United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.A., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Raleigh, NC, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1355 

Issued: November 18, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Francine Spencer, for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 1, 2015 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

December 9, 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 an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 11, 2014 appellant, then a 45-year-old distribution clerk, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on February 10, 2014 she developed high blood pressure, 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

a racing heart, and a headache due to an altercation with her supervisor.2

 She stopped work 

February 10, 2014. The employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. 

In a March 14, 2014 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual and 

medical evidence in support of her claim. On the same date, it also requested information from 

the employing establishment. 

Appellant submitted records of her medical treatment at the Rex Healthcare Emergency 

Department on February 10, 2014, and several other medical reports including those of an 

attending primary care physician and a cardiologist. She also submitted a therapy report of a 

licensed social worker. 

In a statement of February 24, 2014, a coworker, who was an employee at the Method 

and Avent Ferry work locations, stated that on February 10, 2014 appellant made comments 

about her use of leave. The coworker advised appellant not to discuss such personal information. 

Appellant stated that her supervisor was causing confusion and then appellant called her 

supervisor on the telephone and yelled at her. 

In an undated statement received on April 7, 2014, appellant’s supervisor indicated that 

appellant had a history of complaints and comments about her job duties/conditions and about 

supervisor actions. She stated that appellant had telephoned her on February 10, 2014 and 

accused her of causing confusion. The supervisor stated that she told appellant to calm down. 

Appellant continued yelling and the supervisor hung up the telephone. A few hours later 

appellant called for an ambulance and was taken to a hospital. The supervisor denied that she 

committed any form of harassment, discrimination, or other form of wrongdoing with respect to 

appellant. 

In an e-mail of April 5, 2014 to a coworker at the Raleigh Post Office, appellant asserted 

that on that date her supervisor assaulted her by grabbing a scanner out of her hand and that she 

called her a “heifer.” Appellant stated that she called the local police and would contact the 

employing establishment’s Office of Inspector General. She also alleged that this incident 

contributed to her claimed work injury. 

In a letter dated April 7, 2014, a Postal Service Health and Resource Management 

Specialist indicated that she had been advised that appellant had a conflict with a coworker on 

February 10, 2014, but she provided no additional details of the conflict. 

By decision dated April 23, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

because she had not established any compensable work factors 

In a statement dated March 5, 2014, appellant alleged additional incidents where she 

alleged that her supervisor had violated workplace policy. She alleged that on March 1, 2014 her 

supervisor harassed her all day and that on other occasions her supervisor pulled her aside for 

comments about her work ethic, while not making any such remarks to her coworkers. 

Appellant alleged that on May 14, 2013 her supervisor incorrectly told her to clear the case of 

counted mail prior to throwing flats, and told her that her music was a safety hazard. She alleged 

 2

 Appellant later asserted that incidents and conditions on other dates contributed to her claimed injury. 
3

that on May 25, 2013 and other occasions her supervisor improperly denied requests for sick 

leave and change of schedule. Appellant claimed that on August 5, 2013 her supervisor yelled at 

her to assist a customer and reprimanded her verbally regarding her attire. She alleged that on 

August 6, 2013 her supervisor improperly changed her start time from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 

and that, on another occasion, she wrongly accused her of answering her personal telephone in 

front of a customer. Appellant claimed that on December 28, 2013 her supervisor made her sign 

an erroneous leave slip for 2.5 hours of unscheduled leave for December 23, 2013. She also 

generally alleged that her supervisor unfairly scrutinized and monitored her work. 

In an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) affidavit dated May 9, 2014, a coworker 

stated that appellant’s supervisor had mistreated or harassed other workers, but that she did not 

witness her mistreating appellant. In an EEO affidavit dated May 8, 2014, an anonymous 

individual noted that appellant’s supervisor yelled at appellant to stop leaning on the window 

clerk counter. Another anonymous employee stated in an EEO affidavit dated May 9, 2014 that 

sometime in 2013 appellant’s supervisor put her hand on appellant’s arm to stop her from 

working. 

