United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPENDENTS 

SCHOOLS EDUCATION ACTIVITY, 

Baumholder, Germany, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 13-1544 

Issued: September 23, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Bradley R. Marshall, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 18, 2013 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

May 29, 2013 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 sustained an emotional or a physical condition causally 

related to factors of her federal employment. 

On appeal, appellant’s representative contends that the employing establishment’s denial 

of appellant’s request for ergonomic equipment aggravated her physical injuries and caused her 

major depression and anxiety for which she sought treatment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 14 and October 26, 2010 appellant, then a 52-year-old speech/language 

pathologist (assessor), filed occupational disease claims (Form CA-2) alleging that on 

January 12, 2012 she first became aware that her stress-related physical and mental symptoms 

became acute and chronic as her working conditions changed daily. She alleged that on April 7, 

2010 she realized that her head, neck and shoulder aches, and tingling and numbness in her 

extremities increased with the length of time she spent at her office workstation. Appellant 

alleged that she was harassed and undermined in the performance of her work duties. She stated 

that by May 2010 the pain was unbearable and she was unable to concentrate which impaired her 

job performance. 

By letter dated November 5, 2010, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish her claims. It requested additional factual and medical evidence. 

In narrative statements dated June 21, November 4 and December 1, 2010, appellant 

contended that her emotional and physical conditions were caused by several work incidents. In 

January 2010 her requests for leave to address complications resulting from the surgical removal 

of her cyst and relief from attending Case Study Committee (CSC) meetings were denied by 

management. Appellant indicated that she had considerably less concentration at work and her 

headaches increased. In February 2010 she became exhausted at the end of most workdays and 

experienced daily headaches, muscle tension and tingling in her extremities that increased with 

time spent at makeshift workstations, testing sites and in multiple meetings at Smith Elementary 

School (ES) and Wetzel ES regarding her job description, workload and equipment needs. 

Appellant claimed that she was given new expectations which included performing other 

employees’ work. By the end of March 2010, her physical symptoms intensified and she sought 

a medical appointment with Maria Ignacio, a school nurse, for work-related stress. During 

meetings from March 26 to June 17, 2010 with Smith ES administrators, appellant claimed she 

was taunted, micromanaged, called a liar, said to have a victim mentality which created a toxic 

environment. She was also expected to collaborate with CSC co-chairs. On June 8, 2010 Wetzel 

Principal Helen Balilo, added to her stress. Appellant did not receive dignity or respect from 

leadership. She received pain management and mental health treatment. Appellant requested 

ergonomic equipment; a change of supervisors from Assistant Principal Dr. Michelle Woodfork 

to Principal Dr. Darren Johnson due to increased stress caused by Dr. Woodfork; and an adjusted 

work schedule until she returned to full physical and behavioral health. She also requested a 

change of duty station due to an adverse work environment. 

On August 25, 2010 appellant returned to the same work environment. Dr. Johnson 

denied her request that Dr. Woodfork honor a previous superintendent’s directive to move her 

coworker from their shared office. On August 27, 2010 appellant sought an emergency 

appointment with behavioral health due to increased stress. On September 1, 2010 she verified 

her use of sick leave on August 27, 2010 to Dr. Woodfork. Appellant requested reasonable 

accommodations, to include release for medical appointments and time to complete work-related 

tasks based on her impaired ability to concentrate. She gave Dr. Woodfork a list of items for her 

new office. In mid-September 2010 Dr. Woodfork remained appellant’s supervisor. On 

October 29, 2010 he instructed her not to address Dr. Johnson with her concerns. 
3

In September 2010 appellant’s leave slips for medical appointments for work-related 

stress were returned to her unsigned. Dr. Woodfork explained the teacher leave policy and 

instructed her to resubmit the leave slips. Dr. Johnson signed the leave slip after most of 

appellant’s appointment dates had passed. By e-mail dated September 15, 2010, Dr. Woodfork 

requested a meeting with appellant which was held on September 17, 2010. At the meeting, she 

reiterated the teacher leave policy and instructed appellant to follow it. Since Dr. Woodfork had 

not seen appellant’s resubmitted leave slips, appellant must have taken unapproved leave. In a 

follow-up e-mail, she denied harassing appellant about the leave policy. On October 19, 2010 

Dr. Woodfork denied appellant’s leave slips because they were incorrectly completed. 

On September 17 and October 6, 2010 appellant inquired about the status of her request 

for physical accommodations and June 14, 2010 occupational disease claim. In an October 7, 

2010 e-mail, Dr. Johnson responded that the claim had never been filed because David M. Kretz, 

an administrative officer, reported that he needed more information. Appellant stated that she 

was advised by Mr. Kretz on June 24, 2010 that no additional information was required. On 

October 13, 2010 Kecia Martin, a Smith ES secretary, forwarded the originals to the appropriate 

district personnel. 

Drs. Johnson and Woodfork allegedly harassed appellant by requiring her to attend 

multiple meetings to repeat her requests or findings for each professional judgment call she 

made, submit leave slips for medical appointments and illnesses that occurred during the duty 

day. Appellant’s supervisors frequently verified her whereabouts at work for the sole purpose of 

gathering negative information and to fabricate claims of misconduct against her. Appellant was 

subjected to disparate treatment, as she was required to act civilly and account for her 

whereabouts when she was away at other schools. During a business meeting on May 19, 2010 

with all CSC members present, Dr. Woodfork tried to discredit appellant in front of her 

colleagues when Dr. Woodfork instructed her to remain at Smith ES all day on Wednesdays and 

only perform work for the school. On May 26, 2010 Sharon Ford-Bell, a CSC co-chair, 

dismissed appellant’s recommendation regarding her assessment of a student’s language skills. 

