United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.L., Appellant 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

REGION IV, West Palm Beach, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1525 

Issued: July 7, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Debra Hauser, Esq., and Jennifer Raymond, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 25, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 27, 2014 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an 

emotional condition in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On May 31, 2011 appellant, then a 54-year-old claims representative, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained a stress-related condition due 

to her work. She indicated that on May 4, 2011 she first became aware of her claimed condition 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193.
2

and its relationship to her work. Appellant stopped work on May 4, 2011. Regarding the 

relationship of the claimed condition to her work, she stated: 

“I feel I am working in a hostile work environment in which there is a lack of 

support from the upper management which has caused me to feel overwhelmed 

and unsupported. Due to the high demands of my job, unrealistic deadlines 

imposed upon me, unmanageable volume of work and undue pressure from the 

administration. Due to the situation described above, I experienced the following 

symptoms: uncontrolled crying spells, high levels of anxiety, hyperventilation.” 

In an accompanying undated statement, appellant indicated that she sustained stress on 

May 4, 2011 because she was double booked to conduct interviews with two benefits claimants, 

both at 1:30 p.m. on that date.2

 She stated that one of the claimants, who had to wait to be 

interviewed after the other claimant, told her that she wanted to be seen right away. A man who 

accompanied her yelled, “Why are you doing this to us?” Appellant asserted that a supervisor, 

Julia Ward, told her that she had to resolve the situation herself and then walked away. She 

indicated that she felt overwhelmed by the situation and began crying. Appellant asserted that, 

as a result of the May 4, 2011 incident, she developed various symptoms, including severe 

migraine headaches, nightmares, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, confusion, and accelerated 

heart rate. 

Appellant further stated that, for the past few months, she felt anxious, stressed out, and 

fatigued due to unrealistic work deadlines and the environment of her workplace. She claimed 

that the reception area where benefits claimants were called for their interview appointments was 

very crowded and noisy. Appellant asserted that her interviews were constantly being 

interrupted by other claimants, telephone calls, and instant messages from management. She 

indicated that the air conditioning system did not operate well causing areas of the office to be 

extremely cold and others to be very hot. Appellant felt unsafe because the security doors did 

not operate efficiently and the main entrance door to the office constantly broke. She alleged 

that asbestos was found in the lunchroom causing a shutdown for a few weeks. Office 

equipment was constantly breaking down and there was only one facsimile machine that 

everyone shared. 

In an undated statement received on May 31, 2011, appellant’s supervisor confirmed that 

appellant was scheduled to conduct two interviews with benefits claimants at the same time on 

May 4, 2011. She told appellant to call one of the benefits claimants and reschedule their 

interview for a different time slot, but appellant advised that she was unable to reach either 

claimant. When two benefits claimants showed up for their interviews at the same time, 

appellant’s supervisor told her that “she had to handle it since it was her interview.” Appellant 

became upset and asked for a leave slip in order to go home. Appellant’s supervisor gave her a 

leave slip and later found her crying in the bathroom. She noted that appellant had the same 

amount of work as other journeyman claims representatives. Appellant’s supervisor stated that 

appellant’s office never had an asbestos problem and that there never was a security breach with 

the employee door. 

 2

 Appellant indicated that she did not make the mistake that led to two benefits claimants being booked for the 

same time slot as the notices she sent out showed separate appointments for 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. 
3

In a June 7, 2011 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual and 

medical evidence in support of her claim. 

In a June 21, 2011 report, Dr. Mark Agresti, an attending Board-certified psychiatrist, 

stated that he treated appellant on May 23 and June 20, 2011. He noted that she had a threemonth history of increasing depression. Appellant reported feeling increasingly sad, stressed, 

and overwhelmed and having crying spells, feelings of hopelessness, and inability to enjoy 

activities. Dr. Agresti stated that she also reported inability to concentrate, sleeping problems, 

and decreased appetite. Appellant stated that she could not function at her job due to 

disorganized thoughts and that she had become increasingly forgetful and had problems making 

decisions. Dr. Agresti diagnosed a single episode of major depression and hypertension and 

noted that her depression due to “job stressors which have overwhelmed her coping skills.” In a 

July 26, 2011 report, he provided a similar assessment of appellant’s psychiatric condition and 

again noted that her depression was a result of unidentified job stressors. In a June 11, 2011 

note, Dr. Agresti indicated that she could not return to work at that time. On August 24, 2011 he 

stated that appellant could return to work on August 29, 2011. Appellant returned to work for 

the employing establishment around that time. 

