United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.N., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Madison, WI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1815 

Issued: May 22, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 12, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 7, 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 has established an emotional condition in the performance 

of duty on January 22, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 22, 2015 appellant, then a 54-year-old station manager, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 22, 2015 he sustained stress and anxiety when 

he was subject to harassment and intimidation from Postmaster S.S. He alleged that 

Postmaster S.S. came to his office and started to berate him about office problems and staffing 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

issues. Appellant further alleged that the postmaster changed his work hours. He provided a 

witness statement from L.M., a coworker, who claimed that he had been called into appellant’s 

office while the postmaster was talking about changing appellant’s work hours. He related that 

appellant was obviously upset over the news. Appellant stopped work on January 22, 2015. 

In a January 23, 2015 statement, Postmaster S.S. explained that on January 22, 2015 

appellant had returned to work after being off work since December 8, 2014. He related that he 

went into appellant’s office to bring appellant up-to-date on many changes that had occurred 

while appellant was absent. Postmaster S.S. explained that appellant became very irate when he 

informed appellant of a schedule change. He denied appellant’s allegation that he had berated 

appellant. Postmaster S.S. recounted that appellant told him his schedule could not be changed 

because appellant was in a bid position. He alleged that appellant became extremely agitated and 

hostile so he asked that L.M. join them in appellant’s office as a witness. Postmaster S.S. noted 

that he continued to try to bring appellant up-to-date on the current state of affairs, but appellant 

kept interrupting him and misinterpreting his information. He reported that, on several 

occasions, L.M. confirmed that Postmaster S.S. did not say the things that appellant insisted he 

said. Postmaster S.S. contended that during this interaction appellant never indicated to him that 

he was having any health issues. 

Appellant received medical treatment from Dr. Edison U. Lim, Board-certified in family 

medicine. In a January 22, 2015 progress note, Dr. Lim recounted that appellant had returned to 

work on January 22, 2015 after being off work for a few weeks. Appellant told Dr. Lim that his 

supervisor confronted him and ordered him to change his work hours to a later shift. Dr. Lim 

noted that appellant believed he was being discriminated against. Appellant described a hostile 

work environment where his supervisor was mean, rude, and threatening. Upon physical 

examination, Dr. Lim observed that appellant had high blood pressure, felt nauseated, and was 

trembling. He reviewed appellant’s history and noted that appellant did not have a history of 

high blood pressure. Dr. Lim diagnosed anxiety attack, work stress, and elevated blood pressure. 

In a work status note (Form CA-17), he indicated that appellant was unable to work due to stress 

and severe anxiety at work from January 22, 2015 continuing indefinitely. 

In a January 27, 2015 letter, a health and resource management specialist for the 

employing establishment challenged appellant’s FECA claim. He asserted that the medical 

evidence did not satisfactorily establish fact of injury or any causal relationship with 

employment. 

By letter dated February 3, 2015, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence received 

was insufficient to support his traumatic injury claim. It requested that he respond to an attached 

questionnaire in order to substantiate the factual elements of his claim and provide medical 

evidence to establish that he sustained a diagnosed condition as a result of his employment. 

Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the requested information. 

Appellant submitted an undated statement from S.B., a union steward at the employing 

establishment. He indicated that on January 22, 2015 S.B. went to appellant’s office and saw 

Postmaster S.S. and LM. S.B. related that the mood was one of extreme discomfort and tension. 

After some time passed he noticed that appellant left his office and went to the south side 

supervisor’s office with his cell phone. S.B. noted that appellant looked completely distressed, 

his eyes were watery, and was making big hand gestures. 
3

In a January 23, 2015 statement, B.A., the local union representative, explained that on 

January 22, 2015 she saw Postmaster S.S. and L.M. in appellant’s office. She noted that the 

tension in the room was high and she could tell that appellant was very upset. B.A. explained 

that she returned to appellant’s office to ask him if anything was wrong and observed that he was 

crying and his whole body was shaking. 