At the next meeting, appellant discovered that her submitted report had not been reviewed by the 

members because Andrea Ramirez, a CSC co-chair, asked questions that were not necessary if 

she had read the report. 

On May 24, 2010 appellant received a letter of counseling dated May 19, 2010 following 

an April 5, 2010 meeting with her supervisors, Ken Meade and Mary Obermite. During a 

May 27, 2010 meeting, her supervisors leveled additional charges of misconduct on her part. 

Appellant was taunted, called a liar, said to have created a toxic environment at Smith ES and 

treated unprofessionally. She received the letter of counseling two days after she had appealed to 

her supervisors and the CSC team for relief from her overtaxed assessment workload. 

Appellant’s request was ignored and she was required to complete her assessments. Her 

supervisors directed her to attend special education meetings which were outside of her regular 

duties and changed long-standing policies, including her work conditions. Melissa Krantz, a 

district special education coordinator, was unable to offer appellant guidance regarding her 

findings related to assessment or eligibility processes due to a lack of experience. Since 

January 2010 each supervisor came to appellant with hearsay. Vanessa Blankenship and 

Pamela M. Dirk, assessor technicians, refused to provide support services to appellant from 2009 

to 2011. Ms. Ford-Bell and Ms. Ramirez gossiped about appellant to Drs. Johnson and 
4

Woodfork regarding her duties. Dr. Johnson repeatedly directed appellant to attend several 

meetings from February to March 2010 to present her dissent regarding a student’s eligibility and 

assessment even though she had prepared a statement of her dissent. Appellant was also directed 

to attend every CSC meeting at Smith ES which was contrary to her job description and a 

violation of long-standing CSC practices. Prior to a March 24, 2010 meeting, Ms. Krantz 

questioned appellant about why she had not further evaluated a student. Dr. Johnson took the 

word of Ms. Ford-Bell, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Krantz in defining appellant’s work role. 

Appellant contended that Drs. Johnson and Woodfork did not know special education law or her 

job description. Ms. Ford-Bell and Ms. Krantz were not speech language pathologists yet they 

argued with her and contradicted her professional judgment. In June 2010 Principal Balilo, 

Ms. Krantz and the Wetzel ES CSC ignored her repeated requests for native language testing for 

a student to confirm or refute a language deficit and qualify the student on the basis of English 

testing results. Following this incident, Ms. Balilo sent an e-mail to Drs. Johnson and Woodfork 

regarding appellant’s performance issues. As a result, she met with her supervisors on three 

separate occasions from June 11 and 16, 2010 regarding the Wetzel incident and an accusation 

that she administered tests without parents’ permission. 

On June 11, 2010 appellant appealed to District Superintendent Lawanna Mangleburg for 

removal of the letter of counseling and alleged being subjected to disparate treatment since 

January 2010. Ms. Mangleburg issued two directives for supervisors that were subsequently 

disregarded. 

E-mails dated September 16 to October 25, 2010 between appellant and the employing 

establishment related to the submission and filing of her claim, her requests for reasonable 

accommodation and leave, the employee leave policy, scheduling of meetings and her work 

duties. 

An October 1, 2010 form advised that appellant’s request for leave commencing at 2:00 

p.m. on October 25, 2010 to attend a medical appointment was disapproved by Dr. Johnson. 

In a compassionate reassignment application dated December 1, 2010, appellant 

attributed her major depressive disorder and continuing physical disabilities to her supervisors’ 

bullying management style. She requested reassignment to a location that would improve her 

concentration and overall health and allow her to work successfully at optimum efficiency. 

In a November 17, 2010 letter, Vickie Fergerson, an educational technologist at Smith 

ES, stated that, from 2008 to 2009, she overheard appellant’s officemate shout at her, interrupt 

her while she was speaking, belittle her and otherwise treat her in a derisive manner. Appellant 

did not respond in kind and was always professional. She often vacated her office when her 

officemate entered, choosing to work elsewhere and avoid conflict. Ms. Fergerson related that 

appellant came to her office many times to escape, seek support or ask for official advice from 

the Federal Educators’ Association (FEA). Increasingly, appellant became tearfully emotional, 

forgetful and distracted which was quite a change from her usual calm, collected and highly 

organized personality. 

A November 19, 2010 letter from an information specialist, whose signature is illegible, 

stated that for three years appellant was a valued member of the library group. She was positive, 
5

helpful and professional in her dealings with students and staff. As time progressed, extreme 

escalating tension was observed between appellant and her officemate. Appellant had to leave 

the office and continue working in the library or other locations in the building to avoid conflict 

with her officemate. Stressful conditions continued to arise for her from other quarters and she 

began to feel unsafe in her work environment. Appellant expressed sadness and anger to the 

author and other members of the library group. She demonstrated distress while using a 

computer or working with students as her hand shook and her breathing became fast and shallow. 

