United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.Q., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hartford, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1276

Issued: December 27, 2017

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 22, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 20, 2016 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 his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty on August 16, 2016, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 16, 2016 appellant, then a 30-year-old mail carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that same date he sustained situational anxiety, stress, and 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

lack of sleep due to constant daily harassment, discrimination, and bullying at work. He stopped 

work and first received medical care on the date of injury.

In an August 16, 2016 Bristol Hospital report, Dr. Craig Mittleman, Board-certified in 

emergency medicine, reported that appellant presented to the emergency department for anxiety 

due to issues with his boss at work. Appellant explained that he left work and was unable to 

sleep due to anxiousness. Dr. Mittleman diagnosed situational anxiety and discharged him from 

treatment. Bristol Hospital emergency care center notes documented treatment on August 16, 

2016 which excused appellant from returning to work until August 22, 2016. In an 

accompanying August 16, 2016 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Matthew Razon, a 

physician assistant, reported that appellant felt harassed at work with anxiety and stress. He

diagnosed situational anxiety and checked the box marked “no” when asked if he believed the 

condition was caused or aggravated by the employment activity.

By letter dated August 23, 2016, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to support his claim. Appellant was advised of the medical and factual evidence 

necessary. OWCP requested that he describe in detail the employment-related activities which 

he believed contributed to his condition, relevant dates, locations, how often and how long the 

events occurred, signed witness statements from anyone who could verify the allegations made, 

whether he had filed previous grievances or Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, 

relevant documents, sources of stress outside of his federal employment, details pertaining to any 

prior emotional conditions, medical care, the development of the claimed condition, when he 

first experienced his symptoms, any activities he was performing prior to the onset of his 

symptoms, and any treatment pertaining to his claimed condition. Appellant was afforded 30 

days to submit the necessary evidence.

On August 29, 2016 appellant responded to OWCP’s questionnaire stating that he had not 

filed any EEO complaints as he did not want the situation to escalate. He reported no stressful 

situations in his life, noting his only source of stress was the hostile work environment where he 

was bullied. Appellant stated that he had no prior emotional conditions and had never sought 

treatment for psychiatric conditions. He further reported no prior issues in any other 

employment. 

By decision dated October 18, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he 

failed to establish fact of injury because the evidence of record did not support that the 

August 16, 2016 exposure occurred as alleged. It noted that he failed to provide a detailed 

answer outlining the factual portion of his claim as requested in its August 23, 2016 development 

letter.

On November 17, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s decision. In an 

accompanying narrative statement, he reported that he was employed as a letter carrier and 

experienced an emotional condition due to bullying and harassment at work. Appellant alleged

that he experienced harsh predisciplinary interviews (PDIs) and questionings almost every day. 

He noted that these PDIs would get dismissed because he was properly performing his work 
3

duties. Appellant reported that there were witnesses to these events and on October 18, 20162he 

was harassed when he received three PDIs in less than one hour for filing a leave slip the week 

before. This caused him a great deal of anxiety following which the postmaster provided him a 

form to seek treatment at the emergency room because of how emotional he got after receiving 

the PDIs. In support of his claim, appellant submitted a November 1, 2016 community 

counseling note documenting treatment from September 6 through October 19, 2016.

In a November 6, 2016 narrative statement, B.C. reported that he was appellant’s chief 

steward at the Manchester, CT branch and sat in on three separate PDIs with appellant in one 

single day. He explained that a PDI was a “predisciplinary interview” involving something 

potentially serious in nature. The PDI either confirmed a supervisor’s suspicions or allowed an 

employee, with the help of a union representative, to offer information that the supervisor was

not aware of to clear their name. B.C. reported that R.H., appellant’s supervisor who was 

involved with his PDIs, was no longer employed at the Manchester branch. According to B.C., 

R.H. used the PDIs daily as a form of intimidation which involved addressing appellant, and 

instructing him to follow across the workroom floor to the front office in view of every 

employee, causing stress and anxiety. B.C. related that a PDI caused anxiety because further 

disciplinary action included removal from the employing establishment. He noted that 

management purposely kept the suspense ongoing for days without the courtesy of telling the 

employee or union that they would not be pursuing actual discipline. B.C. reported that the 

psychological effect was often the goal of the PDI process and historically 80 percent of PDIs

never amounted to discipline. On the date in question appellant was given three PDIs and more 

specifically, three separate walks escorted by his supervisor across the workroom floor to the 

office. He was able to articulate his defense to the first PDI easily. B.C. argued that the second 

and third PDIs were nothing more than harassment and easily explained away as his supervisor 

was woefully unprepared to interview him. He reported that this was nothing more than an 

attempt to personally intimidate appellant as no discipline resulted. B.C. noted that in the 20 

years he served as a union steward, it was unprecedented to receive three PDIs in one morning.