Appellant also provided a January 29, 2015 statement by B.B., a manager at another 

postal station. He related that on January 22, 2015 appellant called him and was very upset 

because Postmaster S.S. had come into his office and verbally abused him about the station’s 

productivity numbers, managed service points (MSP) scans, and disciplinary actions. Appellant 

informed B.B. that he felt he was being retaliated against because of an ongoing Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) investigation into Postmaster S.S. and Area 1 Post Office Operations 

Manager (A/POOM) J.B. B.B. noted that within a day of this incident Postmaster S.S. was at 

appellant’s employing establishment soliciting employees to write statements against appellant. 

Dr. Lim continued to submit Forms CA-17 dated February 6 to March 20, 2015. He 

noted a date of injury of January 22, 2015 and reported clinical examination findings of severe 

hypertension. Dr. Lim related that appellant experienced severe anxiety and stress at work and 

indicated that appellant should remain off work indefinitely. 

In a February 8, 2015 statement, T.N., the local union president for postal supervisors, 

explained that a few weeks ago he received a phone call from appellant and could tell he was 

very upset about a visit from Postmaster S.S. Appellant informed him that Postmaster S.S. made 

several criticisms of the operations at his postal station and advised appellant that effective 

immediately appellant’s work schedule would be changed. T.N. pointed out that appellant had 

no advance notice of the change and had no opportunity to discuss the changes. He recounted 

that appellant was very emotionally upset about his treatment and that appellant’s heart rate and 

blood pressure were racing. In a February 6, 2015 statement, T.N. verified that appellant had 

worked the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for over six years. 

Appellant responded to OWCP’s questionnaire in a February 12, 2015 statement. He 

explained that on January 22, 2015 he returned to work at his usual hour of 7:00 a.m. after being 

out of work for a knee injury. At approximately 7:50 a.m. Postmaster S.S. came into his office 

and told him that he wanted to discuss some issues. Appellant alleged that Postmaster S.S. 

began to verbally abuse him about the productivity numbers in his office, penalty overtime that 

was “out of the roof,” missed MSP scans, late carriers, and disciplinary action taken. He 

explained that he felt very upset, his heart started racing, and his left arm felt numb. Appellant 

related that Postmaster S.S. informed appellant that his hours would change from 7:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He indicated that he was very upset by the news, started 

shaking, and felt like he was having a heart attack. Appellant explained that he wanted a witness 

to his encounter so Postmaster S.S. asked L.M. to join them in appellant’s office. Appellant 

reported that he did not remember any more conversation between himself and his supervisor. 

He indicated that he sought treatment from Dr. Lim, his primary care physician, who put him off 

work indefinitely for stress and anxiety. 

Appellant contended that he was confronted and harassed about productivity numbers 

and a change in work hours just after he returned from leave, which he felt was abusive and 

intimidating. He asserted that Postmaster S.S.’s behavior directed towards him did not follow 
4

administrative or personnel procedures. Appellant believed that Postmaster S.S.’s behavior was 

in direct retaliation because of appellant’s cooperation with the OIG investigation centered on 

Postmaster S.S. and A/POOM J.B. He asserted that the work schedule change made no sense 

and was punitive against him since the majority of his employees worked from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. 

Appellant submitted statements from other postal employees which described an 

August 4, 2014 incident when Postmaster S.S. entered appellant’s office, slammed his door, and 

started yelling and provided general opinions about the hostile work environment. He submitted 

various e-mails dated December 3, 2014 between himself and S.P., an OIG agent, wherein 

appellant informed S.P. that appellant was seeking whistleblower protection because he feared 

for his job, his livelihood, and his family. Appellant also provided the employing 

establishment’s policy on Workplace Harassment. 

Dr. Lim continued to treat appellant and submit reports. In a February 6, 2015 attending 

physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Lim indicated that on January 22, 2015 appellant 

experienced severe anxiety secondary to work-related stress and severe reaction of hypertension. 

He reported examination findings of high blood pressure. Dr. Lim diagnosed severe workrelated anxiety and malignant hypertension. He checked the box marked “yes” that appellant’s 

condition was caused or aggravated by the described employment activity. Dr. Lim explained 

that appellant never had high blood pressure. He indicated that appellant was totally disabled 

indefinitely. In progress notes dated February 13 and 27, 2015, Dr. Lim related that appellant 

continued to show symptoms of restlessness, anxiety, depression, palpitations, and shortness of 

breath. 