There were times when the author was afraid that appellant would pass out. Appellant sought 

medical help to alleviate her stress and depression which was caused by her workplace 

conditions. The author, Sonia Webster who was a library aide, Ms. Fergerson and an “ET” 

supported appellant throughout this period. After they returned from summer break appellant 

and her officemate were moved to separate locations in the building. The author stated that 

appellant efficiently and effectively performed her job and that harassment against her was 

unfounded. 

The employment records included a United States European Command bill of rights for 

behavioral health care, preemployment medical reports and job application, a speech language 

pathologist/assessor job description and notification of personnel action (Form SF-50). An 

article addressed bullying by management. 

In sick slips dated April 13 and May 25, 2010, Dr. Cho Cho Kyi, an employing 

establishment physician, advised that appellant was under care from April 13 to 20, 2010 and 

that medication would make her drowsy. In a November 17, 2010 report, she noted appellant’s 

complaint of hip pain and headaches. Dr. Kyi advised that x-rays of the hip were normal and a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the head showed nonspecific findings. 

In a June 8, 2010 sick slip, Ann-Marie Anderson, a psychiatric nurse practitioner, 

requested that appellant be allowed to remain home from work for two days due to illness. In an 

August 25, 2010 report, Helen Chrena, a nurse practitioner, stated that appellant had adjustment 

disorder with depression and anxiety. 

In a November 10, 2010 report, Dr. Meaghan Kirschling, a chiropractor, provided 

findings on physical examination. She advised that ongoing postural stress in appellant’s work 

setting was a major contributing factor that prevented her from achieving long lasting results 

from physical therapy. Dr. Kirschling recommended ergonomic changes in appellant’s work 

environment. 

In a November 8, 2011 report, Dr. Stefan Lampe, a Board-certified psychiatrist, provided 

a history of his treatment of appellant commencing in June 2010 and the development of her 

work-related mental health condition. When he last saw her on September 1, 2010, appellant 

was stressed secondary to her work environment. Her mental status was within normal limits 

with the exception of an anxious mood. Dr. Lampe diagnosed major depressive disorder. He 

stated that, based on appellant’s history, her symptoms of anxiety and depression worsened while 

at work and decreased during summer break. When Dr. Lampe saw her during summer break 

she was clearly doing better than after she returned to work. He concluded that appellant’s 

symptomatology was exacerbated by her work situation. 
6

In an undated report, Dr. Catherine Connolly, a psychiatrist, provided a history of 

appellant’s psychiatric treatment. She stated that since 2008 occupational stressors contributed 

to her depressive symptoms which included irritability, sad mood, tearfulness, difficulty with 

concentration and sleep, and loss of interest in her pleasurable activities. Dr. Connolly advised 

that appellant’s depression symptoms appeared to have increased due to current occupational 

stressors. It appeared appellant had no history of depression prior to the onset of her 

occupational stress. Dr. Connolly diagnosed recurrent major depressive disorder and opined that 

a compassionate reassignment would be in appellant’s best interest. 

By letter dated December 15, 2010, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

respond to appellant’s allegations. 

E-mails dated January 14 to November 2, 2010 addressed, among other things, 

appellant’s work duties, and requests for leave and the removal of Ms. Ford-Bell from the office 

she shared with appellant. 

In a December 2, 2010 letter, Sharon R. Kieta, a school psychologist, stated that as a 

member of the CSC she never observed or heard administrators at Smith ES belittle, taunt, harass 

or behave in any way that could be construed as unprofessional. The administrators treated her, 

other educators, parents and community members in a fair, professional and respectful manner. 

They did not ask Ms. Kieta or anyone else to perform other employee’s job duties. She 

concluded that based on the treatment she and others received from administrators, appellant’s 

allegations of harassment were in direct contradiction to what she experienced, observed and 

heard. 

In a letter dated December 5, 2010, Ms. Dirk stated that appellant’s claim of mistreatment 

by the administration, specifically during the course of CSC meetings, was unfounded. 

Drs. Johnson and Woodfork made every possible effort to create a productive and professional 

work environment. They treated appellant and others in a respectful, equitable and courteous 

manner and expected employees to conduct themselves in the same manner. Ms. Dirk stated that 

appellant frequently failed to meet that mark, noting that she ceased discussions without coming 

to a mutual understanding, did not respond well to procedural changes, frequently exhibited an 

obtuse attitude towards coworkers regardless of their position or stature and habitually rehashed 

issues that had been resolved. She stated that appellant’s behavior was disruptive and stifled 

productivity. Appellant also demonstrated an unwillingness to perform her assigned duties as 

she tried to get Ms. Dirk to perform her work. In September 2010 she twice asked Ms. Dirk to 

perform duties that were not within the scope of her duties or common practice as advised by 

CSC chairs, other assessors and Ms. Krantz. To avoid conflict and to maintain a cohesive work 

environment, Ms. Dirk helped appellant. She stated that Drs. Woodfork and Johnson had open 

and frank discussions to reach an accord regarding the issues presented by appellant, especially 

the issues related to various CSC team members. Dr. Woodfork made and continued to make 

every effort possible to foster a hospitable work environment. Ms. Dirk concluded that 

appellant’s expectations of preferential treatment coupled with her explosive personality and 

inability to work well with others created a volatile work environment. 

