United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

__________________________________________ 

R.L., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, SPACE 

& NAVAL WAR SYSTEMS COMMAND, 

San Diego, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1936 

Issued: July 27, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 4, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 29, 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.2

ISSUE 

 The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an 

emotional condition in the performance of duty. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

2

 By order dated June 6, 2015, the Board denied appellant’s request for oral argument noting that the appeal could 

be adequately addressed in a decision based on the case record as submitted and that oral argument would not serve 

a useful purpose and only delay issuance of a decision. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 3, 2013 appellant, then a 43-year-old administrative specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained work-related emotional 

conditions in the form of depression, anxiety disorder, panic attacks, and panic disorder. She 

indicated that on August 22, 2013 she first became aware of her claimed condition and that it 

was caused or aggravated by her employment. Appellant stopped work on August 22, 2013. 

In a December 5, 2013 statement, appellant indicated that on August 22, 2013 she 

advised her supervisor of a decline in her health and ability to concentrate due to stress and 

pressure caused by an upcoming move to a new workplace approximately eight or nine miles 

away from her then-current workplace. She indicated that she thought that she was having a 

heart attack and that she went to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with anxiety 

disorder. Appellant stayed off work due to continuing symptoms and felt that she was treated 

harshly when she sent an e-mail on August 27, 2013 to her supervisor about possibly returning to 

work on a telework basis. She indicated that she felt that her supervisor was “continuing to 

intimidate me” and “added insult to my injuries” when he responded, “Facilities has moved your 

boxes and chair to [Building 198] and installed the keyboard tray as previously requested.” 

Appellant stated that she was psychologically mistreated and abused “all because of the demands 

of a move.” She stated, “I am trying to restore my credibility. I have been defamed. I have been 

called a squatter. I have been bullied. I have been harassed. I have been abused psychologically 

and I have been lied to and lied on and my chain of command failed me.” 

Appellant submitted a number of documents, including copies of e-mails, concerning the 

move of her and coworkers to Building 198. The documents were dated between May and 

August 2013 and dealt with such matters as assignment of workspaces at Building 198 and the 

timing of the move. In several of the documents, appellant indicated that she wished to postpone 

her move to Building 198 until issues were resolved regarding her ability to effectively and 

efficiently perform her job duties at the new location.3

 In an August 12, 2013 e-mail, her 

supervisor advised that appellant “is currently squatting in Building 3112, cube 20.”4 Appellant 

also submitted medical evidence in support of her claim. Some of the reports indicated that she 

suffered from depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. 

In a February 12, 2014 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical evidence in support of her claim. 

In an undated statement and a March 4, 2014 statement received on March 5, 2014, 

appellant indicated that between January and August 2013 she experienced a lot of stress because 

her work team was transitioning from contractors to government workers. She claimed that her 

work unit was not adequately supported by management in the performance of her work during 

this transition period. Appellant asserted that on June 24, 2013 she advised another supervisor, 

 3

 Appellant asserted that Building 198 did not have adequate space for the multiple conferences she attended per 

week and that she would not be able to print and transfer files in an efficient manner at Building 198. 

4

 In an August 22, 2013 e-mail to appellant, her supervisor stated, “You need to be moved by [close of business] 

today then.” 
3

that she was not ready to move to Building 198. She claimed that this supervisor gave her 

assurances that she would not have to move until she was ready to make such a move. Appellant 

indicated that she suffered a great deal of stress because she was told by her supervisor via email on August 22, 2013 that she would have to vacate her workspace the close of business on 

August 23, 2013. She also submitted additional medical evidence in support of her claim. 

In a March 19, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition because she 

had not established any compensable work factors. In particular, it found that she did not 

establish any work factors with respect to her claim that the employing establishment committed 

error and abuse in connection with her move to Building 198 in August 2013. Moreover, 

appellant did not establish that she was subjected to harassment. 

Appellant requested reconsideration of her claim on April 25, 2014 and submitted 

additional evidence including several statements in which she continued to argue that the 

employing establishment mishandled her move to Building 198 in August 2013. By decision 

dated May 7, 2014, OWCP denied her request for further review of the merits of her claim. 