Appellant also submitted a psychological assessment dated February 16, 2015 by 

Dr. James Viggiano, a licensed clinical psychologist. He recounted a January 22, 2015 incident 

when a supervisor allegedly harassed and intimidated appellant as retaliation for an OIG report 

appellant had made. Dr. Viggiano related that appellant experienced symptoms such as rapid 

heart rate, shaking, nausea, numbness, and feeling confused. He noted that appellant had no 

prior mental health symptoms or treatment prior to the current episode. Dr. Viggiano reported 

that appellant was currently prescribed medication for anxiety, depression, and sleep by Dr. Lim. 

He diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Dr. Viggiano 

opined that based on his assessment and corroboration from Dr. Lim and others appellant 

experienced “what can best be described as a panic attack (he thought he was having a heart 

attack) on January 22, 2015 that was directly related to the encounter with a supervisor noted 

above.” 

Dr. Lim submitted a letter dated February 20, 2015 noting that appellant had requested 

that he write a letter in support of his workers’ compensation claim. He opined that appellant’s 

high blood pressure was a physiological response to the confrontation he had with the 

Postmaster. Dr. Lim reported that it was clear that appellant’s present emotional condition was 

brought about by the hostile work encounter as described in his statement. For this reason, he 

advised that appellant not return to the same work environment that brought about this medical 

condition as it would be severely detrimental to his health and life. 

OWCP denied appellant’s claim in a decision dated March 12, 2015. It accepted that the 

January 22, 2015 incident occurred as alleged and that appellant was diagnosed with a medical 
5

condition. OWCP denied appellant’s claim because he failed to establish that his alleged 

emotional injury occurred in the performance of duty. 

On August 5, 2015 OWCP received appellant’s reconsideration request. Appellant 

indicated that he was submitting a police department report, additional witness statements, 

March 15 and August 1, 2015 medical reports from Dr. Viggiano, and an OIG Investigative 

Report (mostly redacted). 

Appellant submitted progress notes by Dr. Lim dated March 9 to June 17, 2015. Dr. Lim 

recommended that appellant remain off work. He continued to provide CA-17 forms until 

October 14, 2015, which indicated that appellant was off work indefinitely. Dr. Lim also 

provided handwritten examination notes dated February 14 to March 7, 2015. 

Dr. Viggiano continued to treat appellant. In March 15 and August 1, 2015 letters, he 

opined although appellant’s symptoms had improved, but that appellant was psychologically 

unfit to return to work because he feared further retaliation given the apparent lack of 

consequences for the current behaviors. 

Appellant provided additional witness statements. In a July 19, 2015 statement, D.C., a 

postal manager, reported that during the time that appellant was the officer in charge of the 

employing establishment an investigation was started by the OIG about Postmaster S.S. and 

A/POOM J.B. He pointed out that within days of the OIG conducting interviews, 

Postmaster S.S. privately talked to each manager and told them to write a statement about 

appellant’s inappropriate and/or illegal actions. D.C. noted that Postmaster S.S. and A/POOM 

J.B. made comments that they were going to get appellant. 

In a handwritten July 19, 2015 statement, N.H., a coworker, indicated that on January 22, 

2015 she heard yelling from appellant’s office. She indicated that when she saw Postmaster S.S. 

leave, she went into appellant’s office and observed that he was sitting there blushed and 

shaking. N.H. noted that she could not make out all that was said, but it was loud, 

unprofessional, and unacceptable for Postmaster S.S. to act like that. 

G.P., a vehicle operations maintenance assistant, provided an August 16, 2015 statement. 