In an undated memorandum and January 18, 2011 memorandum, Drs. Johnson and 

Woodfork responded to appellant’s contentions. They moved her and Ms. Ford-Bell to separate 
7

offices as directed by Superintendent Mangleburg. Drs. Johnson and Woodfork provided 

appellant with an administrative team and military soldiers to assist her physical move and 

offered a supply technician. Appellant’s request for a new supervisor was not feasible based on 

Drs. Johnson’s and Woodfork’s administrative right to divide employees. They decided to 

maintain all their respective employees for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years and to 

switch the supervisor lists and integrate any new employees for the 2011-2012 school year. 

Dr. Woodfork stated that she was appellant’s supervisor and never told her not to address 

Dr. Johnson with her concerns during the October 29, 2010 meeting. It was common for any 

teacher or “GS” employee to speak to Dr. Johnson or Dr. Woodfork when an administrator was 

out of the building or otherwise unavailable. 

Appellant’s correctly completed leave slips were granted while her incorrectly completed 

leave slips were not granted. She continued to submit incomplete leave slips during the 2010-

2011 school year. Appellant was treated with leniency during the entire 2009-2010 school year 

and was given authorization to leave early for medical appointments and community events. 

During the spring of 2010, Drs. Johnson and Woodfork verbally authorized her leave requests 

more frequently than those of other employees. Appellant was allowed to leave work early on 

three out of the five days she requested to attend medical appointments. Her medical issues 

began in January 2010, but the leave policy issues and her negative attitude about being 

accountable for her whereabouts occurred prior in early fall of 2009. It was only when these 

issues were brought to her attention that she began to claim a series of medical appointments for 

mental and physical ailments. Appellant was advised about the teacher leave policy by e-mails 

and verbal conversations because she chose not to follow their directive to do so. Drs. Johnson 

and Woodfork were prepared to issue a letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or removal due 

to her failure to follow the leave policy for a long period. Neither one had requested that she 

meet with them prior to submitting leave slips. Dr. Woodfork directed appellant to William 

Suddeth for assistance with her reasonable accommodations request. 

The May 19, 2010 letter of counseling was issued to appellant for inappropriately 

e-mailing her colleagues from her home e-mail address. The e-mails contained threats, and were 

mean-spirited and accusatory and contrary to the goals of the CSC team. The letter of 

counseling was issued to address the seriousness of appellant’s actions. Drs. Johnson and 

Woodfork refused to remove the letter from her personnel file for one year. 

Appellant was not subjected to disparate treatment and unprofessional demands. 

Drs. Johnson and Woodfork believed in equity and had a great level of respect for diverse 

opinions which made a strong organization. All voices were allowed to be heard at CSC 

business meetings and within the school context. Each member of the Smith ES team had things 

to learn and teach each other that would make the school and community better. No additional 

duties were placed on appellant. She was allowed to provide a note of dissension if she 

disagreed with the CSC team. Appellant’s opinions were honored even though they had been 

overruled by a majority of the CSC team. In September and October 2010 appellant asked 

Ms. Dirk to perform a task that was outside Ms. Dirk’s job description and should have been 

performed by appellant as verified by Ms. Krantz. In the fall of 2010 Dr. Woodfork and 

Ms. Krantz instructed Ms. Dirk to perform a certain task as insisted by appellant. Appellant had 

full control of her schedule of students placed in assessment status. Drs. Johnson and Woodfork 

requested all staff at Smith ES to submit their bi-weekly schedule to know their whereabouts on 
8

any given day. Appellant did not submit her schedule in detail or on a regular basis. Her 

caseload was manageable and not extraordinarily large. During the 2009-2010 school year 

appellant did not regularly attend weekly CSC business meetings thus, she did not receive new 

cases to assess. Drs. Johnson and Woodfork noted that Ms. Ramirez performed assessments to 

help appellant. Procedures at Smith ES and certain assessments were changed as requested by 

appellant. Drs. Johnson and Woodfork were not informed about her physical needs until May 

and June 2010. On December 7, 2010 an industrial hygienist was contacted to schedule an 

appointment to interview her and assess her workstation. Based on her education and career, 

Dr. Woodfork stated that she was fully aware of equitable leadership practices pertaining to 

racial, ethnic, gender, cultural, ability, religious, sexual orientation, age and national origin 

diversity. Appellant was not disrespected by colleagues as she was always given an opportunity 

to bring issues to CSC meetings, provide her perspective and practice SLP assessments. 

Appellant received a letter of admonishment from Principal Balilo of the Wetzel ES 

which outlined her expectations regarding professional attitude in CSC business meetings and in 

collaboration with colleagues. Drs. Johnson and Woodfork sought to understand appellant and 

respectfully provide her with information she needed to follow the leave policy. 

In a December 7, 2010 letter, Mr. Kretz stated that he did not meet with appellant on 

June 23 or 24, 2010 regarding the filing of her Form CA-2. He last met with her on 

June 18, 2010. Mr. Kretz did not tell appellant that he would submit the claim shortly. Based on 

a June 23, 2010 e-mail, he requested that she pick up the form and complete the information 

required in block 23. Mr. Kretz did not pick up the form on June 23 or 24, 2010. He did not see 

the completed CA-2 form until Ms. Martin provided an electronic copy of it to him on 

November 30, 2010. Mr. Kretz stated that appellant’s assertion that he had informed her that 

new workstation furniture had been ordered in April 2010 was false. No district-level furniture 

was bought during fiscal year 2010; however, Smith ES, purchased furniture in fiscal year 2010, 

but not for appellant since she did not provide documentation addressing her specific needs. 

