United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.B., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Roanoke, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-257 

Issued: May 7, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 14, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from the July 31, 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 to review the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant sustained an emotional condition in the performance of 

duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 23, 2013 appellant, a 24-year-old air traffic control specialist, filed a traumatic 

injury claim alleging that he suffered severe depression affecting cognitive functions as a result 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

of workplace bullying while undergoing training on July 2, 2013.2

 He offered examples of 

trainer conduct that he believed was condescending, intimidating, and unprofessional. Appellant 

alleged that Charlie Schroder, his supervisor, was condescending and belittling and that he and 

the other trainers did not care if appellant succeeded. Mr. Schroder had his job, and they had 

theirs. 

Brian Carroll was allegedly condescending, belittling, harsh, and hostile. He told 

appellant that he hated training developmentals. Mr. Carroll yelled and had an “in your face” 

attitude. After an hour, a trainee asked, “with all due respect,” why does the training have to be 

so harsh. Mr. Carroll confronted the trainee and made a condescending joke out of the phrase 

“with all due respect.” He even wrote the phrase on appellant’s training report. 

Jason Mogensen was equally condescending and belittling. When appellant had backtaxied an aircraft, Mr. Mogensen asked, “Are you a f***ing retard?” Appellant was not paying 

attention because appellant that back-taxied the aircraft correctly. Mr. Mogensen was also 

unprofessional when appellant requested sick leave on a separate occasion. 

Austin Leclerc was also condescending and belittling. He told appellant in an 

intimidating and humiliating way that the entire training team had to watch him carefully, 

insinuating that appellant was not up to par. Mr. Leclerc told appellant to “sit down” in a 

condescending, controlling tone. He told appellant, “You’re so stupid, how did you get this 

job?” Although appellant was certified on ground control, Mr. Leclerc would not allow him to 

work the position, and he gave no reason. Appellant added that Mr. Leclerc asked him in an 

intimidating, condescending, and controlling way to throw away a drink that was not his. 

Finally, appellant stated with regard to the training environment, “this is the way training 

is at the employing establishment and that if I brought attention to the issues, it would only make 

things worse and harder for me.” 

Appellant subsequently submitted a somewhat more detailed account of his interactions. 

He summarized: 

“Jason, Austin, Brian Carroll, and Charlie were not interested in my success there 

were interested in bullying me and destroying my confidence (a vital component 

in air traffic control); this was clearly and personally explained to me when 

Charlie told me he along with Jason and Austin had their jobs and they did not 

care if I certified. This was evidence in the way I was treated and trained in the 

various examples I have noted above. The bullying I experienced from Jason, 

Austin, Brian Carroll and Charlie cost me my confidence and negatively affected 

my training and success from the beginning. It has been an uphill battle from that 

very first training session with Brian Carroll and nothing was done to correct what 

had happened. The bullying events by Jason, Austin, Brian Carroll, and Charlie 

occurred almost every training session for 200 plus hours of training on ground 

control and then not quite as often for the 160 training hours on local control since 

 2

 Appellant later clarified that his was an occupational disease claim. 
3

I only had to train with Jason; however, incidents continued to happen throughout 

my training and work days.” 

Appellant filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint on 

September 9, 2013, which he indicated was settled. He submitted a statement from a coworker, 

who was also a family member, which read in its entirety: “I concur that the examples in which I 

was named are recorded correctly.” The coworker was the trainee who asked Mr. Carroll, with 

all due respect, why the training had to be so harsh. 

In a decision dated October 23, 2013, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim. It accepted that the incidents occurred as alleged but found that the evidence was 

insufficient to establish a compensable factor of employment. OWCP explained that appellant 

did not submit sufficient evidence to show that management acted improperly. “Disagreement 

with or dislike of a management action or with the manner in which a supervisor exercises 

his/her discretion is not compensable.” 

Appellant provided testimony at a telephonic hearing on May 13, 2014. In a decision 

dated July 31, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the denial of appellant’s claim for 

workers’ compensation. He found that appellant had not provided corroborative evidence 

sufficient to establish any error or abuse by the employing establishment regarding his training or 

employment. 