In a November 4, 2011 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

because she did not establish any compensable work factors. It found that her claimed work 

factors either were not established or related to a desire to work in a particular environment. 

In statements received on November 6, 2012 and January 15, 2013, appellant provided 

additional discussion of the May 4, 2011 incident when she had two interviews that were double 

booked and described the effect that the incident had on her emotional state. In a January 9, 

2013 statement, a coworker stated that in April or May 2011 appellant spoke to her about a 

difficult interview she had to conduct. Appellant’s counsel argued in a November 1, 2012 brief 

that the May 4, 2011 incident constituted a work factor because it occurred in conjunction with 

the performance of her regular work duties. 

In several clinical notes dated between May and August 2011, Dr. Agresti noted that 

appellant reported being stressed about having a heavy workload and engaging in multitasking at 

work. Appellant later attended counseling sessions with a licensed social worker. 

In a January 24, 2013 decision, OWCP again denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim on the grounds that she did not establish any compensable work factors. With respect to 

her claims regarding the events of May 4, 2011, it indicated that the evidence of record did not 

support her version of the events. 

In an October 29, 2013 statement, a coworker indicated that appellant advised her on 

May 4, 2011 that she had two interview appointments scheduled for the same time period and 

that her supervisor would not help her with the situation. The coworker indicated that appellant 

was crying and showing other signs of anxiety. 

In a November 22, 2013 report, Dr. Agresti provided the same history of symptoms and 

diagnoses that he provided in his June 21 and July 26, 2011 reports. He noted that appellant had 

made considerable progress through supportive psychotherapy once or twice per month and 
4

through medical management. Dr. Agresti stated, “My opinion is that [appellant’s] depression is a 

direct result of job stressors. This includes the events that occurred on May 4, 2011 while in the 

performance of her duties as a claims representative with the [employing establishment] office in 

West Palm Beach. [Appellant] has outlined this in her employee statement.” 

In a March 27, 2014 decision, OWCP affirmed its January 24, 2013 decision as modified 

to reflect that it was accepted that appellant established a work factor with respect to the events 

of March 4, 2011 when she had to handle two interview appointments that were made for the 

same time.3

 It found, however, that the medical evidence, including the reports of Dr. Agresti, 

did not establish that she sustained an emotional condition due to this accepted work factor. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

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

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

concept or coverage of workers’ compensation. 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.4

 On the other hand, the 

disability is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reductionin-force or his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or 

to hold a particular position.5

As a rule, allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis for 

an emotional condition claim.6 In claims for a mental disability attributed to work-related stress, 

the claimant must specifically delineate those factors or incidents to which the emotional 

condition is attributed and submit supporting factual evidence verifying that the implicated work 

situations or incidents occurred as alleged. Vague or general allegations of perceived 

harassment, abuse, or difficulty arising in the employment are insufficient to give rise to 

compensability under FECA. Based on the evidence submitted by the claimant and the 

employing establishment, OWCP is then required to make factual findings which are reviewable 

by the Board. The primary reason for requiring factual evidence from the claimant in support of 

his or her allegations of stress in the workplace is to establish a basis in fact for the contentions 

made, as opposed to mere perceptions of the claimant, which in turn may be fully examined and 

evaluated by OWCP and the Board.7

 3

 OWCP also found that appellant did not establish any other compensable employment factor. 

4 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

5 Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001). 

6 See Arthur F. Hougens, 42 ECAB 455 (1991); Ruthie M. Evans, 41 ECAB 416 (1990) (in each case the Board 

looked beyond the claimant’s allegations of unfair treatment to determine if the evidence corroborated such 

allegations). 