Smith ES did not receive funding for furniture purchases until June 2010 and purchases were 

made between June and September 2010. In the fall of 2010 Mr. Kretz was instructed by 

Dr. Johnson not to purchase any furniture for appellant until she completed a reasonable 

accommodation worksheet and the process to determine her specific furniture needs was 

completed. He submitted e-mails dated February 22 and June 22 and 23, 2010 related to the 

filing of appellant’s CA-2 form and her request for new furniture and electronic equipment. 

 In a February 10, 2011 letter, Dell McMullen, a district superintendent, denied 

appellant’s January 21, 2011 request to change her supervisor and to remove the letter of 

counseling from her file. There was no evidence that either her supervisor or the letter 

constituted a barrier to the performance of her essential job functions. Mr. McMullen also 

denied appellant’s request to change her duty station, but stated that she could apply for a change 

in station through an upcoming teacher transfer program. He stated that Drs. Johnson and 

Woodfork considered appellant’s position description prior to making work assignments which 

was standard practice for all employees. Mr. McMullen denied her request to change personnel 

handling her pay claims. He concurred with Dr. Johnson’s decision to have the school 

administrative officer and secretary handle personnel pay claims. There was no evidence that the 

handling of appellant’s pay claims impeded the performance of her essential job functions. 

Appellant’s compensation claim had been processed and there was no evidence that the handling 
9

of the claim impeded the process. Mr. McMullen stated that appellant’s request for equipment 

had been granted and the equipment was ordered through the Client Assistance Program. 

Appellant’s request for flexibility to complete her paperwork at Wetzel ES was also granted. 

Mr. McMullen related that appellant’s supervisor allowed her to choose her current office while 

her colleague was not given the same opportunity. He stated that the employing establishment 

was committed to affording all employees respect and access to the rights to which they were 

entitled. There was no evidence that appellant’s administrators disrespected her patient rights or 

denied her request for leave. It was their responsibility to require appellant to abide by the leave 

policy. Both of appellant’s administrators attended diversity and Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) training as she requested. Mr. McMullen noted that appellant’s January 14, 

2011 assertion that her privacy rights related to her workers’ compensation claim were violated 

by her administrators was being reviewed. 

In a January 19, 2011 leave slip, appellant requested 12 days of leave from January 25 to 

February 9, 2011 under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In a January 30, 2011 

e-mail, she stated that she went on leave as of January 26, 2011 for a two-week surgery recovery 

period. 

In a January 25, 2011 report, an employing establishment provider whose signature is 

illegible stated that appellant had a right wrist ganglion cyst for which she was scheduled to 

undergo surgery on January 26, 2011 and stitch removal on February 8, 2011. She was 

incapacitated through February 9, 2011. 

In a March 17, 2011 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she failed to 

establish a compensable factor of employment. 

On March 14, 2012 appellant requested reconsideration. In a November 5, 2010 letter, 

she contended that the May 24, 2010 letter of counseling she received was unfair, harassing and 

untimely as she had completed tasks as directed by Dr. Johnson following the April 5, 2010 

meeting. The letters she sent to Mrs. Ramirez, Mrs. Ford-Bell and Drs. Johnson and Woodfork 

from her home computer were emotional, but factual regarding their harassment and failure to 

provide a safe work environment. On June 14, 2010 Dr. Johnson acted unprofessionally by 

stating that he would place her by the boiler room since she was having problems with him. 

Appellant’s initial May 14, 2010 request for reasonable accommodation was denied. On 

October 29, 2010 Dr. Woodfork denied her request for work schedule modification to attend to 

her medical needs and change of supervisor. 

In a May 26, 2010 report, Timothy M. Skinner, a physical therapist, addressed the 

treatment of appellant’s cervicalagia. 

In a March 4, 2011 cervical x-ray report, Dr. Kent D. Abbott, a Board-certified 

radiologist, found multilevel spondylosis changes and evidence of degenerative disc disease. 

In reports dated March 8 and September 30, 2011, Hattie Walker, an occupational 

therapist, assessed appellant’s need for an ergonomic workstation following the onset of upper 

extremity pain from repetitive stress injuries. 
10

In an April 14, 2011 report, Dr. Lampe obtained a history of injury and appellant’s 

psychological treatment. When she filed her workers’ compensation claim in October 2010, 

appellant was feeling much better. Dr. Lampe stated that appellant’s November 2010 request for 

reasonable accommodations and December 2010 request for compassionate reassignment were 

denied. Appellant faced constant changes upon her return from winter break in January 2011. 

She was directed to take a half day of leave for even a 30-minute local medical appointment, 

resulting in no remaining leave. Appellant was required to obtain permission from her direct 

supervisor to move between buildings. She was also required to assess students inappropriately 

and attend meetings at two different schools despite having a heavy caseload. Appellant 

frequently corrected leave slips and a travel voucher due to new rules that only applied to her. 