On appeal, appellant contends that the record should reflect that the coworker politely 

addressed Mr. Carroll and that it was Mr. Carroll who immediately challenged the coworker, 

even though the coworker was polite and did not want to argue. Further, Mr. Carroll who turned 

“with all due respect” into a belittling facility joke directed at both the coworker and appellant. 

Appellant also notes that the coworker provided a witness statement. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

FECA provides compensation for the disability of an employee resulting from personal 

injury sustained while in the performance of duty.3

 But workers’ compensation does not cover 

each and every illness that is somehow related to the employment. As the Board explained in 

Lillian Cutler,

4

 when an employee experiences emotional stress in carrying out his or her 

employment 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. By contrast, there are disabilities having some kind of causal 

connection with the employment that are not covered under workers’ compensation because they 

are not found to have arisen out of employment, such as when disability results from an 

employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force or frustration from not being permitted to work in a 

particular environment or to hold a particular position. 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8102(a). 

4

 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 
4

Further, as the Board explained in Thomas D. McEuen,

5

 workers’ compensation does not 

cover an emotional reaction to an administrative or personnel action unless the evidence shows 

error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment. The Board has also held that being 

spoken to in a raised or harsh voice does not in itself constitute verbal abuse or harassment.6

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

an emotional condition claim.7

 In claims for a mental disability attributed to work-related stress, 

the claimant must submit factual evidence in support of his allegations of stress from harassment 

or a difficult working relationship. 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 review able by the Board. The primary reason for requiring factual evidence from the 

claimant in support of his 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.8

ANALYSIS 

It is clear from appellant’s account of events that he is not attributing his severe 

depression affecting cognitive functions to the stress of carrying out his regular duties as an air 

traffic control specialist. When describing what happened in the workplace, he did not implicate 

Cutler-type work factors. Instead, appellant attributed his emotional condition to workplace 

bullying by trainers. He provided specific examples of trainer conduct that he believed were 

condescending, intimidating, and unprofessional. By questioning the actions of his trainers, 

appellant has implicated McEuen-type work factors. Accordingly, to establish the 

compensability of these work factors, appellant must establish error or abuse by the employing 

establishment. 

Appellant alleged abuse when he cited workplace bullying. He stated that his trainers 

were condescending, belittling, harsh, and hostile. This is to some extent a matter of perception 

and judgment on appellant’s part and for that reason, evidence that independently corroborates 

such allegations is usually required. 

Appellant submitted a witness statement from coworker and a family member who 

concurred that the examples in which he was named were recorded correctly. This trainee asked 

 5

 42 ECAB 566, 572-73 (1991). 

6 Beverly R. Jones, 55 ECAB 411, 418 (2004). 

7 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). 

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

why the training had to be so harsh. Notwithstanding the witness’ relationship to appellant, this 

evidence tends to support the assertion that the trainers were harsh. This is also supported by the 

specific actions and words that appellant described. The Board has held, however, that being 

spoken to in a raised or harsh voice does not in itself constitute verbal abuse or harassment.9

 

The fundamental question raised by appellant’s claim is whether the manner in which his 

trainers conducted his training constituted error or abuse. The Board has insufficient evidence to 

make such a finding. The harsh demeanor appellant attributed to his trainers does not constitute 

error or abuse, such that he should be compensated for any emotional reaction. Appellant filed 

an EEO complaint over his trainers’ conduct, but he has not submitted a final decision finding 

that the employing establishment had violated any of his rights or had committed any error or 

abuse with respect to his training. 

As appellant has failed to produce any evidence that his trainers committed error or abuse 

in their treatment of him during training, the Board finds that he has failed to establish a 

compensable factor of employment. His emotional reaction, although related in some way to his 

federal employment, does not fall within the scope of workers’ compensation. Accordingly, the 

Board will affirm OWCP’s July 31, 2014 decision denying appellant’s claim for benefits 

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 that he 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty. 

 9 Supra note 6. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 31, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 7, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board