In a statement of May 5, 2014, a coworker stated that on February 10, 2014 another 

coworker told her that appellant’s supervisor had caused a hostile situation that landed appellant 

in the emergency room. In a statement dated May 21, 2014, another coworker claimed that in 

June 2013 appellant was yelled at by her supervisor. In an undated statement, a coworker 

indicated that on an occasion in 2013 she was speaking with appellant by telephone and heard 

someone yelling in the background that she was absent without leave. Appellant also submitted 

a report in which Dr. Jonathan Ahr, an attending clinical psychologist, provided a diagnosis of 

adjustment disorder. 

In an October 31, 2014 statement, appellant’s supervisor denied treating appellant in a 

manner different from other employees. She indicated that the actions she took with respect to 

work assignments as well as comments she made about work attire and the use of personal 

devices were within her proper job duties as a supervisor. The supervisor asserted that she 

properly handled leave matters, including an occasion when she changed the leave status to 

“scheduled.” She explained that appellant’s schedule was changed in order to provide a closeout clerk at Avent Ferry. The supervisor stated that on February 10, 2014 appellant telephoned 

her, screaming unintelligibly, and that she advised appellant to calm down. She denied grabbing 

a scanner from appellant on April 5, 2014 or otherwise mistreating her on that date. The 

supervisor reached out her hand and told appellant to put the scanner into her hand. 

A Raleigh Police Department incident report shows that appellant reported on April 5, 

2014 that she was the victim of an assault. In May 2014 appellant applied for a temporary 

restraining order against her supervisor based on the alleged April 5, 2014 assault. A temporary 

order was granted on May 1, 2014. However, on May 23, 2014 a Wake County, North Carolina, 

court found that appellant’s supervisor was not provided with notice of a hearing regarding such 

order. 

In a December 9, 2014 decision, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s 

April 23, 2014 decision noting that appellant had not established any compensable employment 

factors. He found that appellant did not submit evidence establishing harassment, 

discrimination, assault, or wrongdoing with respect to administrative matters. 
4

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.3

 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.4

 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.5

 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.6

 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.7

 

 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.8

 

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.9

 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.10 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

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

 3 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

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

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 

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

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

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

9 Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991). 

10 Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838, 841 (1987). 
5

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

relating the claimed condition to compensable employment factors.11

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

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

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

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

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

factors of employment and may not be considered.12 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.13

ANALYSIS 

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

employment incidents and conditions. OWCP denied her emotional condition claim because she 

had failed to establish any compensable employment factors. The Board must, thus, initially 

review whether these alleged incidents and conditions of employment are covered employment 

factors under the terms of FECA. The Board notes that appellant’s allegations do not pertain to 

her regular or specially assigned duties under Cutler.

14 Rather, appellant has alleged error and 

abuse in administrative matters and harassment and discrimination on the part of her supervisors. 

Appellant alleged that her employer committed wrongdoing with respect to various 

administrative and personnel matters, including matters relating to leave usage, change of work 

shift, and monitoring of work assignments. Such 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. 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.15

 The record does not establish appellant’s claim that she was improperly denied leave. 

Appellant alleged that her supervisor wrongly denied her leave requests on various occasions and 

improperly placed her on leave without pay for several hours in December 2013. However, she 

did not submit evidence supporting these allegations. The record does not establish that 

appellant’s work schedule was improperly changed from an 8:00 a.m. start time to a 10:00 a.m. 

start time. Employers may change a work schedule as needed and, absent error or abuse in 

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

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

13 Id.

14 See Cutler, supra note 3. 

15 See supra notes 5 through 7. 
6

taking such an administrative action, no work factor would be found on this basis.16 The 

supervisor explained that appellant’s schedule was changed in order to provide a close-out clerk 

at Avent Ferry. The record does not contain a grievance or EEO finding that the work schedule 

was changed for some improper reason. 

 Appellant generally alleged that she was subjected to excessive scrutiny and monitoring 

at work, but she did not show that management committed error or abuse regarding such matters. 

The Board has held that an employee’s dissatisfaction with perceived poor management 

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

particular position and is not compensable under FECA.17 Actions by the supervisor, including 

questioning appellant as to her uniform, asking about her whereabouts, or advising her not to 

answer her personal telephone or activate her personal music device at the customer window, fall 

within the scope of a supervisor’s job to monitor an employees’ work performance. For these 

reasons, the Board finds that appellant has not established any compensable work factors with 

respect to any administrative matters. 

