United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.C., Appellant 

and 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Salinas, CA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0293 

Issued: May 10, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 1, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of an August 24, 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)(1) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUES 

The issues are: (1) whether appellant established neck, shoulder, or wrist conditions 

causally related to factors of her federal employment; and (2) whether appellant established an 

emotional condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On April 3, 2015 appellant, then a 38-year-old teleservice representative, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on March 30, 2015 she developed 

dizziness as well as pain and swelling in her neck and shoulder. She alleged that she had 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

experienced these conditions for a long time. Appellant attributed her conditions to constant 

typing and sitting at the computer all day, as well as to stress regarding an ongoing union issue 

and a prior supervisor. She also alleged carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists due to her 

employment activities. 

Dr. Yvonne Torrez, an internist, completed reports on April 29 and May 5, 2015 

diagnosing neck pain. She stated that appellant’s condition was work related. In notes dated 

April 29 and May 5, 2015, Dr. Torrez listed appellant’s complaints of left neck pain radiating 

into both arms as well as dizziness. She opined that the precipitating event was typing. 

Dr. Torrez diagnosed neck pain and trapezius strain. She completed a form report repeating 

these findings and conclusions. Dr. Torrez found that appellant was totally disabled from April 5 

through 29, 2015. On May 19, 2015 she opined that appellant could return to full duty. 

In a letter dated June 12, 2015, OWCP requested that appellant provide additional factual 

and medical evidence supporting her claims. 

Appellant’s former supervisor, G.G. completed a statement and noted that he supervised 

appellant from October 2014 through mid-November 2014. He asserted that during that time he 

had several discussions regarding failures to adhere to policy, service observation errors, 

extended lunch breaks, leave usage, and family events. G.G. denied that appellant was subject to 

work-related stress and opined that her performance issues were due to stressful family events. 

Appellant’s supervisor, D.A. completed a statement dated July 1, 2015 and noted that she 

supervised appellant from November 3, 2014 through March 1, 2015. She indicated that there 

was a grievance in process against G.G. regarding a performance rating. D.A. also detailed 

difficulties that appellant was having with her teenage son. 

In an e-mail dated November 14, 2014, appellant denied violating company policies and 

procedures. She alleged that she was denied leave and researched policy regarding this denial 

and on paid breaks. Appellant noted that she had four supervisors within the performance review 

period and asked that all four contribute to her evaluation. She alleged that her rating was 

decreased due to retaliation because she sought union assistance to remedy her denied leave 

request. Appellant submitted a statement dated July 8, 2015 from her husband regarding his 

perception of her work stress. 

In an e-mail dated September 19, 2014, the union clarified that appellant would be given 

nine hours of advance leave and credited nine hours of annual leave. Appellant alleged in an 

e-mail dated April 21, 2015 that she was denied the opportunity to function as a mentor because 

she sought union assistance with her denied leave request. 

On July 7, 2015 Dr. Joanna Oppenheim, a Board-certified family practitioner, provided 

work restrictions of no use of the right arm or hand. 

Appellant, in a July 8, 2015 statement, alleged that G.G. improperly denied advanced sick 

leave using an incorrect leave policy. She contacted the union regarding this leave denial. 

Appellant also asserted that G.G. reduced her performance appraisal and that he attributed this to 

the amount of time that she was off the telephone. She contended that she was denied a 

promotion due to her negative appraisal. Appellant also attributed her emotional condition to the 

workers’ compensation process and the lack of knowledge of this process by the employing 
3

establishment. She noted that on July 8, 2015 Dr. Oppenheim restricted appellant’s right arm 

usage and alleged that the employing establishment informed her that there was nothing else for 

her to do. The employing establishment allegedly indicated that appellant could use her left hand 

or use leave. Appellant attributed her orthopedic conditions to constantly sitting and typing for 

eight hours a day while looking at dual computer screens. She alleged that her conditions were 

related to repetitive motion. 

A coworker completed a statement dated July 10, 2015 and asserted that appellant 

frequently complained of hand and neck pain. 

Dr. Torrez completed a note dated July 13, 2015 and diagnosed trapezius strain on the 

left as well as carpal tunnel syndrome and cervical strain. She concluded, “The precipitating 

event seems to have been typing.” Dr. Torrez indicated that the conditions were work related. 

She indicated that appellant should perform modified work from July 13 through August 3, 2015 

with minimal use of the right hand and wrist. Dr. Torrez repeated her findings on August 5, 

2015 and indicated that appellant was partially disabled from August 5 through 18, 2015. She 

completed a similar note on August 19, 2015 and provided work restrictions from August 19 

through September 9, 2015. 

By decision dated August 24, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record did not establish that she developed neck or shoulder conditions due 

to her employment, or a diagnosed emotional condition, causally related to factors of her federal 

employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual 

statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence 

or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for 

which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant. 