Appellant requested reconsideration on May 21, 2014 received on June 24, 2014. She 

continued to submit personal statements and documents regarding the move to Building 198 in 

August 2013. On July 17, 2014 OWCP received an undated statement from appellant’s 

supervisor which addressed her claimed work factors. The supervisor noted that appellant 

rejected two requests to move in June and July 2013 and that these were cancelled in an effort to 

accommodate her. On August 2, 2013 it was discovered that her cubicle was assigned to two 

individuals and a proper request to vacate was issued on August 12, 2013 after a new employee 

showed up to occupy the same space. The supervisor indicated that appellant made little 

progress to move and a final request was issued on August 22, 2013. The move did not require 

special computer server or access requirements, and the “Carpathia” server was available from 

the contractor’s site. The supervisor stated that the term “squatting” was administrative, and was 

used to denote a person working in a cubicle not officially assigned to him or her or occupying a 

space marked vacant. The term was not used only for appellant and was not meant to be an 

insult. 

By decision dated August 29, 2014, OWCP denied modification of its March 19, 2014 

decision. It again found that appellant had not established 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.5

 On the other hand, the 

disability is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction in 

 5 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 
4

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

hold a particular position.6

 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.7

 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.8 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.9 

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

supervisors 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

 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 

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

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 

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

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

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). 

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). 
5

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 rationalized opinion on 

whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the 

compensable employment factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

and accurate factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical 

certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by the 

claimant.16

ANALYSIS 

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

employment incidents and conditions. OWCP denied her claim finding she did not establish any 

compensable employment factors. The Board must initially review whether these alleged 

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

FECA. 

The Board notes that some of appellant’s allegations relate to her regular or specially 

assigned duties under Cutler.

17 Appellant indicated that between January and August 2013 she 

experienced a lot of stress because her work team was transitioning from contractors to 

government workers. She claimed that her work unit was not adequately supported by 

management during this transition period. The Board finds, however, that appellant did not 

establish these claims regarding work duties. Appellant did not provide further detail regarding 

these claims which the Board finds to be vague. Moreover, she did not provide any supporting 

evidence to establish her assertions. 

In addition, appellant has alleged error and abuse with respect to personnel or 

administrative matters. In particular, she alleged that the employing establishment committed 

wrongdoing by mishandling her move to another work location in August 2013. Appellant 

claimed that she was given assurances that her move would be delayed until she was ready to 

move and that she was improperly advised on August 22, 2013 that she had to move her 

belongings from her cubicle by the close of business on August 23, 2013. Such 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. However, the Board has 

 15 Id.

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

17 See supra note 5. 
6

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.18 

The Board finds that appellant has not established error or abuse in her management’s handling 

of the move in August 2013. Appellant did not submit sufficient evidence to establish the 

occurrence of such claimed wrongdoing by management. For example, she did not submit the 

findings of a grievance showing that error or abuse occurred with respect to the move. 

Management explained that appellant had adequate notice of the move to Building 198, but that 

she did not respond in time to the need to move. Therefore, appellant has not established a 

compensable work factor with respect to administrative or personnel matters. 

 Appellant claimed that her supervisors subjected her to harassment, particularly with 

regarding the move to Building 198 in August 2013. She asserted that she was harassed when 

her supervisor referred to her in an e-mail as “squatting” at her work cubicle. Appellant 

generally alleged that management unfairly characterized her as not cooperating with the move 

in August 2013.19 The employing establishment denied that she was subjected to harassment and 

she has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she was harassed by her supervisors.20 

Appellant alleged that supervisors made statements and engaged in actions which she believed 

constituted harassment, but she provided no corroborating evidence, such as witness statements, 

to establish that the statements were actually made or that the actions actually occurred.21 

Although an e-mail did refer to her as “squatting” at her work cubicle, the e-mail was not 

addressed to appellant and her supervisor explained that the phrase was commonly used to 

describe someone who was in a space to be filled by another employee and that it was not used 

in a derogatory manner. 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.22 Appellant has not shown how this isolated statement that 

she was “squatting” would rise to the level of verbal abuse or otherwise fall within the coverage 

of FECA.23 Thus, she has not established a compensable employment factor under FECA with 

respect to the claimed harassment. 

 18 See supra notes 7 and 8. 

19 Appellant also felt that her supervisor harassed her by trying to “intimidate” her into returning to work after she 

stopped work on August 22, 2013. On appeal, she generally indicated that she was subjected to harassment, but she 

did not provide any additional clarification of how the evidence of record established this claim. 

20 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). 

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

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

23 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 

self-generated 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). 
7

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

factors under FECA and, therefore, has not met her burden of proof in establishing that she 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty.24

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 that she 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 29, 2014 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 27, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 24 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).