United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Pittsburgh, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0715 

Issued: July 7, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 2, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 18, 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 sustained an emotional condition in the performance of 

duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 3, 2013 appellant, then a 57-year-old administrative support clerk, filed an 

occupational disease claim alleging that he had depressive disorder and hypertension related to a 

high-stress work environment. He did not stop work. 

On his claim form, appellant stated that, since April 2011, he was experiencing 

short-term memory loss, short temper, irritability, and lack of concentration. He advised that he 

was in a high-stress work environment, relating that, if he took annual leave, he was subject to 

call backs. Appellant indicated that he was subjected to “gross multitasking,” working 12-hour 

shifts, and being overloaded with work assignments to the point that he could not remember 

“what I had to do next.” He advised that he saw his physician on January 31, 2012 and was 

diagnosed with memory loss and anxiety. Appellant stated that he was referred for a psychiatric 

evaluation. He noted that he became aware of his condition on April 1, 2011 and its relation to 

his employment on January 31, 2012. 

By letter dated October 11, 2013, OWCP notified appellant that the evidence was 

insufficient to establish his claim. Appellant was instructed to complete a questionnaire 

substantiating the factual basis of his claim and was also advised of the type of medical evidence 

needed. In another October 11, 2013, letter, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

comment on appellant’s assertions. 

In a January 31, 2012 report, Dr. Milton Dalbow, Board-certified in internal medicine, 

assessed memory loss and anxiety. He ordered a psychological evaluation. 

In an April 5, 2012 report, Dr. Renata Jurczak, Board-certified in psychiatry, advised that 

appellant was under treatment related to being in a high-stress environment. She noted that he 

was experiencing memory loss, irritability, and poor sleep since April 2011. Dr. Jurczak advised 

that appellant had been a supervisory police officer for the employing establishment, but later 

switched to a different position where he was not required to carry a weapon. She noted that he 

related that multi-tasking, a high-stress environment, and lack of sleep contributed to his 

depression. Dr. Jurczak also noted that appellant reported having short-term memory loss 

symptoms in the 1990’s when he was a firearms instructor. She assessed major depressive 

disorder, hypertension, and stressors related to high-stress work. Dr. Jurczak stated that, over the 

last year, appellant was under a significant amount of stress at work that brought about 

depressive symptoms. She advised that he could work with accommodations. 

In a November 8, 2013 response to an OWCP questionnaire, the employing establishment 

disputed that there were aspects of appellant’s job that could be perceived as stressful, noting that 

he worked more in the capacity of a dispatcher providing advice to officers when necessary to 

successfully complete their assigned duties. It noted that he was accommodated to reduce stress 

by placing him in a nonuniformed position and then eventually transferring him to human 

resources. The employing establishment agreed that appellant was subject to call backs when he 

was on annual leave because of the nature of police work and his position as a supervisor. It 

noted that he was generally able to perform his required duties and that there were no staff 

shortages during the period of his employment which affected his workload. 
3

By decision dated March 7, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

as he failed to establish any compensable work factors within the scope of his employment. 

On March 26, 2014 appellant requested an oral hearing. A telephonic oral hearing was 

scheduled for October 20, 2014. Appellant failed to appear for the hearing. On October 21, 

2014 he contacted OWCP and asserted that the telephone number for accessing the hearing did 

not work for him. Appellant agreed to convert his request to a review of the written record. 

By decision dated November 18, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

March 7, 2014 decision. She noted that appellant failed to provide specific facts upon which a 

claim for injury within the performance of duty could be positively adjudicated. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

To establish a claim that he or she sustained an emotional or stress-related condition in 

the performance of duty, an employee must submit: (1) factual evidence identifying employment 

factors or incidents alleged to have caused or contributed to the condition; (2) medical evidence 

establishing that he or she has an emotional or stress-related disorder; and (3) rationalized 

medical opinion evidence establishing that the identified compensable employment factors are 

causally related to the condition. If a claimant implicates a factor of employment, OWCP should 

determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor. Allegations alone are 

insufficient to establish a factual basis for an emotional condition claim and must be supported 

with probative and reliable evidence. If a compensable factor of employment is established, it 

must then base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.2

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 

 2 G.S., Docket No. 09-764 (issued December 18, 2009). 

3 Supra note 1; Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

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

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 
4

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

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he sustained an emotional condition as a result of a high-stress 

work environment. OWCP denied his emotional condition claim because he failed to establish 

any compensable employment factors. The Board must, therefore, initially review whether the 

alleged incidents and conditions of employment are covered employment factors under the terms 

of FECA. The Board notes that appellant’s allegations do not sufficiently identify specific work 

factors or conditions to implicate work factors under Cutler. Appellant noted “gross 

multitasking” working 12-hour shifts, and being overloaded with work assignments. While such 

matters might be compensable if established by the factual evidence as necessary to meet the 

demands of his position, he did not specify any particular occurrence on any specific date and 

time. Such vague allegations are insufficient to establish a compensable employment factor 

under these circumstances.8

 Similarly, overwork may constitute a compensable factor of 

employment if a claimant submits sufficient evidence to substantiate this allegation.9

 Appellant 

failed to submit any factual evidence substantiating these allegations. Therefore, these matters 

are not compensable factors of employment. 

Appellant alleged that being subject to call backs when he took annual leave contributed 

to his emotional condition. Although the handling of leave requests is generally related to the 

employment, it is an administrative function of the employing establishment and not a duty of 

the employee and thus only compensable where the evidence discloses error or abuse.10 The 

employing establishment agreed that he was subject to call backs when he was on annual leave. 

It noted that all supervisors and patrol officers alike were subject to call back while on leave due 

to the nature of police work and the need to call in officers in the unlikely event of a mass 

casualty, civil disorder, or missing patients. Such actions do not rise to the level of error or 

abuse by the employing establishment in administrative matters as there is no evidence that these 

actions were unreasonable.11

On appeal appellant argues that OWCP ignored medical evidence submitted with his 

claim. However, he must establish compensable work factors any medical evidence becomes 

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

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

8 See T.E., Docket No. 14-582 (issued December 15, 2014) (allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to 

establish a factual basis for an emotional condition claim). 

9 See Bobbie D. Daly, 53 ECAB 691 (2002). 

10 C.S., 58 ECAB 137 (2006). 

11 See id.
5

relevant. As appellant has not established any compensable work factors, the Board need not 

address the medical evidence.12 

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 established a compensable factor of employment 

and, therefore, has not met his burden of proof to establish a claim for an emotional condition. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 18, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 7, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 See Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496 (1992).