In a December 7, 2016 narrative statement, R.H. reported that on the date in question he 

assigned a supervisor to investigate why appellant had failed to complete his assignment in the 

time expected in a PDI. He explained that this was an administrative decision and all the rules 

and regulations governing the PDI were followed. On the day in question appellant had two 

separate PDIs for two separate issues. Three PDIs were conducted because, following review of

information from the first PDI, there were follow-up questions. R.H. reported that, in this forum, 

management must announce another PDI so the employee was aware there could be corrective 

action taken, up to and including removal, so that the employee would be fairly notified. He

argued that appellant only claimed injury after meeting with the union steward who told 

managers if they continued the PDIs then appellant would go home because of stress. R.H. 

explained that management must thoroughly investigate each matter which can take up to a day 

or even a week. If an employee provides new information or gives reason to look into something 

further, management would do so. R.H. also noted that management did not like to prolong 

these matters. He noted that appellant, for that day and for different days of that same week, 

 

2 The Board notes that, while appellant referenced the date as October 18, 2016, the remainder of the evidence 

supports that the event occurred on August 16, 2016. 
4

requested leave. R.H. had already used all of his vacation leave and therefore his request was

denied and appellant was expected to report to work as scheduled. As such, he argued that 

appellant’s stress claim was his attempt to get the time off he wanted. 

By decision dated December 20, 2016, OWCP affirmed the October 18, 2016 decision, as 

modified, finding that the evidence of record did not establish a compensable factor of 

employment as to the cause of his emotional condition. It noted that it accepted that on 

August 16, 2016 he was asked to sit in three different PDIs, but these interviews did not 

constitute compensable factors of employment. OWCP further noted that appellant failed to 

establish that he was subjected to PDIs almost daily.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

To establish that an emotional condition was sustained in the performance of duty there 

must be factual evidence identifying and corroborating employment factors or incidents alleged 

to have caused or contributed to the condition, medical evidence establishing that the employee 

has an emotional condition, and rationalized medical opinion establishing that compensable 

employment factors are causally related to the claimed emotional condition.3 There must be 

evidence that implicated acts of harassment or discrimination did, in fact, occur supported by 

specific, substantive, reliable, and probative evidence.4

Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee’s 

employment, are administrative functions of the employer 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 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

The Board has held that the manner in which a supervisor exercises his or her discretion 

falls outside the coverage of FECA. This principal recognizes that a supervisor or manager must 

be allowed to perform their duties and that employee’s will, at times, disagree with actions taken. 

Mere disagreement with or dislike of actions taken by a supervisor or manager will not be 

compensable absent evidence establishing error or abuse.8 Although the handling of leave 

 

3

See Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991).

4

See Ruth C. Borden, 43 ECAB 146 (1991).

5

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 

6

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

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

8

S.M., Docket No. 09-2290 (issued July 12, 2010); Linda J. Edwards-Delgado, 55 ECAB 401 (2004). 
5

requests and attendance matters are generally related to employment, they are administrative 

matters and not a duty of the employee.9

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability, there must be 

evidence which establishes that the acts alleged or implicated by the employee did, in fact, 

occur.10 Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.11 

A claimant must substantiate allegations of harassment or discrimination with probative and 

reliable evidence.12 Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not 

determinative of whether such harassment or discrimination occurred.13 A claimant must 

establish a factual basis for his or her allegations of harassment or discrimination with probative 

and reliable evidence.14

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.15 If a claimant does implicate a factor of 

employment, OWCP should then determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that 

factor.16 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.17

ANALYSIS

Appellant did not attribute his emotional condition to his regular or specially assigned 

duties under Cutler.

18

 In this case, he filed a Form CA-1 and attributed his condition to events 

which occurred on August 16, 2016 when he had three different PDIs in one day. Appellant’s 

 

9 C.T., Docket No. 08-2160 (issued May 7, 2009); Jeral R. Gray, 57 ECAB 611 (2006). 

10 K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006).

11 M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 657 (2006). 

12 J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2008); Robert Breeden, supra note 10.

13 G.S., Docket No. 09-764 (issued December 18, 2009); Ronald K. Jablanski, 56 ECAB 616 (2005); Penelope C. 

Owens, 54 ECAB 684 (2003).

14 Beverly R. Jones, 55 ECAB 411 (2004).

15 D.L., 58 ECAB 217 (2006); Jeral R. Gray, supra note 9.

16 K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); David C. Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 263 (2005).