She was directed to perform contrary to her job description. In January 2011 appellant contacted 

her congressman to request an inquiry of her claim which was later closed due to an improper 

venue to address her concerns. She reported hostile work conditions and abuse of discretion by 

an administrator. Dr. Lampe noted that appellant became tearful during her sessions. In 

February 2011 appellant received a letter of reprimand for attending a Black History program. In 

mid-March 2011 her medication was increased due to worsening symptoms. In April 2011 

appellant received a proposed notice of suspension for being absent without leave when she went 

to the Black History event and failed to follow and delayed following directives. She was told 

by a post commander that a bill of rights for behavioral health care may not extend to her mental 

health needs. Dr. Lampe stated that the last time he evaluated appellant she was very depressed 

and anxious despite an increase in her medication dosage. He reiterated his prior diagnosis of 

major depressive disorder. Dr. Lampe noted that, based on appellant’s history, her anxiety and 

depression symptoms worsened while at work and decreased during summer break. When he 

saw her during the summer break she was clearly doing better than after she restarted work. As 

the reported sobbing continued, appellant clearly became increasingly distraught. Dr. Lampe, 

therefore, reasonably concluded that her symptomatology was exacerbated by her work situation. 

In a March 5, 2012 report, Lea Didion Mattice, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, noted her 

treatment of appellant since July 27, 2011. She supported appellant’s reassignment to a new 

district. Appellant had been diagnosed with recurrent major depressive disorder. Dr. Mattice 

noted that appellant’s condition was attributed to her perception of a hostile work environment. 

When her work environment improved with a change in personnel, her symptoms temporarily 

improved; however, appellant began to experience further difficulty with interpersonal 

relationships and her symptoms returned. Dr. Mattice advised that a review of her records 

revealed no previous mental health diagnoses prior to her presentation to the clinic in June 2010. 

She opined that a new work setting would alleviate appellant’s stress and improve her 

concentration, mood, function and work performance. 

In a September 11, 2011 e-mail, Dr. Johnson indicated that he no longer worked in the 

employing establishment’s schools department. He stated that appellant, as well as, all 

employees, was asked about their schedule. Dr. Johnson stated that her behavior which included 

becoming angry about this request, and storming out of meetings, sending nasty e-mails and 

refusing to attend meetings when she disagreed with others was unacceptable and rendered her 

unable to work in a team setting. He stated that he was ashamed to have been associated with 

appellant. 
11

In an April 24, 2012 decision, OWCP denied modification of the March 17, 2011 

decision. It found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish a compensable factor 

of employment. 

By letter dated January 24, 2013, appellant, through her representative, requested 

reconsideration. In a March 15, 2013 letter, Dr. McMullen noted that appellant had not received 

all of her requested ergonomic equipment, but the employing establishment was in the process of 

ensuring her request was met. He stated that he was unaware of and disagreed with 

Dr. Johnson’s derogatory remarks about appellant. Dr. Johnson stated that she was merely 

exercising her right to be treated fairly and to receive reasonable accommodations for her 

disability. He noted that there was no record of any performance deficiencies on appellant’s 

part. Dr. McMullen stated that it was inappropriate to suggest that she should not be an 

employee. 

In a May 29, 2013 decision, OWCP affirmed the April 24, 2012 decision, as modified. It 

found that appellant established as compensable factors of employment that she worked at 

makeshift workstations and testing sites and sat in numerous meetings, and the employing 

establishment partially fulfilled her requests for ergonomic equipment. OWCP found that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that her claimed emotional condition 

was caused by the accepted employment factors. 

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 

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.2

 If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, 

OWCP should then determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor.3 When 

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

the truth of the matter asserted, it must base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.4

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,

5

 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.6 When an employee experiences emotional stress in carrying out his or 

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

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

4 Id. 

5

 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

6 See Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999). 
12

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.7

 Allegations alone by a claimant 

are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an emotional condition claim.8 Where the claimant 

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

probative and reliable evidence.9

 Personal perceptions alone are insufficient to establish an 

employment-related emotional condition.10

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

employment, are administrative functions of the employing establishment rather than the regular 

or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA.11 Where the 

evidence demonstrates that the employing establishment either erred or acted abusively in 

discharging its administrative or personnel responsibilities, such action will be considered a 

compensable employment factor.12

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.13 

Mere perceptions and feelings of harassment will not support an award of compensation.14

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence required to establish a 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.15 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable 

medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by 

the employee.16 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

 7 Lillian Cutler, supra note 5. 

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

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

10 Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 

11 Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258 (2004). 

12 Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001). 

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

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

15 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000). 

16 Leslie C. Moore, supra note 2; Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994). 
13

of employment nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.17

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish a physical or 

an emotional condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

OWCP accepted that appellant worked at makeshift workstations and testing sites, set 

through numerous meetings and the partial fulfillment of her requests for ergonomic equipment 

were compensable factors of employment. 

Appellant’s remaining allegations pertain to administrative actions that began in 

January 2010 and to allegations that she was harassed and treated in an abusive manner by 

employing establishment management. Generally, actions of the employing establishment in 

administrative or personnel matters, unrelated to the employee’s regular or specially assigned 

work duties, do not fall within coverage of FECA.18 Absent evidence establishing error or abuse, 

a claimant’s disagreement or dislike of such a managerial action is not a compensable factor of 

employment.19 The Board finds that appellant’s allegations that the denial of leave,20 requests 

for change of supervisors and work schedule,21 reassignment to a new duty station,22

management’s failure to follow a directive to remove her coworker from their shared office, the 

handling and processing of her compensation claim,23 issuance of the May 19, 2010 disciplinary 

letter of counseling and letter of admonishment,24 and assignment of work and monitoring 

performance and whereabouts at work25 pertain to administrative functions. Mere dislike or 

disagreement with certain supervisory actions will not be compensable absent error or abuse on 

the part of the supervisor.26 While the record contains extensive documentation, it does not 

establish error or abuse in these matters and they are not compensable factors of employment. 

