United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, 

Zachary, LA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1372

Issued: April 17, 2018

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 June 5, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 2, 2017 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. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 19, 2015 appellant, then a 56-year-old cemetery caretaker, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained anxiety, depression, chronic 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

adjustment disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) causally related to his federal 

employment.2 On the claim form, he wrote that his job involved burial of veterans and their 

dependents, and other duties relating to maintenance of the facility. Appellant further asserted that 

constant exposure to death and grief had taken a toll. On the reverse of the claim form it was noted 

that he stopped working on August 14, 2015 and that the employing establishment had not 

received any specific medical documentation stating that the illness was directly related to the 

employee’s duties at work.

Appellant submitted a September 23, 2015 letter explaining that he began working as a 

caretaker technician in November 2012, and he became the Contracting Officer Representative 

(COR) over the grounds maintenance contract. He noted that he was expected to be available at 

any time to change from work clothes into a shirt and tie, which was difficult due to the lack of 

adequate shower facilities at Port Hudson National Cemetery. Appellant wrote that as he 

transitioned from the task of handling services at Louisiana National Cemetery, he was assigned 

the tasks of handling services at both cemeteries. He noted that he took on administrative duties 

that included assigning gravesites, maintaining cemetery site maps, compiling files, handling 

committal services, and assisting grounds crew. Appellant also noted that the resignation of a 

Program Support Assistant left him with a heavy burden of responsibility, especially being asked 

to go back to the beginning of fiscal year 2015 and “clean-up” the burial files while also handling 

all of the services at three national cemeteries. He noted that he continued to carry a heavy 

workload as he felt an obligation to assist veterans and their families. According to appellant, the 

constant presence of grief caused stress, and he had to make arrangements “for personal friends 

and assist family members who did not understand the process.”

The record contains a position description for the cemetery technician position. The job 

duties included greeting visitors and family members, escorting processions, presenting a flag to 

next of kin, as well as manual labor maintaining cemetery grounds.

On November 30, 2015 appellant submitted medical evidence. In a report dated April 2, 

2015, Dr. John Simpson, a psychiatrist, noted that appellant had a history of PTSD. He diagnosed 

unspecified anxiety disorder, PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, and chronic adjustment 

disorder by history.

By letter dated January 14, 2016, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

evidence to support the claim for compensation. It requested additional factual evidence, including 

specific dates, locations, and witness statements. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence.

In a February 1, 2016 memorandum, a supervisor wrote that appellant was “handling 

services” pursuant to a grounds maintenance contract. The supervisor related that appellant 

handled committal services at the cemetery and was also required to update burial files.

In a report dated February 9, 2016, Dr. Simpson reported that appellant was currently 

undergoing treatment for a service connected mental illness. He wrote that appellant’s illness was 

relatively stable until this past year when he “started to decline secondary to stress [on] his job.”

 

2 The Form CA-2 was completed by the employing establishment and was not signed by appellant.
3

Dr. Simpson diagnosed “other specified and stressor related disorder,” unspecified depressive 

disorder, and chronic adjustment disorder by history. According to him, appellant’s mental illness 

was currently static and appellant had been on leave since August 2015. Dr. Simpson opined that 

appellant was currently disabled. 

By decision dated June 8, 2016, OWCP denied the claim for compensation. It found there 

were no compensable work factors established. OWCP found appellant had not provided specific 

details of the alleged stressful events.

On June 22, 2016 appellant requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. 

A hearing was held on February 15, 2017. At the hearing appellant stated that he found his job 

rewarding as he was helping veterans. He noted that when he commenced employment his earliest 

responsibilities were generally field work. Appellant noted that he was required to perform a lot 

of manual labor. He recounted the administrative duties of his position which he viewed as a zero 

fail mission due to the responsibility of putting the correct remains at the correct spot. Appellant 

indicated that he could be asked to wear a shirt and tie and attend a funeral service as a 

representative of the cemetery. He reported that he attended approximately 1,000 funerals. 

Appellant asserted this took a toll on him, and it was explained to him that this was “vicarious 

grief.” He stated that hearing Taps played five or six times a day, and having to be face to face 

with so much grief became overwhelming. According to appellant, it was difficult to take time off 

work and there was always more work to do. He noted that the work conditions were very arduous 

as he could not stop work for any reason, other than extreme weather conditions. Appellant noted 

that he would attempt to be highly conscientious to always speak to family members, as there was 

utmost dignity and respect of every partner in the funeral process. He noted the use of the Burial 

Operating System, which was arduous in and of itself, to try and create and generate documents to 

hand to the families at the time, which were very crucial to them knowing where their loved ones 

were and whether they were placed. Appellant also noted having flashbacks to his own service 

and mental anguish during a specific service in which a Marine and firefighter was carried to rest 

on a firetruck. 

In a note dated January 4, 2017, Dr. Simpson opined that appellant was disabled due to a 

military related illness. Appellant submitted a January 31, 2017 report from Dr. Simpson, who 

indicated that appellant was being seen for medication management. In a brief report dated 

February 27, 2017, Dr. Simpson wrote that appellant was still under care for a service-related 

disability. He opined that appellant was disabled due to a mental illness.

By letter dated March 13, 2017, an employing establishment compensation specialist wrote 

that the claim should be denied based on fact of injury. 