17 Robert Breeden, supra note 10.

18 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).
6

primary allegation was that he suffered anxiety and stress due to these PDIs and a hostile work 

environment. 

The Board finds that appellant has not established an emotional condition arose in the 

performance of duty on August 16, 2016. 

The Board has characterized disciplinary actions as administrative matters of the 

employing establishment, which are only covered under FECA when a showing of error or abuse 

is made.19 In determining whether the employing establishment erred or acted abusively, the 

Board has examined whether the employing establishment acted reasonably.20 Therefore, to 

support such a claim, appellant must establish a factual basis by providing probative and reliable 

evidence that the employer’s conduct towards him on August 16, 2016 was unreasonable.

21

 He

has submitted no such evidence and the Board finds that he did not establish a compensable 

factor of employment in this regard.22 

As noted in OWCP’s December 20, 2016 decision, the record establishes that appellant 

was asked to sit in for three different PDIs in one day. Appellant argued that these PDIs were 

unwarranted and caused him anxiety. His supervisor, R.H., reported that on that date, appellant

had two PDIs on two separate issues: his failure to complete his assignments on time and his 

leave request despite having used all of his vacation time. R.H. explained that the third PDI was 

for follow-up questions after having reviewed his first response. He noted that policy required

that management announce a PDI as soon as possible to fairly notify the employee regarding the 

nature of the infraction and corrective action. R.H. also explained that during a PDI the 

employee is allowed to explain and defend his actions, so that the investigative process is not 

prolonged, if unnecessary. The Board notes that an employee’s reaction to an administrative or 

personnel matter is not covered under FECA, unless there is evidence that the employing 

establishment acted unreasonably.23 Appellant’s supervisor explained the rationale behind 

conducting three PDIs on August 16, 2016 which was reasonable under the circumstances. 

Because appellant has not presented sufficient evidence that his supervisor acted unreasonably,

he has failed to identify a compensable work factor.24

B.C, appellant’s union steward, corroborated appellant’s allegation that his supervisor 

held three PDIs with appellant on August 16, 2016 and that they caused him stress. Monitoring 

performance is an administrative function of a supervisor.25 The manner in which a supervisor

exercises his/her discretion falls outside FECA’s coverage. This principle recognizes that 

 

19 Roger W. Robinson, 54 ECAB 846 (2003).

20 Supra note 18.

21 See Donney T. Drennon-Gala, 56 ECAB 469 (2005).

22 C.M., Docket No. 11-0893 (issued December 9, 2011).

23 See Alfred Arts, 45 ECAB 530 (1994).

24 Supra note 22.

25 See N.D., Docket No. 16-0823 (issued August 18, 2017). 
7

supervisors must be allowed to perform their duties, and at times employees will disagree with 

their supervisor’s actions. Mere dislike or disagreement with certain supervisory actions will not 

be compensable absent error or abuse on the part of the supervisor.26 While B.C. expressed 

displeasure with the supervisor’s actions, he did not provide evidentiary support that R.H. erred 

by scheduling three PDIs on August 16, 2016. The evidence of record therefore does not 

establish that R.H. acted improperly in conducting appellant’s PDIs on August 16, 2016. 

Appellant further alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment where he 

was bullied and harassed. With regard to these allegations, insofar as appellant is alleging an 

injury produced by his work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift, the 

Board notes that he filed a traumatic injury claim and not an occupational disease claim (Form 

CA-2).27 Regardless, appellant did not submit sufficient evidence to establish his allegations as 

to time, place, what was said, or any witnesses to any specific incident.28 He provided no 

evidence corroborating of other PDIs or witness statements to establish that he was harassed by 

his supervisor.29 Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not compensable. 

Appellant must establish a basis in fact for the claim by supporting his allegations with probative 

and reliable evidence.30 Thus, he has failed to establish these allegations as factual.

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

consider the medical evidence of record submitted.31 As such, appellant has failed to meet his 

burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 and 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty on August 16, 2016, as alleged. 

 

26 Linda J. Edwards-Delgado, supra note 8. 

27 A traumatic injury is defined as a condition of the body caused by a specific event or incident, or series of 

events or incidents, within a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee). An occupational disease is defined as a 

condition produced by the work environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 10.5(q).

28 Joel Parker, Sr., 43 ECAB 220, 225 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990) (for harassment to 

give rise to a compensable disability, there must be some evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact 

occur); Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838 (1987) (claimant failed to establish that the incidents or actions which she 

characterized as harassment actually occurred).

29 Id.

30 Curtis Hall, 45 ECAB 316 (1994); Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496 (1992). 

31 Id.
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’

decision dated December 20, 2016 is affirmed.

Issued: December 27, 2017

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board