The statements from Drs. Johnson and Woodfork, Mr. McMullen and Mr. Kretz maintain 

that appellant and Ms. Ford-Bell, her officemate, were moved to separate offices as requested by 

 17 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997). 

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

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

20 T.G., 58 ECAB 189 (2006). 

21 See Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001). 

22 Ernest J. Malagrida, 51 ECAB 287 (2000). 

23 See David C. Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 268 (2005). 

24 See Janet I. Jones, 47 ECAB 345, 347 (1996); Jimmy Gilbreath, 44 ECAB 555, 558 (1993); Apple Gate, 41 

ECAB 581, 588 (1990); Joseph C. DeDonato, 39 ECAB 1260, 1266-67 (1988). 

25 Supra note 19; Beverly R. Jones, 55 ECAB 411, 416 (2004); Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258, 270 (2004). 

26 Supra note 19. 
14

appellant and only appellant was allowed to select her new office and moved to it with 

administrative and military assistance. Appellant’s request for a change of supervisor was 

denied for administrative reasons and there was no evidence that her current supervisor 

prevented her work performance. Although her request for a new duty station was denied, she 

was advised to apply for a change in an upcoming transfer program. Leave slips that were not 

complete were denied as appellant routinely disregarded the employing establishment’s leave 

policy. Her request for a flexible work schedule was granted and she was allowed to leave work 

early three out of five days a week to attend medical appointments. The letter of counseling was 

issued and remained in appellant’s file for one year to demonstrate the seriousness of her actions 

in sending threatening, mean-spirited and accusatory e-mails to her colleagues; the letter of 

admonishment was issued due to her lack of professionalism in CSC meetings and collaboration 

with her colleagues; and all Smith ES staff was requested to submit their bi-weekly schedule so 

that their whereabouts were known on any given day; and denied that appellant was not allowed 

to contact Dr. Johnson as it was common practice to speak to him or Dr. Woodfork when an 

administrator was out of the school building; and that there was a delay in filing her 

compensation claim. Based on the statements from Drs. Johnson and Woodfork, Mr. McMullen 

and Mr. Kretz, the Board finds that appellant has failed to establish a compensable employment 

factor with regard to these administrative matters. 

Appellant alleged that she was overworked as she was required to work outside her 

position description and her coworkers failed to provide her with support services. The Board 

has held that overwork, when substantiated by sufficient factual information to corroborate 

appellant’s account of events, may be a compensable factor of employment.27 The record, 

however, does not substantiate appellant’s contentions that she was overworked or did not 

receive support from her coworkers. Ms. Dirk stated that appellant was unwilling to perform her 

work duties and responsibilities as appellant twice asked her to perform duties outside her job 

description. Drs. Johnson and Woodfork stated that in the fall of 2010 Ms. Dirk was instructed 

to perform a certain task as insisted by appellant. They stated that appellant’s caseload was 

manageable and not extraordinarily large, noting that during the 2009-2010 school year she did 

not receive new cases because she did not regularly attend weekly CSC business meetings. 

Drs. Johnson and Woodfork related that her request that the CSC team perform her 

responsibilities related to a particular task was granted. They also related that procedures at 

Smith ES and certain assessments were changed as requested by appellant. Drs. Johnson and 

Woodfork stated that Ms. Ramirez helped appellant by performing her assessments. The Board 

finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish overwork allegations as Ms. Dirk and 

Drs. Johnson and Woodfork explained that appellant did not have a heavy workload and received 

assistance with the performance of her work duties. Appellant has not established a 

compensable employment factor. 

Appellant contended that she was harassed by management and subjected to disparate 

treatment, dismissiveness, bullying, gossip, a violation of her privacy rights and unprofessional 

treatment. Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not compensable under 

FECA.28 Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not determinative of 

 27 Bobbie D. Daly, 53 ECAB 691 (2002). 

28 James E. Norris, supra note 13. 
15

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

for his or her allegations with probative and reliable evidence.29 Ms. Fergerson overheard 

Ms. Ford-Bell interrupt appellant while she was speaking, and stated that she was treated in a 

derisive manner from 2008 to 2009. She noted her reaction to being harassed at work. The 

Board finds that Ms. Fergerson failed to provide any specific details of dates of these incidents. 

The Board finds that her general statement does not constitute sufficient evidence of harassment 

on the part of employing establishment personnel. Similarly, the statement from an 

unidentifiable information specialist that appellant had to work in other building locations due to 

the conflict she had with her officemate and the stressful conditions she experienced from other 

quarters at work, is of a general nature and, therefore, is also insufficient to establish harassment 

on the part of the employing establishment. The statements from Ms. Kieta, Ms. Dirk, 

Drs. Johnson and Woodfork, and Mr. McMullen noted that appellant was treated in a fair, 

professional and respectful manner and not subjected to disparate treatment or harassment by 

management. Management made an effort to create a hospitable work environment, believed in 

equity, had respect for diverse opinions, allowed all voices to be heard at CSC meetings and at 

school in honoring her opinions, did not disrespect or violate her privacy rights, and attended 

diversity and EEO training as she requested. Ms. Kieta and Drs. Johnson and Woodfork further 

maintained that appellant did not act in a professional manner as she ceased discussions with 