7 Paul Trotman-Hall, 45 ECAB 229 (1993) (Michael E. Groom, Alternate Member, concurring). 
5

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.8 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.9 

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.10 To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment and 

discrimination by supervisors and coworkers are established as occurring and arising from 

appellant’s performance of her regular duties, these could constitute employment factors.11 

The Board has recognized that exposure to such work conditions as extreme noise, 

extreme temperature, or unsafe conditions can constitute a factor of employment.12 However, 

the Board has held that an employee’s dissatisfaction with a work environment perceived to be 

poorly managed or generally undesirable constitutes frustration from not being permitted to work 

in a particular environment or to hold a particular position and is not compensable under 

FECA.13 

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

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

adversely affected by employment factors.14 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.15

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 

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 

9 William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998). 

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

11 David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991); Kathleen D. Walker, 42 ECAB 603, 608 (1991). However, for 

harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, there must be evidence that 

harassment or discrimination did in fact occur. Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not 

compensable under FECA. Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991). 

12 See G.M., Docket No. 08-312 (issued July 17, 2008); Peggy Ann Lightfoot, 48 ECAB 490, 494 (1997). 

13 See Michael Thomas Plante, 44 ECAB 510, 515 (1993); David M. Furey, 44 ECAB 302, 305-06 (1992). 

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

15 Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470, 473-74 (1993). 
6

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

factors of employment and may not be considered.16 If a claimant does implicate a factor of 

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

factor. 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

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the 

physician must be based on a complete and accurate 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 claimant.18

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that she sustained an emotional condition as a result of a number of 

incidents and conditions at work. Some of her allegations pertain to her regular or specially 

assigned duties under Lillian Cutler.

19 Appellant also alleged that she sustained stress due to 

problems with her work environment and actions of her supervisors. OWCP accepted one 

employment factor with respect to her having two interview appointments scheduled for the 

same time on May 4, 2011, but it denied her claims of other employment factors. It then found 

that the medical evidence did not establish that appellant sustained an emotional condition due to 

the one accepted employment factor. 

As noted, appellant alleged that she sustained stress on May 4, 2011 because she had to 

handle two interview appointments with benefits claimants that were scheduled for the same 

time. The Board finds that OWCP properly accepted the circumstances of the May 4, 2011 

incident as a work factor. The events of May 4, 2011 are established by the evidence of record, 

including statements from a supervisor and a coworker. This evidence shows that appellant had 

to conduct two interview appointments that were scheduled for the same time on May 4, 2011 

and that she was required to resolve the situation on her own. The Board notes that conducting 

interview appointments with benefits claimants was part of appellant’s regular duties. 

Appellant also generally alleged that she sustained stress because she was subjected to 

unreasonable deadlines and an unmanageable volume of work. A claimant’s experiencing 

emotional stress in carrying out employment duties may constitute a compensable employment 

factor. Appellant must specifically delineate those factors or incidents to which the emotional 

condition is attributed and submit supporting factual evidence verifying that the implicated work 

 16 See Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992). 

17 Id.

18 Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730, 741-42 (1990). 

19 See supra note 4. 
7

situations or incidents occurred as alleged. Vague or general allegations of difficulty arising in 

the employment are insufficient to give rise to compensability under FECA.20 The Board finds 

that appellant has not established a factual basis for her claims regarding her deadlines and 

workload. Appellant’s allegations lack specificity, context, and explanation, and are 

unsupported by any evidence. Appellant has not established a factual basis for her claim of 

stress related to deadlines and workload. 

Appellant alleged that she was exposed to a noisy and disruptive work environment, 

extreme cold and hot temperatures, inadequate office equipment, and unsafe working conditions 

due to asbestos and a faulty security door. The Board has recognized that exposure to such work 

conditions as extreme noise, extreme temperature, or unsafe conditions can constitute a factor of 

employment.21 However, the Board has also held that an employee’s dissatisfaction with a work 

environment perceived to be poorly managed or generally undesirable constitutes frustration 

from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a particular position and 

is not compensable under FECA.22 The Board finds that appellant did not establish the factual 

aspect of these allegations. Appellant did not submit any evidence to support her assertions 

regarding her work environment and therefore her claims in this regard must be considered a 

noncompensable desire to work in a particular work environment. 

