United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

B.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FARM & 

FOREIGN SERVICE AGENCY, Riverdale, MD, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1098 

Issued: September 1, 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 April 17, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from November 5, 2014 and 

February 25, 2015 merit decisions 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 Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 11, 2014 appellant, then a 60-year-old district conservationist/agricultural 

advisor, alleged that he sustained post-traumatic stress disorder due to incidents and conditions to 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 
2

which he was exposed when he worked in Afghanistan. He indicated that he first became aware 

of his claimed condition on June 25, 2012 and that he first realized on August 4, 2012 that it was 

caused or aggravated by his work. 

In accompanying statements, appellant described his first 12-month tour of duty working 

in Paktia Province of Afghanistan for the employing establishment between February 2008 and 

February 2009. As an advisor helping to rebuild Afghanistan’s infrastructure, he had to travel to 

remote and dangerous locations. Appellant noted that he survived numerous rocket attacks 

during the middle of the night in his bunker at Base Wilderness. He stated that several people 

were killed when a mortar attack severely damaged the chow hall. One of appellant’s closest 

confidants was killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) in June 2008. He stated that, in 

June 2012, during a second tour of duty in Wardar Province in Afghanistan, he was improperly 

required to submit to a medical examination in Kabul, Afghanistan, in establish determine his 

fitness for duty. Appellant asserted that the medical personnel were not qualified to evaluate his 

heart problems and that the employing establishment wrongly sent him home from Afghanistan 

for medical reasons. He also submitted a number of medical reports in support of his claim.2

 

In a September 17, 2014 letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional factual 

and medical evidence in support of his claim. 

In an undated statement received on October 14, 2014, appellant further discussed his 

emotional condition symptoms and continued to argue that the employing establishment 

improperly subjected him to a fitness duties medical examination in June 2012 and improperly 

sent him home from Afghanistan. He also submitted an October 7, 2014 statement from a friend 

who noticed that appellant suffered from depression and anxiety after he returned from 

Afghanistan. 

In a November 5, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, 

finding that he had not established any compensable work factors. In particular, it noted that he 

had not established a compensable work factor with regard to the medical examination he 

underwent in June 2012. 

Appellant requested reconsideration of his claim and submitted statements in which he 

further discussed his work duties during his first tour of duty in Afghanistan between 2008 and 

2009. He stated that he could not precisely state when his work-related emotional condition 

started, but noted that it was most likely in June 2008 when people he worked closely with were 

killed in an IED attack. Appellant noted that when he was required to undergo a medical 

examination in Kabul in June 2012 “something snapped in my brain.” He also submitted 

documents pertaining to his work duties between 2008 and 2009. 

 2

 In an undated letter received on September 11, 2014, an employing establishment official stated that he had 

limited knowledge of appellant’s tours of duty in Afghanistan. 
3

In a decision dated February 25, 2015, OWCP affirmed its November 5, 2014 decision 

denying appellant’s emotional condition claim. It again found that he had not established any 

compensable work factors.3 

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.4 On the other hand, the 

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

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

hold a particular position.5

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.6

 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.7 

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.8 

A claimant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the reliable, probative and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which he or she claims compensation was caused or 

adversely affected by employment factors.9 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions which appellant 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.10

 3

 The decision states that OWCP did not review the merits of the claim. However, the contents of the decision 

indicate that OWCP considered the merits of the claim in finding that appellant had not established a compensable 

factor of employment. 

4 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

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

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 

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

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

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

10 Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470, 473-74 (1993). 
4

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.11 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.12

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.13

ANALYSIS 

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

employment incidents and conditions. OWCP denied his emotional condition claim, finding that 

he had failed to 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 appear to relate to his regular or 

specially assigned duties under Cutler.

14 Appellant indicated that in 2008 and 2009 he was 

subjected to stressful work conditions while attempting to perform his work duties in 

Afghanistan. The Board finds, however, that he did not establish the factual aspects of these 

claims regarding his work duties. Appellant indicated that he survived numerous rocket attacks 

during the middle of the night in his bunker at Base Wilderness and that several people were 

killed when a mortar attack severely damaged the chow hall. However, he did not provide 

details about precisely where he was located, what he was doing, and what he witnessed during 

these incidents. Appellant stated that one of his closest confidants was killed by an IED in 

June 2008, but he did not indicate that he witnessed this attack. Moreover, he did not provide 

any supporting evidence to establish his assertions regarding these matters. 

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

12 Id.

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

14 See Cutler, supra note 4. 
5

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

administrative matters. In particular, he alleged that his employing establishment mishandled a 

medical examination in June 2012 and improperly had sent him home from Afghanistan for 

medical reasons. Appellant asserted that the medical personnel who performed his June 2012 

fitness-for-duty examination were not qualified to evaluate his heart problems. 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 

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.15 

The Board finds that appellant has not established error or abuse with respect to management’s 

handling of his medical examination and the decision to send him home for medical reasons. 

Appellant did not submit sufficient evidence to establish the occurrence of such claimed 

wrongdoing by management. For example, he did not submit the findings of a grievance 

showing that error or abuse occurred with respect to the medical examination or being sent home 

for medical reasons. Therefore, appellant has not established a compensable work factor with 

respect to administrative or personnel matters.16

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

factors under FECA and, therefore, has not met his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.17

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 his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. 

 15 See supra notes 6 and 7. 

16 On appeal, appellant asserts that OWCP failed to acknowledge information regarding his claim, but he did not 

identify the specific information that OWCP failed to acknowledge. 

17 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 February 25, 2015 and November 5, 2014 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: September 1, 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