By decision dated May 2, 2017, the hearing representative affirmed the June 8, 2016 

decision. She found that appellant had discussed his job in general terms, but not established any 

specific incidents. According to the hearing representative, appellant provided no evidence that 

“he played any work role in the specific funerals he mentioned.” In addition, she found the medical 

evidence was of diminished probative value. 
4

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. 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.3

Appellant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

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

affected by employment factors.4 This burden includes the submission of a detailed description of 

the employment factors or conditions which appellant believes caused or adversely affected the 

condition or conditions for which compensation is claimed.5 A claimant must also submit 

rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing a causal relationship between the claimed 

condition and the established, compensable work factors.6

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.7 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.8

ANALYSIS

Appellant has alleged that his duties as a cemetery caretaker contributed to an emotional 

condition. The hearing representative found that appellant did not establish any compensable work 

factors, and that he failed to submit probative medical evidence establishing causal relationship. 

 

3 See Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 566 (1991); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 

125 (1976).

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

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

6 See Bonnie Goodman, 50 ECAB 139, 141 (1998). 

7 See Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258 (2004); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384 (1993).

8 Lori A. Facey, 55 ECAB 217 (2004); Norma L. Blank, id.
5

The Board disagrees with the findings of the hearing representative as to compensable work 

factors.

According to the hearing representative, appellant did not submit evidence that he played 

any work role in the veteran’s funerals which caused him undue stress. Appellant has alleged that 

his job duties included the attendance and participation in approximately 1,000 veterans’ funerals. 

This is consistent with the job description of record for appellant’s position. The job description 

clearly involved duties that included interacting with veterans’ families and participation in funeral 

services while on cemetery grounds. Appellant specifically cited to a Marine funeral in which the 

deceased was transported on a firetruck, and resulted in flashbacks to his own service. No contrary 

evidence was presented by the employing establishment. Appellant alleged that his work often 

required him to attend the funerals of veterans, and that such work duty contributed to an emotional 

condition. The Board finds that he has therefore substantiated a compensable work factor related 

to his duties interacting in the burial process of service members and their families.

Appellant has also alleged that he was required to take on a heavy burden of responsibility 

to go back to the beginning of fiscal year 2015 and “clean-up” the burial files, all while handling 

all of the services at three national cemeteries. It is uncontested that his position involved a heavy 

workload spread out amongst administrative and physical duties over three national cemeteries. 

Appellant noted having to take on almost a purely administrative role when working as both a 

caretaker, a cemetery representative, and the contracting officer representative resulting in 

overwork. The Board finds that these elements relate to his job duties under Lillian Cutler9and, 

as they are substantiated as factual, his stressful work in multiple positions at three national 

cemeteries is also found to be a compensable employment factor.

When a claimant attributes an emotional condition to regular or specially assigned duties

that are substantiated by the record, a compensable work factor has been established.10 The Board 

finds that appellant has established compensable work factors as set forth herein.

The claim for compensation, however, is not established unless the medical evidence 

establishes a diagnosed emotional condition casually related to the compensable work factor.11 

OWCP’s hearing representative also reviewed the medical evidence of record and found that it 

was of diminished probative value. 

In this regard the Board finds the medical evidence does not establish that appellant’s 

diagnosed emotional condition is causally related to the accepted employment incident. 

Dr. Simpson provided a brief reference to stress in appellant’s job in his February 9, 2016 report. 

He did not provide further explanation. None of the medical reports of record provide a complete 

 

9 Supra note 3.

10 See B.P., Docket No. 11-0803 (issued November 7, 2011).

11 Id.
6

factual and medical history, or a rationalized medical opinion.

12

 There is no complete description 

of appellant’s identified job duties. Moreover, Dr. Simpson refers to a military-related condition 

in his January 4 and February 27, 2017 reports, without further explanation. A proper history of 

injury should include a complete medical history and a proper explanation as to how the identified 

work duties affected a diagnosed condition. Medical conclusions based on inaccurate or 

incomplete histories are of little probative value.13 The failure of a physician to account for 

appellant’s nonwork-related injury or disease processes undermines the medical opinion.14

It is appellant’s burden of proof to establish the claim for compensation. The Board finds 

that appellant did not meet his burden of proof in this case. 

On appeal appellant refers to his job duties, and makes an allegation of a hostile work 

environment. The Board notes that its jurisdiction is limited to review of evidence before OWCP 

at the time of the final decision on appeal.15 The allegation made before OWCP was that job duties 

related to the preparation and attendance at funerals caused stress. Appellant may submit 

additional evidence regarding additional allegations to OWCP. As to medical evidence, appellant 

asserts that Dr. Simpson supports the claim for compensation. For the reasons discussed, the 

medical evidence is of limited probative value and not sufficient to establish appellant’s 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 has not established an emotional condition causally related 

to the accepted compensable employment factors.

 

12 To establish the claim, appellant must submit rationalized medical evidence based on a complete factual and 

medical history. See Bonnie E. Rogers, Docket No. 99-1964 (issued September 5, 2000); William P. George, 43 

ECAB 1139 (1992).

13 E.M., Docket No. 13-1864 (issued January 17, 2014). 

14 Id. 

15 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). 
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 2, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is modified to reflect a compensable work factor has been established, 

and is affirmed as modified.16

Issued: April 17, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

16 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge, participated in the decision, but was no longer a member of the Board effective 

December 11, 2017.