Appellant alleged that the employing establishment committed wrongdoing by failing to 

adequately support her and by subjecting her to undue pressure regarding work matters. These 

allegations are related to administrative and personnel matters. Although generally related to the 

employee’s employment, such matters pertain to administrative functions of the employing 

establishment rather than the regular or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are 

not covered under FECA. However, as noted above, 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.23 Appellant only made general allegations 

that management failed to support her and subjected her to undue pressure. Moreover, she did 

not submit any evidence to support these allegations. Therefore, appellant has not established a 

work factor with respect to administrative matters. 

Appellant also generally indicated that she was subjected to a “hostile work environment” 

but she did not identify any actions by management or coworkers that she felt constituted 

harassment or discrimination. Therefore, she has not established any work factor with regard to 

harassment or discrimination.24

In the present case, appellant has established a compensable factor of employment with 

respect to the May 4, 2011 incident at work when she had to handle two interview appointments 

 20 See supra notes 4 through 7. 

21 See supra note 12. 

22 See supra note 13. 

23 See supra notes 8 through 10. 

24 See supra note 11. 
8

that were made for the same time period. However, her burden of proof is not discharged by the 

fact that she has established an employment factor, which may give rise to a compensable 

disability under FECA. To establish her occupational disease claim for an emotional condition, 

appellant must also submit rationalized medical evidence establishing that she has an emotional or 

psychiatric disorder and that such disorder is causally related to the accepted compensable 

employment factor.25

Appellant submitted a November 22, 2013 report in which Dr. Agresti, an attending 

Board-certified psychiatrist, provided a description of her symptoms and diagnoses. In this 

report, Dr. Agresti diagnosed a single episode of major depression and hypertension and stated, 

“My opinion is that her depression is a direct result of job stressors. This includes the events that 

occurred on May 4, 2011 while in the performance of her duties as a claims representative with the 

[employing establishment] office in West Palm Beach. [Appellant] has outlined this in her 

employee statement.” 

The Board finds that this report does not establish appellant’s claim for a work-related 

emotional condition because it is of little probative value because it lacks medical rationale on 

causal relationship. While OWCP accepted a work factor in connection with the double-booked 

interviews on May 4, 2011 and Dr. Agresti suggested that events occurring on May 4, 2011 

affected appellant’s emotional condition, he did not provide a description of the events of May 4, 

2011 or specifically explain in medical terms how they caused or aggravated the diagnosed 

conditions of depression and hypertension. Dr. Agresti made reference to an unspecified 

“employee statement,” but such a vague reference to another document, presumably describing the 

events of May 4, 2011, would not serve as an adequate substitute for his own description of these 

events. His November 22, 2013 report is of limited probative value on the relevant issue of this 

case because it is based on an incomplete factual and medical history. The symptoms and 

diagnoses contained in Dr. Agresti’s November 22, 2013 report appear to have been copied 

directly from his June 21 and July 26, 2011 reports, produced more than two years prior, 

apparently without any attempt to update the information to reflect appellant’s condition in 

November 2013.26 Dr. Agresti produced other medical reports implicating “job stressors” but 

these reports did not contain any further details about what specific work factors might have 

affected appellant’s emotional or stress-related conditions. 

On appeal appellant’s counsel argued that the submission of Dr. Agresti’s November 22, 

2013 report required the case to be remanded to OWCP for further development of the medical 

evidence. Appellant’s counsel cited several Board cases in support of this proposition, including 

Rebel L. Cantrell, 44 ECAB 660 (1993) and John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989). However, 

the Board notes that the facts of the present case differ from those of the cases cited by counsel 

in that Dr. Agresti’s November 22, 2013 report did not contain a clear description of the specific 

work factors which were implicated in causing or aggravating the diagnosed conditions. 

 25 See M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007). 

26 See B.B., 59 ECAB 234 (2007) (finding that an opinion in a medical report must be based on a complete and 

accurate factual and medical background). 
9

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) 

and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 27, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 7, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board