He related that on January 22, 2015 at approximately 8:00 a.m. he was at appellant’s postal 

station to update appellant on the status of their long life vehicles (LLV). G.P. indicated that, 

when he got to the front window section, he heard Postmaster S.S. screaming at appellant about 

being a terrible manager. He noted that Postmaster S.S. was belittling appellant about being 

gone (when he was off for an injury) and the office performance in regard to penalty overtime 

and MSP scans. G.P. explained that he found Postmaster S.S.’s tone to be threatening and 

upsetting. He reported that when he looked into appellant’s office he saw Postmaster S.S. 

directly in front of appellant’s desk in an aggressive posture and leaning towards appellant. G.P. 

asserted that this was not a typical conversation between a postmaster and a manager, but instead 

a verbally abusive and intimidating confrontation that should not be tolerated in any workplace 

environment. 

In a decision dated October 22, 2015, OWCP denied modification of the March 12, 2015 

denial decision. It found that the evidence submitted failed to establish that appellant was treated 

abusively by the employing establishment on January 22, 2015 or that the employing 
6

establishment acted in error. OWCP pointed out that being spoken to in a raised or harsh voice 

did not in itself constitute verbal abuse or harassment. 

On February 4, 2016 OWCP received appellant’s request, through his then representative, 

for reconsideration. In an 18-page statement, he asserted that Postmaster S.S. acted abusively 

and erroneously in a January 22, 2015 meeting with appellant. Appellant’s representative 

requested that OWCP review the 13 precedent cases he cited, which supported the concept that a 

claimant may establish a compensable work factor when the employing establishment has 

committed error or acted in an abusive fashion. He pointed out that appellant submitted relevant 

witness statements which supported his claim for emotional distress due to Postmaster S.S.’ 

abusive treatment and included excerpts from several of the witness statements. Appellant’s then 

representative noted that he was also submitting several of the employing establishment’s policy 

statements that clearly demonstrated that Postmaster S.S.’s actions on January 22, 2015 were not 

in compliance with the employing establishment’s guidelines. He asserted that appellant had 

also submitted sufficient medical reports to establish a prima facie case for his emotional 

condition claim. Appellant’s then representative provided citations to several cases, which he 

believed supported his claim and included excerpts from medical reports which showed that 

appellant’s anxiety and depression resulted from Postmaster S.S.’ threatening and abusive 

behavior on January 22, 2015. 

Appellant continued to submit CA-17 forms dated November 6, 2015 to January 8, 2016 

by Dr. Lim, which indicated that appellant was off work indefinitely. 

In a January 7, 2016 statement, appellant described several meetings and interactions he 

had with Postmaster S.S. where S.S. yelled, berated, and cursed at appellant. He noted that he 

eventually spoke with an OIG Agent about investigating Postmaster S.S. and A/POOM J.B. and 

requested whistleblower protection. 

In letters dated October 30, 2015 and January 25, 2016, Dr. Viggiano described the 

January 22, 2015 work incident and related that appellant began to experience rapid heart rate, 

shaking, nausea, numbness, and feelings of confusion due to Postmaster S.S.’ behavior towards 

him. He described the medical treatment provided and the progression of appellant’s symptoms. 

Dr. Viggiano opined that appellant’s symptoms of anxiety and depression were caused by his 

traumatic encounter with Postmaster S.S. on January 22, 2015. 

In a February 1, 2016 report, Dr. Lim pointed out that he repeatedly opined that the 

maltreatment appellant suffered on January 22, 2015 at the hands of Postmaster S.S. precipitated 

his hypertensive state. He noted that since there was a new postmaster and appellant was in great 

financial need, he could consent to his request to return to work during February. Dr. Lim also 

provided progress notes dated March 14, 2015 to January 16, 2016. 

On February 15, 2016 appellant returned to work. 

In a February 28, 2016 statement, appellant’s then representative requested that OWCP 

consider a recent decision that may be applicable to appellant’s case and provided the case 

citations. He asserted that, based on this decision, slight discrepancies in witness statements 

should not bar the acceptance of a claim. In another March 18, 2016 statement, the 

representative alleged that the factual evidence abundantly showed that appellant was loudly 
7

berated and emotionally beaten on January 22, 2015 by his immediate superior concerning the 

performance of his office. He also alleged that causal relationship was fully addressed by his 

clinical psychologist and primary care physician. The representative contended that with no 

evidence in the contrary, OWCP was obligated to develop the record further. He provided 

several case citations which he believed supported his position. 

