United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

K.M., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Alexandria, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1600 

Issued: November 6, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On July 20, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 4, 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 has met his burden of proof to establish an emotional or a 

physical condition while in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 19, 2015 appellant, then a 55-year-old supervisor, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on March 26, 2015 he first realized that constant yelling and 

pressure from his office manager made his headaches worse and it was hard to deal with. He 

stopped work on April 13, 2015. 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

In an April 22, 2015 letter, the employing establishment challenged appellant’s claim, 

contending that he had preexisting migraines. 

In an April 7, 2015 medical report, Dr. Janice Soliven, a Board-certified family 

practitioner, provided appellant’s history of severe migraines that had worsened and were 

aggravated by work-related stress. She reported physical examination findings and diagnosed 

work-related stress and migraine. Dr. Soliven opined that appellant’s illness was aggravated by 

his current employment situation. She noted his increased use of medications for this condition 

and that he had brought stress to his home environment. 

By letter dated April 24, 2015, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence submitted 

was insufficient to establish his claim. It requested factual and medical evidence. OWCP also 

requested that the employing establishment respond to appellant’s allegations and submit 

medical evidence, if he had been treated at its medical facility. 

An April 23, 2015 letter from the employing establishment informed appellant about its 

leave buyback policy. A document addressed an employee’s rights and responsibilities related to 

the filing of a Form CA-2. 

In a June 4, 2015 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that he failed to 

submit sufficient evidence to establish that he actually experienced the alleged employment 

incident(s). OWCP further found that the medical evidence failed to establish a diagnosis in 

connection with the incident(s). 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

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

adversely affected by factors of his or her federal employment.2 To establish that he or she 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty, a claimant must submit: (1) factual 

evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused or contributed to his 

or her condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or she has an emotional or psychiatric 

disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that the identified 

compensable employment factors are causally related to his or her emotional condition.3

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 reduction-

 

 2 Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838 (1987). 

 3 See Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990). 

 4

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193; Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 
3

in-force or his frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold 

a particular position.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.6

 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.7

 

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.8

 

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.9

 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.10

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

or a physical condition causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

Appellant has alleged in general and broad terms that his office manager constantly 

yelled and pressured him which worsened his headaches and made it difficult to deal with them. 

However, he has not submitted any evidence to establish his assertions as factual. Appellant did 

not provide a description of specific incidents or sufficient supporting evidence to substantiate 

his allegations. Further, there are no statements from any witnesses to the manager’s alleged 

conduct directed towards appellant.11 In addition, the employing establishment contended that 

 

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

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 

 7 See William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998). 

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

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

 10 Id.

11 See Joel Parker, Sr., 43 ECAB 220 (1991) (the Board held that a claimant must substantiate allegations of 

harassment or discrimination with probative and reliable evidence). 
4

appellant had preexisting headaches. As such, appellant’s allegations constitute mere 

perceptions or generally stated assertions of dissatisfaction with a certain superior at work and do 

not establish his claim for an emotional disability.12 Mere perceptions of harassment or 

discrimination are not compensable; a claimant must establish a basis in fact for the claim by 

supporting his allegations with probative and reliable evidence.13 The Board finds that appellant 

has not established a compensable employment factor. 

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 has not met his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

or a physical condition while in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 4, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: November 6, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 See Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991). 

13 Curtis Hall, 45 ECAB 316 (1994); Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496 (1992).