United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

E.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, AIR 

FORCE NATIONAL GUARD, Frankfort, KY, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1663 

Issued: December 22, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 3, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 22, 2015 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 that her coffee 

creamer was spiked with Clonazepam at work, causing an emotional condition. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 19, 2015 appellant, then a 45-year-old Information Technology specialist, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced psychological 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

illness and stress as a result of a coworker spiking her personal coffee creamer with the drug 

Clonazepam. She explained that she came to this realization after a considerable amount of 

anxiety, paranoia, sleep deprivation, and stress consumed her daily routine. Appellant first 

became aware of her condition on November 27, 2014 and realized that it resulted from her 

employment on December 2, 2014. On the back of the claim form, appellant’s supervisor 

reported that appellant had not stopped work. She related that on December 19, 2014 appellant 

requested that she be physically moved to a different location due to elevated stress and anxiety. 

On January 8, 2015 appellant was moved to a different building to alleviate the stress, but she 

continued to work with the same coworkers and perform the same work. 

In various narrative statements, appellant explained that her coworkers targeted her and 

spiked her coffee creamer with the drug Clonazepam without her knowledge. She noted that her 

coworkers continued to work in the same location as her. Appellant stated that although she did 

not know the exact date that her coffee creamer was spiked with Clonazepam, she believed that it 

happened around October 10, 2014 when she brought the creamer home from work. She 

continued to use the coffee creamer and began to experience the drug’s side effects of dizziness, 

poor coordination, tiredness, trouble concentrating, unsteadiness, trembling, shakiness, and 

unsteadiness. Appellant described that on the morning of November 27, 2014, she was refilling 

her coffee cup at home for a second cup of coffee when she noticed something yellow in the 

bottom of her cup. When she examined it further she realized that it was a pill. Appellant 

dumped the rest of the creamer onto a small saucer and found approximately nine Clonazepam 

pills in it. She contacted the police. Appellant indicated that she was including a police report 

and pictures of the pills. 

Appellant reported that she did not have evidence, such as witness statements, to 

substantiate when someone put Clonazepam in her coffee creamer, but she had a witness 

statement from someone who noticed the symptoms she was experiencing. She explained that 

she stored her personal coffee creamer in an unlocked cabinet in her office space and that other 

employees had access to where it was stored. Appellant stated that the incident was being 

investigated by the Office of Complex Investigations. She noted that although she did not seek 

medical treatment on each date that she ingested the Clonazepam, she sought medical treatment 

for some of the anxiety and depression she was experiencing as an effect of ingesting the pills. 

Appellant submitted a November 27, 2014 police report for second degree wanton 

endangerment. Within the report she indicated that the incident occurred at home. Appellant 

related that she had felt weird and sluggish for the past several weekends but did not know why. 

She had brought home her coffee creamer from work and found several Clonazepam pills in her 

creamer. Appellant also included a November 28, 2014 drug monitoring report which revealed 

that the drug Clonazepam was present. 

In a March 3, 2015 statement, appellant’s husband, reported that on two instances he 

witnessed appellant under the influence of the drug Clonazepam. He stated that on 

approximately October 21 and November 27, 2014 she was unsteady on her feet, bumping into 

things, and acting like someone that had been drinking. 

By letter dated March 20, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish her claim. It requested additional factual evidence to substantiate 
3

that she actually experienced the incidents as described and additional medical evidence to 

establish that she sustained a diagnosed condition as a result of her employment. OWCP issued 

a similar development letter to the employing establishment. 

In a March 27, 2015 narrative report, Jennifer E. Townsend, a licensed clinical social 

worker, noted that appellant began attending therapy on January 30, 2015 because she was 

experiencing anxiety, some depression, sleeplessness, and nightmares since November 27, 2014 

when appellant discovered some Clonazepam in her coffee creamer. Appellant reported that she 

also experienced physical side effects of dizziness, poor coordination, tiredness, trouble 

concentrating, unsteadiness, trembling, shakiness, and unsteady gait. Ms. Townsend related that 

appellant still experienced anxiety and stress at work around her coworkers because she did not 

know which one of them was responsible for putting the drug in her creamer. She diagnosed 

adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. 

On April 2, 2015 Linda Wolverton, an OWCP manager at the employing establishment, 

responded to the March 20, 2015 development letter. She asserted that appellant’s claim did not 

meet all the requirements for acceptance because appellant did not submit supporting medical 

documentation to establish the injury. Ms. Wolverton also contended that the alleged incident 

did not occur in the performance of duty, as the date of injury was noted as Thanksgiving Day, a 

federal holiday, and appellant was not authorized to work on that date. She pointed out that the 

incident also occurred at appellant’s home, not her duty station. 

On April 6, 2015 Dr. Terry M. Hagan, a Board-certified psychiatrist, examined appellant. 

In a narrative report he related that she had been seeing a social worker since she discovered 

Clonazepam in her creamer last Thanksgiving. Appellant believed that the act was done to get 

her to test positive on a drug test at work. She reported that she also had trouble sleeping and 

had nightmares. Dr. Hagan reviewed appellant’s history and provided findings on examination. 

He diagnosed acute stress disorder and work stress. Dr. Hagan opined that appellant’s anxiety 

was an activation of a mild generalized anxiety, such that, she now had an acute stress disorder 

superimposed upon her generalized anxiety, as a result of the assault at work regarding 

Clonazepam in her coffee. 