By decision dated July 7, 2016, OWCP denied modification of the October 22, 2015 

decision. It found that the evidence of record did not establish error or abuse by the employing 

establishment on January 22, 2015 when Postmaster S.S. raised his voice during a meeting. 

OWCP determined that appellant’s reaction was a self-generated reaction, and not a 

compensable factor of employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment.2

 There are situations where an injury or illness 

has some connection with the employment but nevertheless does not come within the concept or 

coverage of workers’ compensation.3 In the case of Lillian Cutler,4 the Board explained that 

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

emotional condition under FECA. Where the injury or illness results from an employee’s 

emotional reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed 

by the employing establishment or by the nature of the work, the injury or illness comes within 

the coverage of FECA.5 On the other hand, when an injury or illness results from an employee’s 

feelings of job insecurity per se, fear of a reduction-in-force or his or her frustration from not 

being permitted to work in a particular environment or hold a particular position, unhappiness 

with doing work, or frustration in not being given the work desired or hold a particular position, 

such injury or illness falls outside FECA’s coverage because they are found not to have arisen 

out of employment.6 

Allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an 

emotional condition claim.7 Where the claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, he 

must substantiate such allegations with probative and reliable evidence.8

 Personal perceptions 

alone are insufficient to establish an employment-related emotional condition.9

 2 L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006). 

3 A.K., 58 ECAB 119 (2006); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005). 

4

 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

5 Id.; see also Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001). 

6 William E. Seare, 47 ECAB 663 (1996). 

7 J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2008). 

8 M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007). 

9 Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 
8

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

employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than the regularly or specially 

assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA.10 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.11 

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.12

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

discrimination by supervisors and coworkers are established as occurring and arising from the 

employee’s performance of his regular duties, these could constitute employment factors.13 

However, for harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, 

there must be evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur. Mere perceptions of 

harassment or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.14

ANALYSIS 

Appellant has alleged that he experienced stress and anxiety during a January 22, 2015 

meeting with Postmaster S.S. OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he failed to establish 

that his alleged emotional injury occurred in the performance of duty. 

The Board finds that as a preliminary matter, appellant has not attributed his emotional 

condition to his regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed by the 

employing establishment or by the nature of the work as established in Cutler.15

Appellant has alleged that he was very upset about the fact that Postmaster S.S. wanted to 

change his work schedule to a later shift. Although the assignment of work duties is generally 

related to the employment, it is an administrative function of the employing establishment and 

not a duty of the employee.16 To establish that an administrative matter occurred in the 

performance of duty, a claimant must establish error or abuse on the part of the employing 

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

ECAB 556 (1991). 

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

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

13 David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991). 

14 Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991). 

15 See supra note 5. 

16 Supra note 10. 
9

establishment.17 Accordingly, the employee must submit evidence that management changed his 

schedule in error.18

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted evidence to demonstrate that 

Postmaster S.S.’ proposed change to appellant’s work schedule rose to the level of abuse or 

error. Appellant explained that it made no sense to change his work schedule to a later shift 

since most of his carriers worked from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Simply disagreeing with or 

disliking actions taken by management is insufficient to show error or abuse by the employing 

establishment.19 Appellant did not provide any evidence to establish that Postmaster S.S.’ 

actions rose to the level of error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment. An 

employee’s reaction to an administrative or personnel matter is not covered by FECA, unless 

there is evidence that the employing establishment acted unreasonably.20 Because appellant has 

not presented sufficient evidence to establish that Postmaster S.S. acted unreasonably or that the 

employing establishment engaged in error or abuse in the change of schedules, he has failed to 

identify a compensable work factor. 

Appellant has also alleged that during the January 22, 2015 meeting Postmaster S.S. was 

verbally abusive, intimidating, and harassing. He believed that Postmaster S.S.’ behavior was in 

direct retaliation to his cooperation with the OIG investigation about Postmaster S.S. and 

A/POOM J.B. 