 Appellant claimed that her supervisor subjected her to harassment and discrimination. 

Her supervisor denied that she subjected appellant to harassment or discrimination and appellant 

has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she was harassed or discriminated against 

by her supervisor.18 Appellant did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence as to date, time 

and specificity to establish that the alleged actions actually occurred.19 She also alleged that she 

was assaulted by her supervisor. The Board has recognized the compensability of physical 

assaults or verbal abuse in certain circumstances, but appellant did not establish her claim in this 

regard.20

 The record does not establish that appellant was subjected to harassment, discrimination, 

or verbal abuse on February 10, 2014. Appellant has not established that her supervisor 

committed any wrongdoing on that date. In fact, the witness statements of record indicate that 

on February 10, 2014 appellant stated to a coworker that her supervisor was causing confusion 

and then appellant called her supervisor on the phone and yelled at her. 

 The record also does not establish appellant’s claim that she was assaulted by her 

supervisor on April 5, 2014. The supervisor denied that she assaulted appellant on April 5, 2014 

and the evidence of record lacks probative evidence showing that such an assault occurred. 

Appellant filed a criminal complaint with the Raleigh Police Department, but the record does not 

contain a disposition of such a charge. A temporary restraining order was issued based on 

appellant’s complaint to the police, but there is no record of a hearing to determine the validity of 

the temporary restraining order, or a court decision finding that the supervisor attacked appellant 

 16 See supra note 6. 

17 See Michael Thomas Plante, 44 ECAB 510, 515 (1993). 

18 See Joel Parker, Sr., 43 ECAB 220, 225 (1991) (finding that a claimant must substantiate allegations of 

harassment or discrimination with probative and reliable evidence). 

19 See William P. George, 43 ECAB 1159, 1167 (1992). 

20 See Leroy Thomas, III, 46 ECAB 946, 954 (1995); Alton L. White, 42 ECAB 666, 669-70 (1991). 
7

or otherwise intended to harm her. The record does not establish that an assault occurred on 

April 5, 2014. 

Appellant’s general allegations of harassment and discrimination are not supported by the 

evidence of record. As noted above, unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination 

are not determinative of whether such harassment or discrimination occurred and appellant must 

establish a factual basis for her allegations by submitting probative factual evidence.21 

Appellant’s allegations of harassment or discrimination are not supported by either by witness 

statements or by EEO decisions finding harassment or discrimination. Appellant’s supervisor 

denied the allegations made as to improper conduct. There is no substantive evidence of record 

that appellant’s supervisor verbally abused appellant or ever called her derogatory names. 

 Appellant submitted various witness statements but they do not contain sufficient 

specificity to establish any compensable work factor. One coworker made vague comments 

about the supervisor yelling at appellant. The Board has generally held that being spoken to in a 

raised or harsh voice does not of itself constitute verbal abuse or harassment.22 Another 

coworker’s account of the events of February 10, 2014 did not establish any additional 

substantial facts about the incident. Some of the statements indicate that appellant in fact 

engaged in yelling and there are no statements of record that contradict these statements. One 

coworker acknowledged that a conflict arose between appellant and another coworker, but the 

statement lacks sufficient details about the incident. The two anonymous statements submitted 

to the record are not probative evidence of harassment or other improper treatment. Some of the 

statements contain information that was obtained on a second-hand basis and they would not be 

probative evidence of the existence of harassment or discrimination. Thus, appellant has not 

established a compensable employment factor under FECA with respect to the claimed 

harassment and discrimination. 

 On appeal appellant argued that OWCP improperly found that her supervisor engaged in 

wrongdoing on February 10, 2014, but she did not identify specific probative factual evidence 

supporting her argument. 

For the foregoing reasons, appellant has not established any compensable employment 

factors under FECA and, therefore, has not met her burden of proof to establish that she 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty.23

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. 

 21 See supra note 9. 

22 G.M., Docket No. 14-841 (issued July 10, 2015). 

23 As appellant has not established any compensable employment factors, the Board need not consider the medical 

evidence of record; see Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496 (1992). 
8

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 December 9, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 18, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board