In an April 8, 2015 report, Dr. Hagan, indicated that he read narratives regarding 

appellant’s claim and agreed with them. He opined that her anxiety was a direct cause of the 

stated work situation. 

On April 8, 2015 appellant responded to OWCP’s development letter. She stated that she 

did not know when the coffee creamer was spiked, but she discovered the Clonazepam in her 

coffee creamer on November 27, 2014. Appellant noted that there were no witnesses to her 

coffee creamer being spiked, but there was a pending investigation that may provide a witness. 

She described the November 27, 2014 incident where she found the Clonazepam in her coffee 

creamer at home. Appellant explained that she did not seek medical treatment on each of the 

dates she ingested Clonazepam because she was not aware that she was ingesting it. She noted 

that she sought medical treatment for some of the anxiety and depression issues she had 

experienced due to spiking her coffee creamer at work. Appellant related that, beginning in the 

later part of October 2014, she experienced symptoms of unknowingly ingesting the 

Clonazepam, including dizziness, poor coordination, tiredness, trouble concentrating, 
4

unsteadiness, trembling, shakiness, and unsteady walk. She indicated that she did not have any 

prior emotional conditions. 

In a decision dated April 22, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she 

failed to establish fact of injury as the evidence was insufficient to support that the “injury and/or 

events occurred” as she described. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence2 including that the individual is an employee of the United States within the meaning of 

FECA; that the claim was filed within the applicable time limitation; that an injury was sustained 

while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that any disability and/or specific condition for 

which compensation is claimed are causally related to the employment injury.3 These are the 

essential elements of each and every compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is 

predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

 

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

somehow related to a claimant’s employment.5 There are situations where an injury or illness 

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

coverage of workers’ compensation.6 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 under FECA. Where an employee experiences emotional stress in carrying 

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirement imposed by the employing establishment or by the nature of the work.8 

On the other hand, when a disability results from an employee’s feelings of job insecurity 

per se, fear of a reduction-in-force, or frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular 

environment or hold a particular position, unhappiness with doing work, or frustration in not 

 2 J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968). 

3 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

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

5 L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006). 

6 A.K., 58 ECAB 119 (2006); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005). 

7

 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

8 Id.; see also Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001). 
5

being given the work desired, such disability falls outside FECA’s coverage because they are 

found not to have arisen out of employment.9 The only requirements of employment which will 

bring a claim within the scope of coverage under FECA are those that relate to the duties the 

employee is hired to perform.10

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, 

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

adversely affected by the employment factors.11 This burden includes the submission of a 

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

adversely affected a condition for which compensation is claimed and a rationalized medical 

opinion relating the claimed condition to compensable employment factors.12

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

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

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

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

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

compensable factors of employment and may not be considered.13 If a claimant does implicate a 

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

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

for an emotional condition claim. The claim must be supported by probative evidence.14

ANALYSIS 

Appellant has alleged that she experienced extreme stress, anxiety attacks, and other 

physical ailments as a result of unknowingly ingesting coffee creamer that was spiked with 

Clonazepam pills by a coworker. She has not attributed her emotional condition to the 

performance of her regular work duties or to any special work requirement arising from her 

employment duties under Cutler.

15

OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she failed to establish fact of injury. As a 

preliminary matter, the Board must review whether the alleged incident is a covered employment 

factor under FECA.16

 9 William E. Seare, 47 ECAB 663 (1996). 

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

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

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

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

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

15 Supra note 7. 

16 See P.W., Docket No. 15-605 (issued June 1, 2015).
6

Appellant has attributed her emotional condition to someone targeting her at her 

workplace, so that she might test positive on a drug test, ending her career. Specifically, she 

asserts that someone spiked her personal coffee creamer with Clonazepam pills. The Board has 

found that for harassment to give rise to a compensable disability, there must be evidence which 

establishes that the acts alleged or implicated by the employee did, in fact, occur.17 A claimant 

must establish a factual basis for her allegations with probative and reliable evidence.18 

In this case, appellant has acknowledged that she does not know which coworker spiked 

her coffee creamer or exactly when the spiking would have occurred. She has indicated that she 

brought coffee creamer home from work around October 10, 2014. Appellant has explained that 

she first found the pills in her coffee cup at home, on Thanksgiving Day. She has not explained 

why she found the pills in her coffee at home on Thanksgiving, or if the creamer she stored at 

work in an unlocked cabinet was the same spiked creamer. When an employee claims that he or 

she sustained an injury in the performance of duty, he or she must submit sufficient evidence to 

establish that he or she experienced a specific event, incident or exposure occurring at the time, 

place, and in the manner alleged.19 The Board finds that appellant did not submit probative 

evidence that her coffee creamer was spiked with Clonazepam at the time, place, and in the 

manner alleged. Thus, appellant has failed to establish a compensable factor of employment. 

On appeal, appellant argues that she was deliberately drugged at work by an unknown 

assailant and experienced severe trauma due to the situation. She notes that she provided 

evidence that the drug was in her system. As noted above, however, appellant has not 

established a factual basis to corroborate her allegation that a coworker spiked her coffee 

creamer at work. For this reason, she has failed to establish her emotional condition claim. 

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.606 and 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that her coffee 

creamer was spiked with Clonazepam at work causing an emotional condition. 

 17 K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); Robert Breeden, supra note 5. 

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

19 See M.B., Docket No. 13-1294 (issued September 20, 2013). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 22, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: December 22, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board