United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Whitinsville, MA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0901 

Issued: July 22, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On March 23, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 25, 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 September 5, 2014 appellant, then a 33-year-old letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained severe depression due to her work. 

Regarding the relationship of her claimed injury to her work, appellant stated: “When I was in 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

the ER talking to the psychiatrist, I came to the conclusion that working in the Whitinsville Post 

Office is way too stressful.”2 She first became aware of her claimed condition and its 

relationship to work on August 23, 2014. Appellant stopped work on August 27, 2014. On the 

same form, Jonathan Graves, the Postmaster at appellant’s workplace, indicated that the 

employing establishment was challenging appellant’s claim. 

In a September 4, 2014 statement, appellant reported that within weeks of transferring to 

the Whitinsville Post Office in June 2013, coworkers started making comments to her, including 

being asked whether she was “running” her route. One coworker made a comment to her about 

finishing her work so early. Appellant indicated that she used a lot of vacation time because her 

route was not a full eight-hour route. She indicated that, when she returned to work after a 

November 2013 injury, coworkers made comments to her such as “glad you could make it” and 

“thanks for coming in.”3 Coworkers also made comments about instances when she had to leave 

work due to dependent care issues. Appellant stated that a coworker asked her if she was “going 

to cards that night” and she responded that she did not know. The coworker then asked another 

coworker if he was going to cards that night and he responded that he did not know and that 

appellant should answer the question. Appellant interpreted this exchange as being related to her 

absences from work. On another occasion, a coworker “got under her skin” but she could not 

remember the comments he made. Appellant stated that, on an occasion when she was at work 

delivering mail, her mind started racing with all of the issues at work and in her personal life and 

she began to cry. She consulted an official from the employee assistance program and then 

sought treatment at an emergency room. Appellant submitted a medical note indicating that she 

should be excused from work between August 28 and September 6, 2014. 

In a September 8, 2014 letter, Mr. Graves countered that there was no evidence that 

appellant was subjected to harassment at work. He indicated that when she was observed in a 

distressed state at work on August 27, 2014 she told a coworker that the problems in her personal 

life at home were overwhelming.4 Mr. Graves noted that, after questioning several coworkers, it 

was determined the comments “glad you could make it” and “thanks for coming in” occurred in 

the normal banter among employees. These coworkers indicated that the comments were made 

in a joking manner because the former Postmaster regularly walked around and thanked 

employees for coming in, a practice which they found amusing. The coworkers did acknowledge 

asking appellant about her attendance at poker night, but they denied that anything was said to 

appellant with malice. They did not recall making comments to appellant about her mail 

delivery route.5

 2

 Appellant indicated that she was a single mother to a child with medical issues and stated that “time off and 

comments just became too much.” 

3

 Appellant stated that coworkers made these comments on more than one occasion. 

4

 The record contains an August 27, 2014 statement in which a coworker related that appellant came to him on 

that date and expressed that she was upset about problems at home. In an August 21, 2014 statement, the same 

coworker noted that appellant discussed personal problems with him shortly prior to the date of the statement. 

5

 One coworker recalled that, on August 23, 2004, appellant told him to mind his own business. The coworker 

did not recall what he had stated to appellant on that date. 
3

On September 17, 2014 the employing establishment controverted her claim because 

there was no evidence of harassment at work. 

In an October 8, 2014 letter, OWCP provided appellant and the employing establishment 

an opportunity to submit additional factual and medical evidence in support of their arguments.6

 

Mr. Graves stated in a letter dated October 15, 2014 that there were no aspects of 

appellant’s job that were stressful beyond the scope of normal duties. Management never 

observed any conflict between appellant and her coworkers, and appellant had not reported any 

problems prior to filing her Form CA-2. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence, including an undated report in which an attending 

psychiatrist diagnosed major depression disorder due to “stress at work.”7

 

In a November 25, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

because she had failed to establish any compensable work factors. 

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.8 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.9

 To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment by coworkers 

are established as occurring and arising from appellant’s performance of her regular duties, these 

could constitute employment factors.10 However, for harassment to give rise to a compensable 

disability under FECA, there must be evidence that harassment did in fact occur. Mere 

perceptions of harassment are not compensable under FECA.11

 6

 OWCP provided a questionnaire for appellant to complete, but it does not appear that she completed it. 

7

 Appellant also submitted an October 13, 2014 report of “initial psychiatric evaluation” completed by a 

registered nurse. 

8 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

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

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

11 Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991). 
4

 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.12 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.13

 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.14 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.15 Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence 

generally required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. 

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s wellexplained opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed 

condition and the compensable employment factors.16

ANALYSIS 

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

incidents and conditions at work. OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim on the 

grounds that she did not establish any compensable employment factors. The Board must 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 Lillian Cutler.

17 Rather, she has alleged that she was exposed to 

harassment by her coworkers. 

 Appellant claimed that coworkers subjected her to harassment by making various 

comments to her at work. The employing establishment denied harassment and appellant has not 

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

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

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

15 Id.

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

17 See supra note 8. 
5

submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she was harassed by coworkers.18 Appellant 

alleged that coworkers made comments about the running of her postal route, finishing her mail 

delivery route early, and about attending a poker night with coworkers.19 However, she did not 

provide corroborating evidence, such as witness statements, to establish that harassing statements 

actually were made as alleged.20 Appellant’s supervisor did acknowledge that, after questioning 

coworkers, he learned that comments such as “glad you could make it” and “thanks for coming 

in” were made to appellant. The supervisor contended that the coworkers’ comments were made 

without malice. These coworkers reported to the supervisor that the comments were made in a 

joking manner because the former postmaster regularly walked around and thanked employees 

for coming in, a practice which they found amusing. Although the Board has recognized the 

compensability of verbal abuse in certain circumstances, this does not imply that every statement 

uttered in the workplace will give rise to coverage under FECA.21 Appellant has not established 

the specifics of these conversations nor has she shown that any of these were made with ill 

intent.22 Thus, appellant has not established a compensable employment factor under FECA 

with respect to the claimed harassment by coworkers. 

 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 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. 

CONCLUSION 

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

condition in the performance of duty. 

 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 Appellant also generally indicated that a coworker “got under her skin” on one occasion, but she could not 

remember the comments he made. 

20 See William P. George, 43 ECAB 1159, 1167 (1992). Appellant felt that the comments about attending poker 

night represented a criticism about her work attendance. A supervisor noted that coworkers acknowledged asking 

appellant about attending poker night, but they indicated that there was no malicious intent in asking her about this 

matter. 

21 Harriet J. Landry, 47 ECAB 543, 547 (1996). 

22 See, e.g., Alfred Arts, 45 ECAB 530, 543-44 (1994) and cases cited therein (finding that the employee’s 

reaction to coworkers’ comments such as “you might be able to do something useful” and “here he comes” was selfgenerated and stemmed from general job dissatisfaction). Compare Abe E. Scott, 45 ECAB 164, 173 (1993) and 

cases cited therein (finding that a supervisor’s calling an employee by the epithet “ape” was a compensable 

employment factor). 

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, 502-03 (1992). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 25, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 22, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board