Appellant explained that on January 22, 2015 he had just returned to work after being off 

work for a few weeks due to a knee injury. Postmaster S.S. entered his office and told appellant 

that he needed to speak to him about some issues that occurred during appellant’s absence. 

Appellant asserted that Postmaster S.S. began to verbally abuse him about the productivity 

numbers in his office, penalty overtime “that was out of the roof,” missed MSP scans, late 

carriers, and disciplinary action taken. He explained that he was very upset about the news, 

began shaking, and felt like he was having a heart attack. Appellant sought medical treatment 

from his primary care physician, who diagnosed elevated blood pressure, anxiety attack, and 

work stress. 

The Board has recognized the compensability of verbal altercations and abuse in certain 

circumstances. This does not imply, however, that every statement uttered in the workplace will 

give rise to coverage under FECA.21 Verbal altercations and difficult relationships with 

supervisors, when sufficiently detailed by the claimant and supported by the record, may 

constitute compensable factors of employment.22 The Board has held that the mere fact that a 

supervisor raised his voice during the course of a conversation is insufficient to warrant a finding 

 17 Supra note 11. 

18 L.S., 58 ECAB 249 (2006). 

19 Mere disagreement or dislike of actions taken by a supervisor will not be compensable absent evidence 

establishing error or abuse. Linda Edwards-Delgado, 55 ECAB 401 (2004). 

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

21 Harriet J. Landry, 47 ECAB 543, 546 (1996). 

22 Marguerite J. Toland, 52 ECAB 294 (2001). 
10

that his actions amounted to verbal abuse.23 The Board finds that there is conflicting evidence on 

this issue. Postmaster S.S. has denied appellant’s allegations that S.S. had berated appellant. He 

explained that he attempted to bring appellant up-to-date regarding the current state of affairs, 

but appellant kept interrupting him and misinterpreting his information. The Board finds that 

appellant has not established a compensable employment factor in this regard.24

In a July 19, 2015 statement, N.H. indicated that on January 22, 2015 she heard yelling 

from appellant’s office and saw Postmaster S.S. leave appellant’s office. She related that the 

yelling was loud and unprofessional. N.H., however, did not provide any detailed evidence of 

verbal abuse. She merely noted a raised voice, which she interpreted to be unprofessional. A 

raised voice does not establish a compensable factor of employment.25 

In an August 16, 2015 statement, G.P. reported that on January 22, 2015 he heard 

Postmaster S.S. screaming at and belittling appellant about being a terrible manager. He noted 

that he found Postmaster S.S.’s tone to be threatening and upsetting. Again, G.P. did not provide 

a specific example or other evidence of any distinct belittling or otherwise abusive statements 

made by the postmaster towards appellant. G.P. acknowledged that he was not in the room with 

appellant and the postmaster, but rather that he overheard conversation. The evidence of record 

establishes that the postmaster spoke with appellant in appellant’s office on January 22, 2015, 

after appellant returned from prolonged sick leave. Since G.P. was not present in appellant’s 

office his statement is of diminished probative value as it does not address how he knew that the 

postmaster’s comments were abusively directed at appellant, rather than a recitation of events 

that had occurred at the employing establishment during appellant’s absence.26 The Board notes 

that 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.27

Several other witnesses testified that they interacted with appellant shortly after his 

meeting with Postmaster S.S. and noticed that he was visibly upset and shaking. These witnesses 

however did not corroborate any abusive behavior towards appellant.28

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant has not established the January 22, 2015 

behavior of Postmaster S.S. was abusive and was therefore a compensable factor of 

employment.29 Appellant has not established that he sustained an emotional condition in the 

performance of duty. 

 23 Carolyn S. Philpott, 51 ECAB 175 (1999). 

24 See T.G., Docket No. 06-1369 (issued November 14, 2006). 

25 Supra note 21. 

26 See J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2007). 

27 See T.C., Docket No. 16-755 (issued December 13, 2016). 

28 See J.M., Docket No. 12-709 (issued March 15, 2013). 

29 See K.L., Docket No. 07-992 (issued September 12, 2007). 
11

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 that he sustained an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 7, 2016 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 22, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board