket No 12-457 (issued October 19, 2012); see William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998). 

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 

8 See William H. Fortner, supra note 6. 

9 Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994). 

10 K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007). 

11 M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006). 
5

reliable evidence.12 Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not 

determinative of whether such harassment or discrimination occurred.13 Perceptions and feelings 

alone are not compensable. To establish entitlement for benefits, a claimant must establish a 

basis in fact for the claim by supporting his or her allegations with probative and reliable 

evidence.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 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 

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

employment, OWCP should then determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that 

factor.16 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.17 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP determined that appellant established a compensable factor of employment in that 

she was assigned to close offices without receiving training. It determined that the other alleged 

factors were not compensable factors of employment. The Board will initially address the other 

alleged factors of employment. 

Assigning work is an administrative function of the supervisor.18 The manner in which a 

supervisor exercises his/her discretion generally falls outside FECA’s coverage. This principle 

recognizes that supervisors must be allowed to perform their duties and at times employees will 

disagree with their supervisor’s actions.19 Appellant attributed her anxiety and stress to her 

assignment to different offices, often in the same day. The Board has held a disability is not 

covered where it results from such factors as frustration from not being permitted to work in a 

particular environment or hold a particular position.20 As noted by Ms. Breyer, a part-time 

flexible employee can be assigned where needed. She noted that its workload at the employing 

establishment had changed due to decreases in mail volumes and automation. Appellant stated 

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

13 G.S., Docket No. 09-764 (issued December 18, 2009); Ronald K. Jablanski, 56 ECAB 616 (2005). 

14 L.M., Docket No. 13-267 (issued November 15, 2013). 

15 D.L., 58 ECAB 217 (2006). 

16 K.W., supra note 10; David C. Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 263 (2005). 

17 Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006). 

18 Donney T. Drennon-Gala, 56 ECAB 469, 475 (2005); Beverly R. Jones, 55 ECAB 411, 116 (2004). 

19 L.M., supra note 14. 

20 See Thomas D. McEuen, supra note 7; Lillian Cutler, supra note 5. 
6

her preference to work at the office where she knew the employees and customers, as opposed to 

the various offices where she was assigned. She noted that she was fearful at the other stations. 

Appellant’s reaction to her assignments can be described as self-generated and not arising in the 

performance of duty but due to her personal frustration in not being permitted to work at a 

particular work environment.21 Accordingly, there was no management abuse in assigning her to 

work in different offices as needed by the employing establishment. 

The Board also notes that appellant’s difficulty in getting reimbursed for travel expenses 

involves an administrative function. There is no evidence of record that appellant submitted 

forms for travel reimbursement and Ms. Breyer indicated that she will look into the issue of 

travel pay. The Board finds that appellant has not submitted evidence to establish error or abuse 

in the part of the employing establishment with respect to its handing of this administrative 

matter.22 

Appellant also made general allegations with regard to harassment and poor management. 

An employee’s dissatisfaction with perceived poor management is not compensable under 

FECA.23 Furthermore, mere perceptions of harassment are not compensable under FECA.24 To 

establish entitlement to benefits with regard to harassment, a claimant must establish a factual 

basis for the claim by supporting his or her allegations with probative and reliable evidence.25 

Appellant did not explain her allegations of harassment, nor provide any evidence of harassment. 

Appellant noted that her request for a disability retirement had been granted. The Board 

notes that determinations of other federal agencies or governmental bodies are not relevant to the 

issue of disability under FECA. The Board has long held that entitlement to benefits under 

statutes that have varying standards for establishing disability and eligibility for benefits are not 

dispositive in FECA proceedings.26

The Board finds that appellant established a compensable factor under Cutler in that she 

had to close various offices without training. The Board finds that the evidence submitted from 

Dr. Hui is insufficient to establish causal relation. Dr. Lavian diagnosed adjustment disorder and 

mixed depression and anxiety. In a December 21, 2012 one-sentence note, he stated that it was 

his professional opinion that the aggravation appellant faced in the workplace established a 

causal relationship with her inability to work and perform her job. In a March 27, 2013 two 

sentence note, Dr. Lavian stated that it was his professional opinion that requiring her to perform 

closing procedures aggravated her underlying condition and contributed to her current disability. 

To be of probative medical value, however, a physician’s opinion regarding the cause of an 

emotional condition must relate the condition to the specific incidents or conditions of 

employment accepted as factors of employment, must be based on a complete and accurate 

 21 See L.R., Docket No. 14-302 (issued June 6, 2014). 

22 See R.C., Docket No. 13-1636 (issued June 16, 2014). 

23 Robert Breeden, supra note 17. 

24 K.W., supra note 10. 

25 D.P., Docket No. 12-1859 (issued March 27, 2013). 

26 R.S., Docket No. 10-2221 (issued August 19, 2011). 
7

factual history and must contain adequate medical rationale in support of the conclusions.27 

Dr. Hui failed to submit a medical report with a full or accurate history of appellant’s psychiatric 

condition, family background, prior medical treatment or results of any diagnostic testing. His 

brief statements on causal relationship express his conclusion without adequate rationale based 

on a full or complete medical history. Although Dr. Lavian did address the compensable factor 

in his March 27, 2013 report, his report is not sufficiently well rationalized to establish causal 

relation. He did not discuss the nature of appellant’s underlying disability. Dr. Lavian did not 

address the specific tasks involved in closing of offices or explain how such tasks caused or 

aggravated her emotional condition. In his March 27, 2013 note, he does not discuss appellant’s 

current medical diagnosis. Accordingly, Dr. Lavian’s brief notes of record are not sufficiently 

well rationalized to establish that her emotional condition is causally related to her federal 

employment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that she sustained an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated March 7, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: October 22, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 27 Mary J. Ruddy, 49 ECAB 545 (1998); see also L.B., Docket No. 13-1640 (issued March 21, 2014).