The evidence required to establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, 

based upon a complete factual and medical background, showing a causal relationship between 

the claimed condition and identified factors. The belief of a claimant that a condition was caused 

or aggravated by the employment is not sufficient to establish causal relation.2

A medical report is of limited probative value on a given medical question if it is 

unsupported by medical rationale.3

 Medical rationale includes a physician’s detailed opinion on 

the issue of whether these is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition 

and the implicated employment activity. The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claim, must be one of reasonable medical 

 2 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994). 

3 T.F., 58 ECAB 128 (2006). 
4

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

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

claimant.4

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1 

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted the necessary medical opinion evidence 

to establish causal relationship between her diagnosed physical conditions and factors of federal 

employment. 

Appellant has submitted medical evidence providing diagnosed conditions including 

cervical strain, trapezius strain and carpal tunnel syndrome. She also provided a narrative 

statement describing the employment duties which she felt contributed to these conditions 

including sitting and typing while looking at dual computer screens for eight hours a day. 

Appellant submitted a series of reports and notes from Dr. Torrez addressing her physical 

conditions. Beginning on April 29 through July 13, 2015 Dr. Torrez diagnosed trapezius strain 

on the left as well as carpal tunnel syndrome and cervical strain. She concluded, “The 

precipitating event seems to have been typing.” Dr. Torrez opined that the conditions were work 

related. The Board finds that she has failed to provide sufficient detail or medical reasoning to 

establish a causing relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and her implicated 

employment duty. Dr. Torrez did not explain how or why she believed that appellant’s typing at 

work would have resulted in cervical and trapezius strain or in carpal tunnel syndrome. She did 

not provide any medical rationale supporting her opinion that appellant’s conditions were work 

related. Without a well-reasoned report explaining the process by which appellant’s implicated 

employment duties of typing at two computer screens resulted in her various diagnoses, 

Dr. Torrez’ reports are not sufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof in establishing an 

occupational disease. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 2 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim for an emotional condition, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical 

evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which 

compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have 

caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical 

evidence establishing that the employment factors identified by the claimant were the proximate 

cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence 

establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified 

by the claimant.5

Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is 

somehow related to an employee’s employment. In the case of Lillian Cutler,

6

 the Board 

 4 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

5 See M.C., Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December 24, 2014); Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991). 

6

 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 
5

explained that there are distinctions as to the type of employment situations giving rise to a 

compensable emotional condition arising under FECA.7

 There are situations where an injury or 

illness has some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within 

coverage under FECA.8 When an employee experiences emotional stress in carrying out his or 

her employment duties and the medical evidence establishes that the disability resulted from an 

emotional reaction to such situation, the disability is generally regarded as due to an injury 

arising out of and in the course of employment. This is true when the employee’s disability 

results from his or her emotional reaction to a special assignment or other requirement imposed 

by the employing establishment or by the nature of the work.9 In contrast, a disabling condition 

resulting from an employee’s feelings of job insecurity per se is not sufficient to constitute a 

personal injury sustained in the performance of duty within the meaning of FECA. Thus 

disability is not covered when it results from an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force, nor is 

disability covered when it results from such factors as an employee’s frustration in not being 

permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a particular position.10 

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.11 Where the 

evidence demonstrates that the employing establishment either erred or acted abusively in 

discharging its administrative or personnel responsibilities, such action will be considered a 

compensable employment factor.12 A claimant must support his or her allegations with probative 

and reliable evidence. Personal perceptions alone are insufficient to establish an employmentrelated emotional condition.13 

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2 

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition, causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

The first element required for any occupational disease claim is medical evidence of a 

diagnosed condition for which compensation is claimed. Appellant has alleged an emotional 

condition, stress, as the result of actions by her supervisors. OWCP reviewed these allegations 

and found that she had not substantiated a compensable factor of employment and had not 

submitted medical evidence diagnosing an emotional condition. The Board finds that, as 

appellant has submitted no medical evidence diagnosing an emotional condition, she has failed to 

 7 Supra note 1. 

8 See Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 136 (1999). 

9

 Supra note 6. 

10 Id. 

11 Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258 (2004). 

12 Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001). See Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 

ECAB 566 (1991). 

13 Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 
6

establish the first element of her emotional condition claim.14 Without a medical diagnosis, 

appellant has not presented prima facie evidence of an emotional condition. Due to this 

deficiency, the Board will affirm the denial of her claim. 

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 failed to establish an occupational disease claim for 

injuries to her neck, shoulder, or wrist causally related to factors of her federal employment. The 

Board further finds that, as she failed to establish an emotional condition, causally related to 

factors of her federal employment she has failed to establish a prima facie claim for such a 

condition. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 24, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 10, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 14 See M.M., Docket No. 09-1347 (issued December 18, 2009) (finding that as there was no medical evidence 

diagnosing an emotional condition, appellant failed to establish a prima facie claim); A.C., Docket No. 08-1453 

(issued November 18, 2008).