CSC team members without reaching a mutual understanding, did not respond well to procedural 

changes, frequently exhibited an obtuse attitude towards her coworkers, angrily responded to a 

request regarding her schedule, stormed out of meetings, sent nasty e-mails and refused to attend 

meetings when she disagreed with others. They stated that her expectations of preferential 

treatment coupled with her explosive personality and inability to work well with others created a 

volatile work environment. Based on the statements of Ms. Kieta, Ms. Dirk, Drs. Johnson and 

Woodfork and Mr. McMullen, the Board finds that appellant has not established a factual basis 

for her claim of harassment by probative and reliable evidence.30

Because appellant has established compensable factors of employment, that she worked 

at makeshift workstations and testing sites and sat in numerous meetings, and the employing 

establishment partially fulfilled her requests for ergonomic equipment, the medical evidence of 

record must be analyzed.31 The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient medical 

evidence to establish an injury causally related to the compensable work factors. 

Although the reports from Drs. Lampe and Connelly stated that appellant’s major 

depressive disorder was exacerbated by her work environment, they failed to provide adequate 

medical opinion addressing how her condition was caused or exacerbated by the accepted 

compensable employment factors.32 The Board finds, therefore, that the reports of Drs. Lampe 

 29 Id. 

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

31 Id.

32 George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004); Franklin D. Haislah, 52 ECAB 457 (2001); Jimmie H. Duckett, 52 

ECAB 332 (2001); William P. George, 43 ECAB 1159, 1167 (1992) (medical reports not containing rationale on 

causal relationship are entitled to little probative value). 
16

and Connolly are insufficient to establish a causal relationship between the accepted 

compensable employment factors and appellant’s emotional condition. 

In a March 5, 2012 report, Dr. Mattice found that appellant had recurrent major 

depressive disorder. She obtained a history of injury which appellant attributed to her hostile 

work environment. Dr. Mattice opined that a new work setting would alleviate her stress and 

improve her mental and emotional state and work performance. However, she appears merely to 

be repeating the history of injury as reported by appellant without providing her own opinion 

regarding whether appellant’s diagnosed emotional condition was work related. To the extent 

that Dr. Mattice provided her own opinion, the physician failed to provide a rationalized opinion 

regarding the causal relationship between appellant’s recurrent major depressive disorder and the 

accepted compensable employment factors.33 Therefore, Dr. Mattice’s report is insufficient to 

meet appellant’s burden of proof. 

Dr. Kyi’s April 13 and May 25, 2010 sick slips and November 17, 2010 report noted that 

appellant was treated from April 13 to 20, 2010, addressed her reaction to medication and found 

normal hip x-rays and nonspecific findings on an MRI scan of the head. She did not diagnose a 

medical condition or provide an opinion as to whether the diagnosed condition was caused or 

aggravated by the accepted employment factors. Medical evidence which does not offer any 

opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value.34 The 

Board finds that Dr. Kyi’s reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

The November 10, 2010 report from Dr. Kirschling, a chiropractor, did not diagnose a 

subluxation demonstrated by x-ray to exist and is of no probative value.35 

Dr. Abbott’s March 4, 2011 diagnostic test results, addressed appellant’s cervical 

conditions, but failed to provide an opinion addressing whether her diagnosed conditions were 

caused by the accepted compensable employment factors.36 The Board finds, therefore, that 

Dr. Abbott’s report is insufficient to establish appellant’s claim. 

The reports from appellant’s nurse practitioners and physical and occupational therapists 

have no probative value on the issue of causal relationship because nurse practitioners37 and 

 33 Id. 

34 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Jaja K. Asaramo, 55 ECAB 200 (2004); 

Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

35 Section 8101(2) of FECA provides as follows: (2) physician includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined 

by State law. The term physician includes chiropractors only to the extent that their reimbursable services are 

limited to treatment consisting of manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation as demonstrated by 

x-ray to exist and subject to regulations by the Secretary. See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see also Merton J. Sills, 39 ECAB 

572, 575 (1988). 

36 See cases cited, supra note 34. 

37 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); see also M.B., Docket No. 12-1695 (issued January 29, 2013). 
17

physical and occupational therapists38 are not physicians as defined under FECA. The 

January 25, 2011 report from an employing establishment provider whose signature is illegible 

has no probative medical value as there is no indication that the document is from a physician.39 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to submit any other rationalized medical 

evidence establishing that she sustained emotional and physical conditions causally related to the 

accepted compensable employment factors. Appellant did not meet her burden of proof. 

On appeal, appellant’s representative contended that the employing establishment’s 

denial of appellant’s request for ergonomic equipment aggravated her physical injuries and 

caused her major depression and anxiety for which she sought psychiatric and psychotherapy 

treatment. As stated, the medical evidence does not provide a rationalized medical opinion 

addressing whether her physical and emotional conditions were caused by the accepted 

compensable employment factors. 

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 failed to establish that she sustained an emotional or a 

physical condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

 38 Id. at § 8101(2); Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005); E.H., Docket No. 08-1827 (issued July 8, 2009). 

39 See C.B., Docket No. 09-2027 (issued May 12, 2010) (reports lacking proper identification do not constitute 

probative medical evidence). 
18

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 29, 2013 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: September 23, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board